Just to straighten out those who either dont understand/haven't read the facts of the case or are downright deliberately trying to dramatise/create a straw man -
He didnt get shot for shoplifting/robbery. He initially got shot when he tried to grab the policeman's gun (blood on the gun, ballistics, autopsy and other forensics prove this).
He was then shot dead when he stopped running away, turned, and starting running directly at the policeman. This guy was 6'5" and massive, and had already nearly overpowered the officer in his own car and tried to take his gun.
Nothing to do with the original crime other than the reason the policeman was there originally.
Interesting, but there's one testimony that we haven't heard and wont hear.
the criminals ?
Which one is "the criminal" ?
the one who committed the crime?
The policeman was found to have not committed a crime. Which is why this thread has been bumped up... Jeeeezz it's like the ched evans thread all over again.
Interesting, but there's one testimony that we haven't heard and wont hear.
the criminals ?
Which one is "the criminal" ?
the one who committed the crime?
The policeman was found to have not committed a crime. Which is why this thread has been bumped up... Jeeeezz it's like the ched evans thread all over again.
Ched Evans was convicted, your missing a key element mate.
Interesting, but there's one testimony that we haven't heard and wont hear.
the criminals ?
Which one is "the criminal" ?
the one who committed the crime?
The policeman was found to have not committed a crime. Which is why this thread has been bumped up... Jeeeezz it's like the ched evans thread all over again.
Ched Evans was convicted, your missing a key element mate.
i don't think it's possible to convict dead people. It is possible to convict a policeman, but he was found to have not done anything wrong, apart from leaving his mace and stun gun at the station.
What would have been the reaction if the shopkeeper had shot him?
Shot someone for alleged shoplifiting? I'd say that's excessive in the extreme
The pictures posted by Limeygent don't show an alleged shoplifter though, do they?
Just another bully who thinks he's above the law.
Again though not a justification to shoot and kill someone
It is in the US, if you perceive your life to be in danger.
which is the whole crux of the arguement.
It isn't justification. The strong arm robbery part means you have threatened to use your fists. Hardly life threatening.
wut.
So the police officer should have just let him assualt him and take his gun off him?
....riiiight.
you're either deliberately ignoring the arguements or don't understand. NOBODY is saying he should have been shot for robbing a shop. But say if you're a police officer, you arrive at a scene of a crime and some one attacks you, then attempts to take your gun off you with the idea of using it against you, i think it's fairly justifiable to take drastic and decisive action like firing your weapon at them.
What would have been the reaction if the shopkeeper had shot him?
Shot someone for alleged shoplifiting? I'd say that's excessive in the extreme
The pictures posted by Limeygent don't show an alleged shoplifter though, do they?
Just another bully who thinks he's above the law.
Again though not a justification to shoot and kill someone
It is in the US, if you perceive your life to be in danger.
which is the whole crux of the arguement.
It isn't justification. The strong arm robbery part means you have threatened to use your fists. Hardly life threatening.
wut.
So the police officer should have just let him assualt him and take his gun off him?
....riiiight.
you're either deliberately ignoring the arguements or don't understand. NOBODY is saying he should have been shot for robbing a shop. But say if you're a police officer, you arrive at a scene of a crime and some one attacks you, then attempts to take your gun off you with the idea of using it against you, i think it's fairly justifiable to take drastic and decisive action like firing your weapon at them.
FFS, people love twisting comments on here to suit themselves.
Expand the comment chain and look at the first comment, then follow each comment through logically and see what I was referring to.
What would have been the reaction if the shopkeeper had shot him?
Shot someone for alleged shoplifiting? I'd say that's excessive in the extreme
The pictures posted by Limeygent don't show an alleged shoplifter though, do they?
Just another bully who thinks he's above the law.
Again though not a justification to shoot and kill someone
It is in the US, if you perceive your life to be in danger.
which is the whole crux of the arguement.
It isn't justification. The strong arm robbery part means you have threatened to use your fists. Hardly life threatening.
wut.
So the police officer should have just let him assualt him and take his gun off him?
....riiiight.
you're either deliberately ignoring the arguements or don't understand. NOBODY is saying he should have been shot for robbing a shop. But say if you're a police officer, you arrive at a scene of a crime and some one attacks you, then attempts to take your gun off you with the idea of using it against you, i think it's fairly justifiable to take drastic and decisive action like firing your weapon at them.
FFS, people love twisting comments on here to suit themselves.
Expand the comment chain and look at the first comment, then follow each comment through logically and see what I was referring to.
Hint, it wasn't the policeman.
but it's the same arguement. One obviously didn't have access to a gun, the other did. But both, under US law would be justified in using a deadly weapon to defend themselves. If you have a problem with that, don't go to the states or go there and lobby the US government.
It's not the same argument, it's far from the same fucking argument. On the one hand he threatened the shopkeeper on the other he reached through the car window, punched the policeman in the face, grabbed hold of his gun, ran off and then charged at the policeman.
Our police force has been declared institutionally racist and I'm sure the same can be levelled in the US. The officer's evidence in this case sounds barely credible and I fail to understand how no action will be taken against him. Police can lie like anyone else and much of what he says doesn't add up. Police in the States seem to be able to shoot with impunity and obviously are never found to be in the wrong - if the officer states I believe my life was in danger that seems to be all that is required. Police in the US would't lie would they?
Our police force has been declared institutionally racist and I'm sure the same can be levelled in the US. The officer's evidence in this case sounds barely credible and I fail to understand how no action will be taken against him. Police can lie like anyone else and much of what he says doesn't add up. Police in the States seem to be able to shoot with impunity and obviously are never found to be in the wrong - if the officer states I believe my life was in danger that seems to be all that is required. Police in the US would't lie would they?
other witnesses testimonies either widely contradict what the policeman says or come very close to the policeman's version of events. His story has also been consistent throughout the whole investigation. We can only assume from that that he's telling the truth and some witnesses (who were actually very close to the killed suspect) wanted the policeman to hang for this and made up anything to make him look like the bad one. The policeman's testimony and the forensic evidence also line up, meaning there is quite a large reasonable doubt that he did not commit a crime.
I'm not saying their police isn't instituationally racist, but to tar one man because of the national police force at large is not wise.
It's not the same argument, it's far from the same fucking argument. On the one hand he threatened the shopkeeper on the other he reached through the car window, punched the policeman in the face, grabbed hold of his gun, ran off and then charged at the policeman.
but it is in the eyes of the law. If you assault some one they have the right to defend themselves, even if that means using a weapon - particularly if you're defending your property. Basically : Don't attack people and you shouldn't be shot.
policeman's version of events. His story has also been consistent throughout the whole investigation.
Police have repeatedly contradicted themselves over this. While abruptly releasing a police report on Brown’s robbery at the same time as he disclosed Wilson’s name as the shooter, at a press conference on 15 August, Ferguson’s police chief, Thomas Jackson, seemed to imply that the two incidents were linked. He said Wilson left another call after a description of the robbery suspect “was given over the radio”, and had then encountered Brown.
Yet at a second press conference that day, Jackson said Wilson did not, in fact, know that Brown was a robbery suspect when he made the stop. Asked why, then, had Wilson stopped Brown, Jackson said: “Because he was walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. That was it.” He repeated this in an interview with CNN. However in an interview the same day with the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Jackson said that having first stopped the friends for jaywalking, Wilson then “saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realised he might be the robber”.
In a coded police radio call, which Wilson has reportedly told authorities he made after the initial stop of Brown and Johnson, he told colleagues: “Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” This was apparently a request for backup, indicating that he may indeed have realised that Brown was the robbery suspect and therefore called for support.
But in the most detailed official police account of the confrontation published so far, no mention was made of the robbery or of Brown being identified as a suspect for it. A set of “preliminary investigative details” given by a detective to a medical examiner at the scene apparently after an initial debriefing of Wilson, and included in the state autopsy of Brown’s body, simply stated that after Wilson asked the friends to move out of the road, Brown “became belligerent towards officer Wilson” and then the struggle ensued.
Some people's blind ignorance to the facts in this case astound me.
Ignore that this kid is black, that shouldn't make one ounce of difference to the outcome. Read the officer's statement, and consider this with witness testimonies and the undeniable forensic evidence.
The officer stopped some guys for walking in the road in front of traffic. He was then attacked for NO REASON by someone much larger and stronger than himself. He then considered/tried EVERY TACTIC available to him which resulted in him pulling his gun.
At this point Brown grabbed the gun and tried to point it towards the officer. He managed to point it away and fired, which hit Browns hand. Thus PROVING that brown had his hand on the gun AND WASNT SURRENDERING OR RUNNING.
Brown then ran away, chased by the officer. He told him to stop, at which point Brown charged towards the officer, ignoring his warnings, before being shot. This is PROVEN by independent witnesses. The ONLY witness who says he didn't run at the officer is Brown's mate, unsurprisingly.
All this 'racism' crap is exactly what is wrong with society in the present day.
If a person attacks an armed police officer then they know the dangers they are getting into. As a reasonable human being I know not to be stupid enough to attack a police officer and try to steal his gun.
policeman's version of events. His story has also been consistent throughout the whole investigation.
Police have repeatedly contradicted themselves over this. While abruptly releasing a police report on Brown’s robbery at the same time as he disclosed Wilson’s name as the shooter, at a press conference on 15 August, Ferguson’s police chief, Thomas Jackson, seemed to imply that the two incidents were linked. He said Wilson left another call after a description of the robbery suspect “was given over the radio”, and had then encountered Brown.
Yet at a second press conference that day, Jackson said Wilson did not, in fact, know that Brown was a robbery suspect when he made the stop. Asked why, then, had Wilson stopped Brown, Jackson said: “Because he was walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. That was it.” He repeated this in an interview with CNN. However in an interview the same day with the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Jackson said that having first stopped the friends for jaywalking, Wilson then “saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realised he might be the robber”.
In a coded police radio call, which Wilson has reportedly told authorities he made after the initial stop of Brown and Johnson, he told colleagues: “Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” This was apparently a request for backup, indicating that he may indeed have realised that Brown was the robbery suspect and therefore called for support.
But in the most detailed official police account of the confrontation published so far, no mention was made of the robbery or of Brown being identified as a suspect for it. A set of “preliminary investigative details” given by a detective to a medical examiner at the scene apparently after an initial debriefing of Wilson, and included in the state autopsy of Brown’s body, simply stated that after Wilson asked the friends to move out of the road, Brown “became belligerent towards officer Wilson” and then the struggle ensued.
police is not the officer. The officer's testimony has always remained the same. The police force in question may have handled the press horribly throughout this but the facts dont change.
The people of Ferguson aren't rioting for an injustice of Michael Brown. They're rioting cos they are scum and they don't like the police.
Why don't they like the police?
The impression I get from in the UK, that deprived areas are looking for someone to blame. Who better to take it out on than the old bill. Gangs, guns, violence, theft all looked to be clamped down on by the police, so it's hardly a match made in heaven to begin with. I presume its the same in the US. If you replaced all the cops in Ferguson with all black officers, there would still be hatred towards them.
These rioters are just opportunists who are playing up against authority.
The deprived area with Gangs guns and violence don't like the Police as the Police prevent them earning more money through crime.
Absolutely no fcks would be given by them town folk if a 30 year old Armed Male (not black/white or whatever) shot an unarmed Police officer.
Its an excuse to riot fro the mindless, just like London couple years back.
Fck mine, they lose a Ice Hockey Final or a World Series game and the same thieving fckers come out the woodwork looking to start a riot so they can Loot. Nothing else/
Would love to see a Purge in Ferguson and see how many of them hate the Police
policeman's version of events. His story has also been consistent throughout the whole investigation.
Police have repeatedly contradicted themselves over this. While abruptly releasing a police report on Brown’s robbery at the same time as he disclosed Wilson’s name as the shooter, at a press conference on 15 August, Ferguson’s police chief, Thomas Jackson, seemed to imply that the two incidents were linked. He said Wilson left another call after a description of the robbery suspect “was given over the radio”, and had then encountered Brown.
Yet at a second press conference that day, Jackson said Wilson did not, in fact, know that Brown was a robbery suspect when he made the stop. Asked why, then, had Wilson stopped Brown, Jackson said: “Because he was walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. That was it.” He repeated this in an interview with CNN. However in an interview the same day with the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Jackson said that having first stopped the friends for jaywalking, Wilson then “saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realised he might be the robber”.
In a coded police radio call, which Wilson has reportedly told authorities he made after the initial stop of Brown and Johnson, he told colleagues: “Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” This was apparently a request for backup, indicating that he may indeed have realised that Brown was the robbery suspect and therefore called for support.
But in the most detailed official police account of the confrontation published so far, no mention was made of the robbery or of Brown being identified as a suspect for it. A set of “preliminary investigative details” given by a detective to a medical examiner at the scene apparently after an initial debriefing of Wilson, and included in the state autopsy of Brown’s body, simply stated that after Wilson asked the friends to move out of the road, Brown “became belligerent towards officer Wilson” and then the struggle ensued.
police is not the officer. The officer's testimony has always remained the same. The police force in question may have handled the press horribly throughout this but the facts dont change.
A complete non story, turned into a story purely because of the colour of the skin of the two men involved.
If the guy who had been shot was white, we wouldn't have heard a thing about this. Not a thing.
If you're white in the US the law provides you with better protection - this is the country with the KKK, lynchings and segregation in it's recent past. You have to be pretty foolish to imagine that racism is no longer a issue. It's always white people who say that racism isn't an issue, straight people who say the same about homophobia and men the same about sexism. Spot the pattern? If something doesn't affect you it's hardly likely to be an issue. Maybe all black people in the States are deluded and have a chip on their shoulder or perhaps they're on to sonething. It seems police officers in the States can shoot suspects dead on fairly tenuous grounds and this happens disproportionately to black youths. The testimony of the officer in this case appears very flawed and doesn't read well.
Comments
which is the whole crux of the arguement.
He didnt get shot for shoplifting/robbery. He initially got shot when he tried to grab the policeman's gun (blood on the gun, ballistics, autopsy and other forensics prove this).
He was then shot dead when he stopped running away, turned, and starting running directly at the policeman. This guy was 6'5" and massive, and had already nearly overpowered the officer in his own car and tried to take his gun.
Nothing to do with the original crime other than the reason the policeman was there originally.
The policeman was found to have not committed a crime. Which is why this thread has been bumped up... Jeeeezz it's like the ched evans thread all over again.
So the police officer should have just let him assualt him and take his gun off him?
....riiiight.
you're either deliberately ignoring the arguements or don't understand. NOBODY is saying he should have been shot for robbing a shop. But say if you're a police officer, you arrive at a scene of a crime and some one attacks you, then attempts to take your gun off you with the idea of using it against you, i think it's fairly justifiable to take drastic and decisive action like firing your weapon at them.
Expand the comment chain and look at the first comment, then follow each comment through logically and see what I was referring to.
Hint, it wasn't the policeman.
Police can lie like anyone else and much of what he says doesn't add up. Police in the States seem to be able to shoot with impunity and obviously are never found to be in the wrong - if the officer states I believe my life was in danger that seems to be all that is required.
Police in the US would't lie would they?
I'm not saying their police isn't instituationally racist, but to tar one man because of the national police force at large is not wise. but it is in the eyes of the law. If you assault some one they have the right to defend themselves, even if that means using a weapon - particularly if you're defending your property. Basically : Don't attack people and you shouldn't be shot.
Yet at a second press conference that day, Jackson said Wilson did not, in fact, know that Brown was a robbery suspect when he made the stop. Asked why, then, had Wilson stopped Brown, Jackson said: “Because he was walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. That was it.” He repeated this in an interview with CNN. However in an interview the same day with the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Jackson said that having first stopped the friends for jaywalking, Wilson then “saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realised he might be the robber”.
In a coded police radio call, which Wilson has reportedly told authorities he made after the initial stop of Brown and Johnson, he told colleagues: “Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.” This was apparently a request for backup, indicating that he may indeed have realised that Brown was the robbery suspect and therefore called for support.
But in the most detailed official police account of the confrontation published so far, no mention was made of the robbery or of Brown being identified as a suspect for it. A set of “preliminary investigative details” given by a detective to a medical examiner at the scene apparently after an initial debriefing of Wilson, and included in the state autopsy of Brown’s body, simply stated that after Wilson asked the friends to move out of the road, Brown “became belligerent towards officer Wilson” and then the struggle ensued.
Ignore that this kid is black, that shouldn't make one ounce of difference to the outcome. Read the officer's statement, and consider this with witness testimonies and the undeniable forensic evidence.
The officer stopped some guys for walking in the road in front of traffic. He was then attacked for NO REASON by someone much larger and stronger than himself. He then considered/tried EVERY TACTIC available to him which resulted in him pulling his gun.
At this point Brown grabbed the gun and tried to point it towards the officer. He managed to point it away and fired, which hit Browns hand. Thus PROVING that brown had his hand on the gun AND WASNT SURRENDERING OR RUNNING.
Brown then ran away, chased by the officer. He told him to stop, at which point Brown charged towards the officer, ignoring his warnings, before being shot. This is PROVEN by independent witnesses. The ONLY witness who says he didn't run at the officer is Brown's mate, unsurprisingly.
All this 'racism' crap is exactly what is wrong with society in the present day.
If a person attacks an armed police officer then they know the dangers they are getting into. As a reasonable human being I know not to be stupid enough to attack a police officer and try to steal his gun.
Absolutely no fcks would be given by them town folk if a 30 year old Armed Male (not black/white or whatever) shot an unarmed Police officer.
Its an excuse to riot fro the mindless, just like London couple years back.
Fck mine, they lose a Ice Hockey Final or a World Series game and the same thieving fckers come out the woodwork looking to start a riot so they can Loot. Nothing else/
Would love to see a Purge in Ferguson and see how many of them hate the Police
If the guy who had been shot was white, we wouldn't have heard a thing about this. Not a thing.
It's always white people who say that racism isn't an issue, straight people who say the same about homophobia and men the same about sexism. Spot the pattern?
If something doesn't affect you it's hardly likely to be an issue.
Maybe all black people in the States are deluded and have a chip on their shoulder or perhaps they're on to sonething.
It seems police officers in the States can shoot suspects dead on fairly tenuous grounds and this happens disproportionately to black youths. The testimony of the officer in this case appears very flawed and doesn't read well.