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.
Could you point out the flaws of the coppers testimony, because I read his statement and it sounded plausible
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.
Could you point out the flaws of the coppers testimony, because I read his statement and it sounded plausible
Read the article Piers Morgan wrote about it - think it makes plenty of valid points.
I don't understand why there hasn't been a more detailed investigation. The law in the States seems to allow people to shoot far too easily based on 'fear' not fact.
I wouldn't be happy if the police were allowed to use guns so readily in the UK. The US example is not a good one.
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.
This is absolute rubbish. There IS equal protection under the law here, no matter what you hear from the "outrage industry". The shit stirrers like Al (reverend of what?) Sharpton, and Jessie (reverend of what?) Jackson and their ilk, spurred on by the liberal media make their living from stories like this, and no matter the truth, keep up the absolute fallacies that you have swallowed. I have lived in The U.S. for forty two years, and will tell you that discrimination in this country, with a few exceptions, is against BEHAVIOR, not the colour of peoples' skin.
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.
Could you point out the flaws of the coppers testimony, because I read his statement and it sounded plausible
Read the article Piers Morgan wrote about it - think it makes plenty of valid points.
I don't understand why there hasn't been a more detailed investigation. The law in the States seems to allow people to shoot far too easily based on 'fear' not fact.
I wouldn't be happy if the police were allowed to use guns so readily in the UK. The US example is not a good one.
Agreed, I would hate for UK police to be armed. If US cops weren't armed then there would have been no gun for Brown to reach for and, moments later, no gun to shoot him dead.
However the Police do carry guns in the States and the officers statement seemed to be plausible and the independent witness statements seemed to be fairly consistent (if not 100%) with his version of events. I haven't read Piers Morgans analysis of the statement, have you read the statement itself and the other witness testimonies ?
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.
Are you suggesting that the robber couldn't have killed the shopkeeper just by using his fists if he had fought back?
Would you not have been in fear for your life in similar circumstances?
Would you try to stop him by using a legally held weapon or sit him down for a cup of tea and a sympathetic chat to discuss his traumatic childhood and how it's influenced his outlook on life?
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.
This is absolute rubbish. There IS equal protection under the law here, no matter what you hear from the "outrage industry". The shit stirrers like Al (reverend of what?) Sharpton, and Jessie (reverend of what?) Jackson and their ilk, spurred on by the liberal media make their living from stories like this, and no matter the truth, keep up the absolute fallacies that you have swallowed. I have lived in The U.S. for forty two years, and will tell you that discrimination in this country, with a few exceptions, is against BEHAVIOR, not the colour of peoples' skin.
"A member of the public had phoned police saying people in the playground were scared by someone brandishing what looked like a gun.
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
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.
This is absolute rubbish. There IS equal protection under the law here, no matter what you hear from the "outrage industry". The shit stirrers like Al (reverend of what?) Sharpton, and Jessie (reverend of what?) Jackson and their ilk, spurred on by the liberal media make their living from stories like this, and no matter the truth, keep up the absolute fallacies that you have swallowed. I have lived in The U.S. for forty two years, and will tell you that discrimination in this country, with a few exceptions, is against BEHAVIOR, not the colour of peoples' skin.
"A member of the public had phoned police saying people in the playground were scared by someone brandishing what looked like a gun.
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
Why is there a transcript of the first part of the conversation but not the rest? The operator probably said can you describe him is he tall, short, black, white etc. But let's not that get in the way of a good story.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
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.
This is absolute rubbish. There IS equal protection under the law here, no matter what you hear from the "outrage industry". The shit stirrers like Al (reverend of what?) Sharpton, and Jessie (reverend of what?) Jackson and their ilk, spurred on by the liberal media make their living from stories like this, and no matter the truth, keep up the absolute fallacies that you have swallowed. I have lived in The U.S. for forty two years, and will tell you that discrimination in this country, with a few exceptions, is against BEHAVIOR, not the colour of peoples' skin.
"A member of the public had phoned police saying people in the playground were scared by someone brandishing what looked like a gun.
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
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.
You're aware a young white teenager has been shot dead in Utah by the police whilst this has been going on? In identical circumstances? Or has that missed everyone in this thread completely, because they've been too busy bringing colour in to a tragic incident that happens all too often too people of different races?
Someone should've told the (black) police officer that the teenager was off limits as he was the wrong colour obviously...
Seriously, some of the comments on here are ludicrous.
Edit; Seen your later post where you credit your understanding of the situation to both Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail. I don't mind if you don't reply, no seriously - I won't be offended.
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.
This is absolute rubbish. There IS equal protection under the law here, no matter what you hear from the "outrage industry". The shit stirrers like Al (reverend of what?) Sharpton, and Jessie (reverend of what?) Jackson and their ilk, spurred on by the liberal media make their living from stories like this, and no matter the truth, keep up the absolute fallacies that you have swallowed. I have lived in The U.S. for forty two years, and will tell you that discrimination in this country, with a few exceptions, is against BEHAVIOR, not the colour of peoples' skin.
"A member of the public had phoned police saying people in the playground were scared by someone brandishing what looked like a gun.
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
Why is there a transcript of the first part of the conversation but not the rest? The operator probably said can you describe him is he tall, short, black, white etc. But let's not that get in the way of a good story.
Either way the police shot a 12 year old kid because he had a BB gun. Something is clearly wrong with the police in that country, far too gun happy.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
i think you need to read up on what actually happened, rather than the sensationalism that came out immediately after the shooting.
Read the autopsy this Morning, brown was high when this all took place, he never actually put his hands up to surrender, and it seems as though he really did fight the officer for his gun. So yes I believe the charges should have been dropped.
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.
This is absolute rubbish. There IS equal protection under the law here, no matter what you hear from the "outrage industry". The shit stirrers like Al (reverend of what?) Sharpton, and Jessie (reverend of what?) Jackson and their ilk, spurred on by the liberal media make their living from stories like this, and no matter the truth, keep up the absolute fallacies that you have swallowed. I have lived in The U.S. for forty two years, and will tell you that discrimination in this country, with a few exceptions, is against BEHAVIOR, not the colour of peoples' skin.
"A member of the public had phoned police saying people in the playground were scared by someone brandishing what looked like a gun.
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
Why is there a transcript of the first part of the conversation but not the rest? The operator probably said can you describe him is he tall, short, black, white etc. But let's not that get in the way of a good story.
Either way the police shot a 12 year old kid because he had a BB gun. Something is clearly wrong with the police in that country, far too gun happy.
A 12 year old kid who went to grab his bb gun instead of raising his hands when told to do so. How were the police to know it wasn't a real gun? Just because he's 12 doesn't mean you will be any less injured if he shot you.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
At no point did the unarmed Man (who tried to take the police officer's gun) have his hands in the air. That has been proven to be a lie. Hence why the officer is not standing on a murder charge.
I ask the question, why did an initial police stop for an offense as petty as walking in the road lead to a tragic shooting? Brown, apparently, did the very thing that African-American youths are taught by their elders not to do in confrontations with the law because of the very fact that young black men are so often shot in encounters with the police.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
I ask the question, why did an initial police stop for an offense as petty as walking in the road lead to a tragic shooting? Brown, apparently, did the very thing that African-American youths are taught by their elders not to do in confrontations with the law because of the very fact that young black men are so often shot in encounters with the police.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
Are you genuinely saying a police officer who sees two men walking in the middle of the road, rather than on the pavement, isn't entitled to ask them not to ?
According to the testimony, medical evidence (from the officer) and autopsy (of Browns shot hand) it was Brown who "escalated the situation at every turn". It was he who;
Abused the officer who reasonably told him to walk on the pavement
Lent in and assaulted the officer after he made this reasonable request (according to the policemans testimony and medical evidence of the assult)
Reached for the policemans gun and had at least part of his hand on it (evidenced by the policemans testimony and the medical evidence detailing Browns gunshot wound to the hand)
Ran towards the police officer after commanded to surrender following this struggle (according to both the officers testimony and independent witness accounts)
The only way you could come to your conclusion that the escalator if this situation was the police officer would be if you'd read literally none of the evidence and solely based your judgement on the media nonsense that now surrounds the tragedy.
No doubt does racism and police brutality exist in America but for me neither appear to be a factor in this death and the confusion that they do undermines dealing with them properly.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
At no point did the unarmed Man (who tried to take the police officer's gun) have his hands in the air. That has been proven to be a lie. Hence why the officer is not standing on a murder charge.
Proven? How has it been proven to be a lie? What you mean is, in the last 3 months that has become the accepted truth. Yet 3 hours after the shooting, there were several witness accounts claiming his hands were in the air - prompting the 'hands up, don't shoot' campaign. Is 3 months enough time for witnesses to appear and the officer to cover his tracks? Of course. Is 3 hours enough time for several eye witnesses to come together and cook up an elaborate lie (for unknown reasons) about the man having his hands in the air? I know what I think.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
At no point did the unarmed Man (who tried to take the police officer's gun) have his hands in the air. That has been proven to be a lie. Hence why the officer is not standing on a murder charge.
Proven? How has it been proven to be a lie? What you mean is, in the last 3 months that has become the accepted truth. Yet 3 hours after the shooting, there were several witness accounts claiming his hands were in the air - prompting the 'hands up, don't shoot' campaign. Is 3 months enough time for witnesses to appear and the officer to cover his tracks? Of course. Is 3 hours enough time for several eye witnesses to come together and cook up an elaborate lie (for unknown reasons) about the man having his hands in the air? I know what I think.
It's been proven by numerous other eye witness accounts and the forensic evidence. Yes, there was eye witness testimony that said he had his hands up, 3 hours after the shooting. But of course the media wouldn't focus on these sensationalist stories just to sell a story, would they? But i forgot that you are a legal expert.
I ask the question, why did an initial police stop for an offense as petty as walking in the road lead to a tragic shooting? Brown, apparently, did the very thing that African-American youths are taught by their elders not to do in confrontations with the law because of the very fact that young black men are so often shot in encounters with the police.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
lol... because he's a police officer and brown had just committed a criminal act against him?? I thought police officers were meant to chase suspected criminals?
I ask the question, why did an initial police stop for an offense as petty as walking in the road lead to a tragic shooting? Brown, apparently, did the very thing that African-American youths are taught by their elders not to do in confrontations with the law because of the very fact that young black men are so often shot in encounters with the police.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
Are you genuinely saying a police officer who sees two men walking in the middle of the road, rather than on the pavement, isn't entitled to ask them not to ?
According to the testimony, medical evidence (from the officer) and autopsy (of Browns shot hand) it was Brown who "escalated the situation at every turn". It was he who;
Abused the officer who reasonably told him to walk on the pavement
Lent in and assaulted the officer after he made this reasonable request (according to the policemans testimony and medical evidence of the assult)
Reached for the policemans gun and had at least part of his hand on it (evidenced by the policemans testimony and the medical evidence detailing Browns gunshot wound to the hand)
Ran towards the police officer after commanded to surrender following this struggle (according to both the officers testimony and independent witness accounts)
The only way you could come to your conclusion that the escalator if this situation was the police officer would be if you'd read literally none of the evidence and solely based your judgement on the media nonsense that now surrounds the tragedy.
No doubt does racism and police brutality exist in America but for me neither appear to be a factor in this death and the confusion that they do undermines dealing with them properly.
Twisting around what I said there. I didn't say that he wasn't entitled to ask them to move over.
And also, I have come to my conclusions having read the evidence and testimonies to the best of my ability. I should add that I could have said the same about how you have reached your conclusions but I didn't.
We should both beg to differ and move on with our own opinions.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
At no point did the unarmed Man (who tried to take the police officer's gun) have his hands in the air. That has been proven to be a lie. Hence why the officer is not standing on a murder charge.
Proven? How has it been proven to be a lie? What you mean is, in the last 3 months that has become the accepted truth. Yet 3 hours after the shooting, there were several witness accounts claiming his hands were in the air - prompting the 'hands up, don't shoot' campaign. Is 3 months enough time for witnesses to appear and the officer to cover his tracks? Of course. Is 3 hours enough time for several eye witnesses to come together and cook up an elaborate lie (for unknown reasons) about the man having his hands in the air? I know what I think.
It's been proven by numerous other eye witness accounts and the forensic evidence. Yes, there was eye witness testimony that said he had his hands up, 3 hours after the shooting. But of course the media wouldn't focus on these sensationalist stories just to sell a story, would they? But i forgot that you are a legal expert.
I ask the question, why did an initial police stop for an offense as petty as walking in the road lead to a tragic shooting? Brown, apparently, did the very thing that African-American youths are taught by their elders not to do in confrontations with the law because of the very fact that young black men are so often shot in encounters with the police.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
lol... because he's a police officer and brown had just committed a criminal act against him?? I thought police officers were meant to chase suspected criminals?
lol... The point was that he had been fearful for his life and suddenly overcame that and chased after the person who had been causing that fear. Surely he would have waited for backup, unless he had every intention to gun him down.
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.
This is absolute rubbish. There IS equal protection under the law here, no matter what you hear from the "outrage industry". The shit stirrers like Al (reverend of what?) Sharpton, and Jessie (reverend of what?) Jackson and their ilk, spurred on by the liberal media make their living from stories like this, and no matter the truth, keep up the absolute fallacies that you have swallowed. I have lived in The U.S. for forty two years, and will tell you that discrimination in this country, with a few exceptions, is against BEHAVIOR, not the colour of peoples' skin.
Now, this shows how opinions can differ. I have lived in the States for over 32 years and I would say that discrimination of colour is still rampant in the US.
And, in answer to @LuckyReds very lengthy post above, I have based my observations of there being a racial bias in a lot of what goes on by what I see in the US news every day. It certainly wasn't a 'throw away' comment. To me it is quite clear cut.
In regards to your comment regarding what I had said about shooting to maim rather than to kill (the 'knee cap' example). Of course I understand that if a police officer is confronted by a person brandishing a gun then they will take the split second action necessary to preserve their own life. However, there have been many cases where a person has been unarmed or brandishing a baseball bat or even a knife, when it would have been perfectly feasible to maim/taser the person. Instead the police officer has gone for the upper body shot which, as you have said, is much more likely to be fatal.
I would like to add that it isn't all about racism. There are examples of unarmed mentally ill or homeless street people who, after becoming aggressive with the police for one reason or another, have, basically, been shot in cold blood.
I'm also sure that the same has happened to upwardly mobile white people but it is far less apparent.
What disturbs me is the flippant disregard for the sanctity of a human life, especially towards those who are seemingly disadvantaged in some way.
Anyway, I've offered my opinion and I'm going to leave it at that. Debating is one thing but going round and round in circles is another.
As with all such issues do we not have to respect an element of unless and until you have walked in their shoes?
In assessing the reports, as those who are currently residing in the US suggest we do have to be aware of the respective agenda here. From my decade in the US I can imagine there is cacophony of outrage from both ends of spectrum both liberal and right wing media.
I suggest to try to evaluate the circumstances out of context is a mistake. Unless you have lived in the environment then you will not be in tune with underlying influences that can sit just beneath the surface of so many aspects of a US society which offers so many of the best aspects of society but in an instant it can also offer so many of the worst aspects.
In simple terms any incident had it occurred in the UK you might have hardly given a second thought, in the US can take on a completely different connotation. Whilst you do not live your life in fear you simply cannot ignore that in any given incident in US society guns can be involved. From a simple traffic incident to people being walked off the premises have being made redundant - armed personnel will be present.
You do come to terms with the fact there really are areas of any major city you do not go. The daily television news includes any range of gun events - fatal or otherwise. It drips into the subconscious. In my personal interaction with the US police I have always found them courteous and helpful but then I did not encounter them in some of the more troubled districts of Dallas.
Few of us face the prospect of the life threatening incidents the US police face each and every day. It is hard to imagine how you might not be influenced by having to meet such challenges every time you clock on for work.
Ultimately the police authorities have choices as to how they respond to such challenges. It appears they are increasingly making the wrong choices. The general militarisation of the US police forces has become an increasing concern to many. Such a direction can but play into the mind set of the police officers "on the beat", their training and how they respond to the public they face.
It is matter for each individual as to whether they take the testimony of the police officer in Ferguson at face value or not. However as you read through the transcript it seems very hard to argue the officer did not have opportunities to deescalate the intensity of the situation. With the evidence he had to hand in terms of the assault on a police officer, attempted murder of a police officer, supported by the finger prints on the police car and on the police officers weapon the offender faced a significant prison sentence.
On what basis was it immediately necessary to pursue the offender without the appropriate support of other police colleagues, when the offender appears to be no threat to any other party.
Once the police officer chose to re-engage the offender he placed every body present at risk, himself, the offender and any innocent citizen within the proximity of the event. Human emotion aside that does not represent acceptable policing at any level. In terms of identifying and prosecuting the offender why was it necessary to reengage the offender. To argue it was his job is not the issue. On what basis was it necessary to pursue the offender at that time and in those circumstances.
Whether that justifies any prosecution of the police officer for reckless endangerment is debatable.
What is not debatable is it really is time for US society to revisit how they police themselves. With probably the most fragmented policing and judicial structure on the planet that is no easy task. If they do not however address the challenge I fear the US is heading down a path to a very, very dark place.
So after reading numerous articles on the testimony of the police officer this is the bit that I find odd. After assaulting the police officer and reaching for his gun, the officer then is able to fire off a couple of rounds that his the side of the door which startled Brown. He then ran off up the road, the officer gave chase. At this point Brown stopped, turned and charged at the officer.
Does that not seem strange? An unarmed man running from the law then all of a sudden stops and decides to run at a police officer who has a gun. Not only that but as he is running at the officer the gun is fired 5 times at him but still he continues to run at the officer before finally being hit with the following shots.
I'm not saying it didn't happen like that, I just can't understand why someone would do that. First, to stop, turn and charge after running and then to continue charging the officer as a gun is being fired at you.
Michael Brown robbed a store - poor choice. Michael Brown was walking down the middle of the street - poor choice. Michael Brown attacked a police officer - very poor choice.
So after reading numerous articles on the testimony of the police officer this is the bit that I find odd. After assaulting the police officer and reaching for his gun, the officer then is able to fire off a couple of rounds that his the side of the door which startled Brown. He then ran off up the road, the officer gave chase. At this point Brown stopped, turned and charged at the officer.
Does that not seem strange? An unarmed man running from the law then all of a sudden stops and decides to run at a police officer who has a gun. Not only that but as he is running at the officer the gun is fired 5 times at him but still he continues to run at the officer before finally being hit with the following shots.
I'm not saying it didn't happen like that, I just can't understand why someone would do that. First, to stop, turn and charge after running and then to continue charging the officer as a gun is being fired at you.
Didn't someone say earlier in the thread that Browns autopsy showed he had been taking drugs?
So after reading numerous articles on the testimony of the police officer this is the bit that I find odd. After assaulting the police officer and reaching for his gun, the officer then is able to fire off a couple of rounds that his the side of the door which startled Brown. He then ran off up the road, the officer gave chase. At this point Brown stopped, turned and charged at the officer.
Does that not seem strange? An unarmed man running from the law then all of a sudden stops and decides to run at a police officer who has a gun. Not only that but as he is running at the officer the gun is fired 5 times at him but still he continues to run at the officer before finally being hit with the following shots.
I'm not saying it didn't happen like that, I just can't understand why someone would do that. First, to stop, turn and charge after running and then to continue charging the officer as a gun is being fired at you.
Didn't someone say earlier in the thread that Browns autopsy showed he had been taking drugs?
Not sure if that would explain it though. Even if it was part of the reason for doing what he did it still meant he had the rationality to run from the officer in the first instance.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
At no point did the unarmed Man (who tried to take the police officer's gun) have his hands in the air. That has been proven to be a lie. Hence why the officer is not standing on a murder charge.
Proven? How has it been proven to be a lie? What you mean is, in the last 3 months that has become the accepted truth. Yet 3 hours after the shooting, there were several witness accounts claiming his hands were in the air - prompting the 'hands up, don't shoot' campaign. Is 3 months enough time for witnesses to appear and the officer to cover his tracks? Of course. Is 3 hours enough time for several eye witnesses to come together and cook up an elaborate lie (for unknown reasons) about the man having his hands in the air? I know what I think.
It's been proven by numerous other eye witness accounts and the forensic evidence. Yes, there was eye witness testimony that said he had his hands up, 3 hours after the shooting. But of course the media wouldn't focus on these sensationalist stories just to sell a story, would they? But i forgot that you are a legal expert.
I ask the question, why did an initial police stop for an offense as petty as walking in the road lead to a tragic shooting? Brown, apparently, did the very thing that African-American youths are taught by their elders not to do in confrontations with the law because of the very fact that young black men are so often shot in encounters with the police.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
lol... because he's a police officer and brown had just committed a criminal act against him?? I thought police officers were meant to chase suspected criminals?
lol... The point was that he had been fearful for his life and suddenly overcame that and chased after the person who had been causing that fear. Surely he would have waited for backup, unless he had every intention to gun him down.
but arent the police in the US trained to deal with fear of death on a daily basis?
So after reading numerous articles on the testimony of the police officer this is the bit that I find odd. After assaulting the police officer and reaching for his gun, the officer then is able to fire off a couple of rounds that his the side of the door which startled Brown. He then ran off up the road, the officer gave chase. At this point Brown stopped, turned and charged at the officer.
Does that not seem strange? An unarmed man running from the law then all of a sudden stops and decides to run at a police officer who has a gun. Not only that but as he is running at the officer the gun is fired 5 times at him but still he continues to run at the officer before finally being hit with the following shots.
I'm not saying it didn't happen like that, I just can't understand why someone would do that. First, to stop, turn and charge after running and then to continue charging the officer as a gun is being fired at you.
it was also a very odd and strange thing that some one would attack a police officer in their own car and try and take their gun from them. But it still happened.
This story really doesn't need any debate, but of course, being Charlton Life there's plenty of it. I really don't know how an unarmed man with his hands in the air being shot 9 (?) times by a police officer is anything but wrong. And I'm in no way anti-police. I wonder whether the Eric Garner case would be as hotly debated on here. No doubt there would still be some saying he deserved it too.
At no point did the unarmed Man (who tried to take the police officer's gun) have his hands in the air. That has been proven to be a lie. Hence why the officer is not standing on a murder charge.
Proven? How has it been proven to be a lie? What you mean is, in the last 3 months that has become the accepted truth. Yet 3 hours after the shooting, there were several witness accounts claiming his hands were in the air - prompting the 'hands up, don't shoot' campaign. Is 3 months enough time for witnesses to appear and the officer to cover his tracks? Of course. Is 3 hours enough time for several eye witnesses to come together and cook up an elaborate lie (for unknown reasons) about the man having his hands in the air? I know what I think.
It's been proven by numerous other eye witness accounts and the forensic evidence. Yes, there was eye witness testimony that said he had his hands up, 3 hours after the shooting. But of course the media wouldn't focus on these sensationalist stories just to sell a story, would they? But i forgot that you are a legal expert.
I ask the question, why did an initial police stop for an offense as petty as walking in the road lead to a tragic shooting? Brown, apparently, did the very thing that African-American youths are taught by their elders not to do in confrontations with the law because of the very fact that young black men are so often shot in encounters with the police.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
lol... because he's a police officer and brown had just committed a criminal act against him?? I thought police officers were meant to chase suspected criminals?
lol... The point was that he had been fearful for his life and suddenly overcame that and chased after the person who had been causing that fear. Surely he would have waited for backup, unless he had every intention to gun him down.
but arent the police in the US trained to deal with fear of death on a daily basis?
So after reading numerous articles on the testimony of the police officer this is the bit that I find odd. After assaulting the police officer and reaching for his gun, the officer then is able to fire off a couple of rounds that his the side of the door which startled Brown. He then ran off up the road, the officer gave chase. At this point Brown stopped, turned and charged at the officer.
Does that not seem strange? An unarmed man running from the law then all of a sudden stops and decides to run at a police officer who has a gun. Not only that but as he is running at the officer the gun is fired 5 times at him but still he continues to run at the officer before finally being hit with the following shots.
I'm not saying it didn't happen like that, I just can't understand why someone would do that. First, to stop, turn and charge after running and then to continue charging the officer as a gun is being fired at you.
it was also a very odd and strange thing that some one would attack a police officer in their own car and try and take their gun from them. But it still happened.
Not sure what I've done to you in the past but you seem to enjoy picking on any comment I post.
Given this man had just committed a crime I wouldn't say it was that strange that he assaulted a police officer, agreed, possibly strange behaviour for any law abiding citizen but from the sounds of it not that strange judging by his previous actions.
Comments
I don't understand why there hasn't been a more detailed investigation. The law in the States seems to allow people to shoot far too easily based on 'fear' not fact.
I wouldn't be happy if the police were allowed to use guns so readily in the UK. The US example is not a good one.
However the Police do carry guns in the States and the officers statement seemed to be plausible and the independent witness statements seemed to be fairly consistent (if not 100%) with his version of events. I haven't read Piers Morgans analysis of the statement, have you read the statement itself and the other witness testimonies ?
Would you not have been in fear for your life in similar circumstances?
Would you try to stop him by using a legally held weapon or sit him down for a cup of tea and a sympathetic chat to discuss his traumatic childhood and how it's influenced his outlook on life?
In a recording released by officials, the caller can be heard saying: “There’s a guy with a pistol…you know, it’s probably fake but he’s pointing it at everybody.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cleveland-police-shooting-boy-with-fake-gun-dies-after-being-shot-by-ohio-officer-9878700.html
This was literally just two days ago.
“I don't know if it's real or not."
The 911 responder twice asked whether the boy was black or white before dispatching officers."
Why is there a transcript of the first part of the conversation but not the rest? The operator probably said can you describe him is he tall, short, black, white etc. But let's not that get in the way of a good story.
Someone should've told the (black) police officer that the teenager was off limits as he was the wrong colour obviously...
Seriously, some of the comments on here are ludicrous.
Edit; Seen your later post where you credit your understanding of the situation to both Piers Morgan and the Daily Mail. I don't mind if you don't reply, no seriously - I won't be offended.
http://news.sky.com/story/1379996/michael-brown-shooting-what-really-happened
Morning, brown was high when this all took place, he never actually put his hands up to surrender, and it seems as though he really did fight the officer for his gun. So yes I believe the charges should have been dropped.
He was defiant. He refused to obey an order to get out of the road. He had allegedly just stolen some cigars from a convenience store where he and a friend pushed the clerk out of the way before leaving. Brown then made the stupid decision to get in a fight with the law officer. He was confrontational, yes, but did he deserve to die?
No. If Wilson, a trained law enforcement officer, had tried to defuse the situation rather than escalating it at every turn this whole affair could have had a very different outcome. Agreed, police officers face life-threatening situations, and they are frequently called upon to make split second decisions. I don't think that was the case here though.
Why was Wilson obsessed with two young men walking in the road? How much of this was about his ego and anger over being challenged and sworn at? Once the men had ignored Wilson's order to get out of the road and he knew there could be trouble why didn't he wait for his backup to arrive? When Brown took off running, again why didn't he wait for help instead of running after him? Wilson said he feared for his life when he was in the car fending off Brown's punches. He said he thought Brown would kill him or knock him unconscious. But, where was the threat to Wilson's life after Brown took off running? He went after him.
Yes, I think there are big flaws in his lengthy testimony.
According to the testimony, medical evidence (from the officer) and autopsy (of Browns shot hand) it was Brown who "escalated the situation at every turn". It was he who;
Abused the officer who reasonably told him to walk on the pavement
Lent in and assaulted the officer after he made this reasonable request (according to the policemans testimony and medical evidence of the assult)
Reached for the policemans gun and had at least part of his hand on it (evidenced by the policemans testimony and the medical evidence detailing Browns gunshot wound to the hand)
Ran towards the police officer after commanded to surrender following this struggle (according to both the officers testimony and independent witness accounts)
The only way you could come to your conclusion that the escalator if this situation was the police officer would be if you'd read literally none of the evidence and solely based your judgement on the media nonsense that now surrounds the tragedy.
No doubt does racism and police brutality exist in America but for me neither appear to be a factor in this death and the confusion that they do undermines dealing with them properly.
And also, I have come to my conclusions having read the evidence and testimonies to the best of my ability. I should add that I could have said the same about how you have reached your conclusions but I didn't.
We should both beg to differ and move on with our own opinions.
And, in answer to @LuckyReds very lengthy post above, I have based my observations of there being a racial bias in a lot of what goes on by what I see in the US news every day. It certainly wasn't a 'throw away' comment. To me it is quite clear cut.
In regards to your comment regarding what I had said about shooting to maim rather than to kill (the 'knee cap' example). Of course I understand that if a police officer is confronted by a person brandishing a gun then they will take the split second action necessary to preserve their own life. However, there have been many cases where a person has been unarmed or brandishing a baseball bat or even a knife, when it would have been perfectly feasible to maim/taser the person. Instead the police officer has gone for the upper body shot which, as you have said, is much more likely to be fatal.
I would like to add that it isn't all about racism. There are examples of unarmed mentally ill or homeless street people who, after becoming aggressive with the police for one reason or another, have, basically, been shot in cold blood.
I'm also sure that the same has happened to upwardly mobile white people but it is far less apparent.
What disturbs me is the flippant disregard for the sanctity of a human life, especially towards those who are seemingly disadvantaged in some way.
Anyway, I've offered my opinion and I'm going to leave it at that. Debating is one thing but going round and round in circles is another.
In assessing the reports, as those who are currently residing in the US suggest we do have to be aware of the respective agenda here. From my decade in the US I can imagine there is cacophony of outrage from both ends of spectrum both liberal and right wing media.
I suggest to try to evaluate the circumstances out of context is a mistake. Unless you have lived in the environment then you will not be in tune with underlying influences that can sit just beneath the surface of so many aspects of a US society which offers so many of the best aspects of society but in an instant it can also offer so many of the worst aspects.
In simple terms any incident had it occurred in the UK you might have hardly given a second thought, in the US can take on a completely different connotation. Whilst you do not live your life in fear you simply cannot ignore that in any given incident in US society guns can be involved. From a simple traffic incident to people being walked off the premises have being made redundant - armed personnel will be present.
You do come to terms with the fact there really are areas of any major city you do not go. The daily television news includes any range of gun events - fatal or otherwise. It drips into the subconscious. In my personal interaction with the US police I have always found them courteous and helpful but then I did not encounter them in some of the more troubled districts of Dallas.
Few of us face the prospect of the life threatening incidents the US police face each and every day. It is hard to imagine how you might not be influenced by having to meet such challenges every time you clock on for work.
Ultimately the police authorities have choices as to how they respond to such challenges. It appears they are increasingly making the wrong choices. The general militarisation of the US police forces has become an increasing concern to many. Such a direction can but play into the mind set of the police officers "on the beat", their training and how they respond to the public they face.
It is matter for each individual as to whether they take the testimony of the police officer in Ferguson at face value or not. However as you read through the transcript it seems very hard to argue the officer did not have opportunities to deescalate the intensity of the situation. With the evidence he had to hand in terms of the assault on a police officer, attempted murder of a police officer, supported by the finger prints on the police car and on the police officers weapon the offender faced a significant prison sentence.
On what basis was it immediately necessary to pursue the offender without the appropriate support of other police colleagues, when the offender appears to be no threat to any other party.
Once the police officer chose to re-engage the offender he placed every body present at risk, himself, the offender and any innocent citizen within the proximity of the event. Human emotion aside that does not represent acceptable policing at any level. In terms of identifying and prosecuting the offender why was it necessary to reengage the offender. To argue it was his job is not the issue. On what basis was it necessary to pursue the offender at that time and in those circumstances.
Whether that justifies any prosecution of the police officer for reckless endangerment is debatable.
What is not debatable is it really is time for US society to revisit how they police themselves. With probably the most fragmented policing and judicial structure on the planet that is no easy task. If they do not however address the challenge I fear the US is heading down a path to a very, very dark place.
Does that not seem strange? An unarmed man running from the law then all of a sudden stops and decides to run at a police officer who has a gun. Not only that but as he is running at the officer the gun is fired 5 times at him but still he continues to run at the officer before finally being hit with the following shots.
I'm not saying it didn't happen like that, I just can't understand why someone would do that. First, to stop, turn and charge after running and then to continue charging the officer as a gun is being fired at you.
Michael Brown was walking down the middle of the street - poor choice.
Michael Brown attacked a police officer - very poor choice.
Not a lot more to this, in my opinion.
Given this man had just committed a crime I wouldn't say it was that strange that he assaulted a police officer, agreed, possibly strange behaviour for any law abiding citizen but from the sounds of it not that strange judging by his previous actions.