Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[bilby]

Why are you required to tell the cops anything about your lawful behaviour? Did they waive the right to remain silent all of a sudden? "You have the right to remain silent, but if you exercise that right you should expect rough treatment" is a new one on me.

You're missing the point. If you have the right to remain silent, and the right to bear arms, then it is unreasonable for those charged with upholding the law to violently assault you for no other reason than your exercise of those rights.

In many states it's the law--you must notify the officer. Even if it's not when the cops find a gun the first thought is "bad guy". This is a country where in most states it's legal for appropriately-licensed people to carry concealed firearms--what's so strange about there being laws to minimize the problems??

You whole country is strange beyond comprehension.

Anyone who thinks "bad guy" in any context other than the creation or consumption of poor quality fiction is a seriously fucked up individual with insufficient grasp of the complexity of the real world.

In reality, there is no such thing as a "bad guy" or a "good guy". A "bad guy" is just a "good guy" in another context, and vice-versa. It is both horrifying and frightening that you, and many of your compatriots, do not seem to understand this basic truth.

 

[Derec]

Anyone who thinks "bad guy" in any context other than the creation or consumption of poor quality fiction is a seriously fucked up individual with insufficient grasp of the complexity of the real world.

When people use the word "bad guy" in the context in which Loren used it they do not mean a fictional villain, but a criminal.
But of course, your whole country was founded by criminals, so I guess it's understandable you have difficulty with the distinction.

In reality, there is no such thing as a "bad guy" or a "good guy". A "bad guy" is just a "good guy" in another context, and vice-versa. It is both horrifying and frightening that you, and many of your compatriots, do not seem to understand this basic truth.

One man's petty robber is another man's meal ticket?

 

[Jarhyn]

When people use the word "bad guy" in the context in which Loren used it they do not mean a fictional villain, but a criminal.
But of course, your whole country was founded by criminals, so I guess it's understandable you have difficulty with the distinction.

In reality, there is no such thing as a "bad guy" or a "good guy". A "bad guy" is just a "good guy" in another context, and vice-versa. It is both horrifying and frightening that you, and many of your compatriots, do not seem to understand this basic truth.

One man's petty robber is another man's meal ticket?

A great writer once said something true: nobody is the villain of their own story. That said there are, in the world, contexts which make sense and contexts which are the product of a deranged or deceived mind. The law is a context with very little necessary correlation with any context that makes sense. Hence why we are ready and willing to ignore it when it makes no sense, and to fall back on better contexts.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why are you required to tell the cops anything about your lawful behaviour? Did they waive the right to remain silent all of a sudden? "You have the right to remain silent, but if you exercise that right you should expect rough treatment" is a new one on me.

You're missing the point. If you have the right to remain silent, and the right to bear arms, then it is unreasonable for those charged with upholding the law to violently assault you for no other reason than your exercise of those rights.

In many states it's the law--you must notify the officer. Even if it's not when the cops find a gun the first thought is "bad guy". This is a country where in most states it's legal for appropriately-licensed people to carry concealed firearms--what's so strange about there being laws to minimize the problems??

Why the talk of guns? Did Trayvon have a gun? Did Micheal have a gun? Who had a gun?

 

[Derec]

So it's one year later and even though the "hands up don't shoot" myth has been long since discredited the BLM crowd is still using Mike Brown as some sort of figurehead. Speaking of BLM, they also decided to make an enemy of Bernie Sanders and interrupting his rallies. Could that have to do with big Hillary supporter George Soros giving BLM millions of dollars last year?

 

[laughing dog]

So it's one year later and even though the "hands up don't shoot" myth has been long since discredited the BLM crowd is still using Mike Brown as some sort of figurehead. Speaking of BLM, they also decided to make an enemy of Bernie Sanders and interrupting his rallies. Could that have to do with big Hillary supporter George Soros giving BLM millions of dollars last year?

FFS, "hands up, don't shoot" is not a myth - it is a plea and a metaphor that resonates with many people. Are you suggesting the police should shoot when hands are up?

Do you realize your posts exhibit the very same irrationality and venality that you believe you are exposing?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So it's one year later and even though the "hands up don't shoot" myth has been long since discredited rejected by LEO bootlicks and white supremacists

FIFY.

the BLM crowd is still using Mike Brown as some sort of figurehead.

Cause célèbre. It's a thing.

Speaking of BLM, they also decided to make an enemy of Bernie Sanders and interrupting his rallies.

Haven't heard about that. Puzzled as to why or when the "black lives matter" movement would attempt to antagonize Bernie Sanders. Maybe you could source this claim?

Could that have to do with big Hillary supporter George Soros giving BLM millions of dollars last year?

I can't say that black people in general or "Black Lives Matter" in particular even know or care who George Soros is.

 

[Derec]

FFS, "hands up, don't shoot" is not a myth - it is a plea and a metaphor that resonates with many people. Are you suggesting the police should shoot when hands are up?

The myth is that MB's hands were up in surrender and that he was shot regardless.

Do you realize your posts exhibit the very same irrationality and venality that you believe you are exposing?

No. That BLM movement is still using Brown as a poster boy says a lot about them. As does them heckling Bernie Sanders' events.

 

[Derec]

FIFY.

White supremacists like this one?

From the DOJ report on Michael Brown:

Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in
an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not
support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are
inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those
accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no
explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other
witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original
accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they
initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not
rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.
While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with
his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his
pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow
motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson
shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his
palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping
his hands and “charging” at Wilson.

Cause célèbre. It's a thing.

I do not care if "it's a thing", Michael Brown is not an appropriate cause célèbre because his shooting was justified.

Haven't heard about that. Puzzled as to why or when the "black lives matter" movement would attempt to antagonize Bernie Sanders. Maybe you could source this claim?

This was yesterday: Black Lives Matter Activists Disrupt Bernie Sanders Speech
This was last month: Democrats lose control of presidential event
It is interesting that they are not going after Hillary. I guess they know where their bread is buttered.

I can't say that black people in general or "Black Lives Matter" in particular even know or care who George Soros is.

Are you calling black people ignorant?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

White supremacists like this one?

No, Law Enforcement Officer Bootlicks like this one (or like you).

And note that it doesn't even say that Brown didn't have his hands up. It only says that the fact THAT he had his hands up doesn't make the shooting unjustified.

I do not care if "it's a thing", Michael Brown is not an appropriate cause célèbre because his shooting was justified.

There is a vast difference of opinion on that subject, especially pertaining to the shenanigans that went down with the grand jury process.

Besides, nobody has ever claimed that a cause celebre for a social injustice should be the paragon of virtue and a subject of impeccable character. That has, in fact, rarely been the case (see "Rosa Parks" whose personal friends described her as irritable and argumentative on her best of days).

I can't say that black people in general or "Black Lives Matter" in particular even know or care who George Soros is.

Are you calling black people ignorant?

To be honest, the only reason *I* know anything about George Soros is because rightists and libertarians keep accusing me of doing his bidding. Aside from that context, I have no idea who he is except the he is apparently rich.

 

[laughing dog]

The myth is that MB's hands were up in surrender and that he was shot regardless.

According to the DOJ report, it is likely Mr Brown's hands were not up. But it is not a definitive conclusion. So it is likely it is a myth but it may not be. Your claim is a bit disingenuous.

No. That BLM movement is still using Brown as a poster boy says a lot about them.

Well, they do have lots of unarmed victims to choose from - Tamir Rice would be a good one. The fact you obsess over black groups (or people) with little influence like BLM or Al Sharpton, with posts of half-truths says more about you. What are you so afraid of ?

As does them heckling Bernie Sanders' events.

I would think you would be urging them on to continue shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So it's one year later and even though the "hands up don't shoot" myth has been long since discredited the BLM crowd is still using Mike Brown as some sort of figurehead. Speaking of BLM, they also decided to make an enemy of Bernie Sanders and interrupting his rallies. Could that have to do with big Hillary supporter George Soros giving BLM millions of dollars last year?

FFS, "hands up, don't shoot" is not a myth - it is a plea and a metaphor that resonates with many people. Are you suggesting the police should shoot when hands are up?

Do you realize your posts exhibit the very same irrationality and venality that you believe you are exposing?

Hands up isn't a magical shield. It's a sign of surrender but if you put your hands up and keep advancing it will be assumed to be a false surrender, they will shoot if you get too close.

 

[Derec]

No, Law Enforcement Officer Bootlicks like this one (or like you).

And what does that make you? Thug Sneakerlick? At least LEO boots are bound to be kept cleaner.

And note that it doesn't even say that Brown didn't have his hands up. It only says that the fact THAT he had his hands up doesn't make the shooting unjustified.

It said that witnesses were inconsistent and that those who said that he had his hands up in surrender were not consistent with the physical evidence.
Much of initial scenario of the case was dependent on Michael Brown's buddy and his version of events was discredited. Not that that matters to the BLM crowd.

There is a vast difference of opinion on that subject, especially pertaining to the shenanigans that went down with the grand jury process.

The DA didn't think there was probable cause to indict and he conducted teh grand jury process with that in mind. Honestly, if there was no (unjustified) public outcry (including riots etc.) there would not have been a grand jury as a prosecutor is not required to have one before declaring that he has no intent to prosecute.

Besides, nobody has ever claimed that a cause celebre for a social injustice should be the paragon of virtue and a subject of impeccable character.

No, but as far as the events in question are concerned there should be agreement with reality. In the Michael Brown case the initial story was that he was walking down the street minding his own business when he was accosted by the cop and eventually shot while he tried to surrender. We later found out that this was very inaccurate portrayal of what actually happened.

That has, in fact, rarely been the case (see "Rosa Parks" whose personal friends described her as irritable and argumentative on her best of days).

But the story of what happened to her matched what actually happened to her. Had it later turned out that she was arrested not for defiance over racist seating policy but because she tried to sneak in without paying her fare she would have been dropped by the civil rights movement. SO why didn't BLM drop Michael Brown when the narrative surrounding his death collapsed?
Speaking of Rosa Parks, wasn't there another Birmingham woman who did the same thing before Parks but was not deemed acceptable by the local leadership because she had an affair with a white man?

To be honest, the only reason *I* know anything about George Soros is because rightists and libertarians keep accusing me of doing his bidding. Aside from that context, I have no idea who he is except the he is apparently rich.

He is a major financier of left-wing causes (among others BLM) and the Democratic Party (he gave a boatload of money to the Hillary superPAC). ]
I bet you know all about the Koch brothers though ...

 

[thebeave]

Interesting to go back and read the first 5 pages or so of this thread, and compare what was written back then to what we know today from the DOJ investigation, autopsy, etc. Holy fuck, did some people get it so horribly wrong about what happened.

 

[Derec]

According to the DOJ report, it is likely Mr Brown's hands were not up. But it is not a definitive conclusion. So it is likely it is a myth but it may not be. Your claim is a bit disingenuous.

BLM portraying it as a fact certainly was disingenuous.

Well, they do have lots of unarmed victims to choose from - Tamir Rice would be a good one.

It would be a better choice. But although the cops shot right away which was bad they can't really be faulted for thinking he was a grown man and not a 12 year old (he stood at very adult 5'7" and 195 lbs after all) or that the pellet gun was a real firearm.
Walter Scott would also be a good choice. He did make a mistake to run but the cop had no reason to shoot him.

The fact you obsess over black groups (or people) with little influence like BLM

I think BLM has much bigger influence than you might think. I view them as a culmination of the unhealthy trajectory US liberalism took with regard to race relations over the last 40 years away from individual rights toward identity politics. Slogans like "Bernie bow down" and telling white people to "shut up" is the inevitable result of this identity politics.

or Al Sharpton,

I didn't bring him up, but he is a good example of somebody who thrives because of his racism which happens to have the politically correct target.

What are you so afraid of ?

Honestly, I am afraid of balkanization of American society.

I would think you would be urging them on to continue shooting themselves in the foot.

And what if they pull a 1968 at the Democratic convention and we end up with President Trump?

 

[laughing dog]

BLM portraying it as a fact certainly was disingenuous.

So, two wrongs make a right?

although the cops shot right away which was bad they can't really be faulted for thinking he was a grown man and not a 12 year old (he stood at very adult 5'7" and 195 lbs after all) or that the pellet gun was a real firearm.

Actually they can. Even a judge in Ohio thought so.

I think BLM has much bigger influence than you might think. I view them as a culmination of the unhealthy trajectory US liberalism took with regard to race relations over the last 40 years away from individual rights toward identity politics. Slogans like "Bernie bow down" and telling white people to "shut up" is the inevitable result of this identity politics.

I think it is the result of ignorant and/or angry people who let their emotions temporarily overrule their reasons.

Honestly, I am afraid of balkanization of American society.

Interesting, because I would say that the contents of most of your posts contribute and reflect that balkanization.

And what if they pull a 1968 at the Democratic convention and we end up with President Trump?

Well, life would go, but I don't think we have to worry about President Trump.

 

[RavenSky]

Honestly, I am afraid of balkanization of American society.

Interesting, because I would say that the contents of most of your posts contribute and reflect that balkanization.

My thoughts exactly LD

 

[Derec]

More violent "protests" in Ferguson, including shots fired at the police.
Gunfire erupts in Ferguson as crowds mark 1 year anniversary

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And what does that make you? Thug Sneakerlick?

The day you catch me defending the murder of a police officer -- or any crime whatsoever committed by a "thug" -- this accusation will BEGIN to be potentially valid.

It said that witnesses were inconsistent and that those who said that he had his hands up in surrender were not consistent with the physical evidence.

Which is the Justice Department essentially cross-examining its own witnesses and then discrediting them based on said cross-examination. "This witness said he saw his hands up but didn't accurately report the number of shots fired, so how can we believe his testimony?" That is a defense tactic, not an investigative one.

Out of curiosity, is this the same report that was prepared for the Grand Jury prior to the (failed) indictment?

There is a vast difference of opinion on that subject, especially pertaining to the shenanigans that went down with the grand jury process.

The DA didn't think there was probable cause to indict and he conducted teh grand jury process with that in mind.

Yes, it's very clear he conducted the grand jury process with the intention of NOT returning an indictment.

You think that's a GOOD thing?

But the story of what happened to her matched what actually happened to her.

As did the story of what happened to Michael Brown: a police car pulled up to him in close proximity, a struggle ensued, Michael Ran from the cop and turned around, at which point he was shot and killed.

The controversial details are not in dispute:
1) He was unarmed when he was killed
2) He was physically separated from Wilson by a significant distance when he was killed
3) The physical confrontation had ended before the shooting took place.

Other details potentially indicate highly questionable actions by Wilson AND by Brown, neither of which affect those three fundamental points.

He is a major financier of left-wing causes (among others BLM) and the Democratic Party

If you say so.

I bet you know all about the Koch brothers though ...

I know their companies have been sued a half dozen times because the coal barges they keep leaving in the Chicago river have an alarming tendency to burst into flames. Beyond that, not much.

 

[repoman]

gunfire in Ferguson. You can see the muzzle flash behind the white truck.