Reply With Quote
Maybe the first factual statement you've posted. He is, indeed, dead.
....the Police meanwhile are getting their story straight...Michael Brown laid shot in the streets of Ferguson for almost 2 hours...
Maybe the first factual statement you've posted. He is, indeed, dead.
I heard it was 4 1/2 hours.
.....after hearing the story from Wilson anyone who has any competency in law enforcement, knows that Wilson should have handled this incident better from the start...
I won't disagree with this but, at the point Brown pinned him in his patrol vehicle, assaulted him, and tried to disarm him, it sounds like he acted appropriately.
.....so they have to dehumanize Brown in the press...calling his behavior 'possessed'...or 'demon-like"...
The police union makes a deal with the DA...
...the police let the myth that Brown robbed the inconvenience store go unabated in the wing-nut media
....Wilson walk with no charges.....
..but can no longer work for the Ferguson police department..
Why? It doesn't lessen or augment the crime he committed against Wilson.
cover....after harassing Brown and Johnson for walking down the street...Wilson needed cover...
...and it makes Brown look like he had just committed a felony and was trying to get away...
Brown had not committed a crime....so he had no reason to fear Wilson....he was not fleeing the scene of a crime...
I believe there are dispatch recordings that demonstrate a person fitting Brown's description was being sought regarding an incident at the convenience store. Wilson didn't need any cover for approaching a couple of guys walking down the middle of the street. He also didn't need cover for shooting a person who had assaulted, tried to disarm him, and was in the process of assaulting him again.
Without conceding your point about the non-robbery (I've quickly looked at a couple of stories) but, I'm not finding any explanation for why Brown apparently assaulted the store owner on the way out. Is that explained anywhere?
Well, but the incident should never have escalated to the point it did...If Wilson just had a bit thicker skin and just let Brown comments go there would have not been an incident..
Oh my goodness. An actual discussion about real issues in this thread without a bunch of "Hooray Team!" stuff attached to it!
Whatever justifications might exist for permitting the use of lethal force by police officers, there does seem to be at least some anecdotal evidence of at least two truths: (1) that force, when used, is -- at least in a considerable number of situations -- exercised with questionable justification (at best); and (2) the threat of that force doesn't seem to have quelled the trust in and/or the hostility exhibited in some parts of society toward law enforcement officers. I don't think the issue is purely racial, though I also suspect that the demographic that is most likely to encounter police in situations in which force might be used is the poor black male, and for that reason, there is some basis for people to perceive the problem to be race-based.
Ultimately, there's a circularity to the problem. I think we've made it too easy for police officers to resort to lethal force and the more lethal force is available, the more likely it becomes that the use of excessive force will become fatal. There are undoubtedly cir stances in which suspects engage in behavior that legitimately endangers the lives of others, but using lethal force to subdue any recalcitrant suspect seems needlessly risky to the lives of those who may have done nothing more than be su ious of law enforcement personnel (who may have reason to be su ious because there are a number of cir stances in which law enforcement personnel have overstepped and unjustifiably harassed people who really weren't doing anything that required law enforcement involvement).
There's no simple solution, but I think that pretending that it's not a problem is unhelpful. Obviously (and to be clear) I'm not accusing Yonivore of that, given the quoted material above. But I do think that there are many who believe that police officers are always (or at least mostly) justified in using lethal force in their encounters with suspects and that view seems to me to be untenable.
According to Wilson, his radio was not working right, so he only heard a vague description of possible store robbery suspects...when he first approached Brown and Johnson he was not aware that they were the two knuckle heads who were wanted for questioning.....but again no charges would have been filed since there was no robbery..believe there are dispatch recordings that demonstrate a person fitting Brown's description was being sought regarding an incident at the convenience store. Wilson didn't need any cover for approaching a couple of guys walking down the middle of the street. He also didn't need cover for shooting a person who had assaulted, tried to disarm him, and was in the process of assaulting him again.
put the bottle down. shut your eyes for a while, and come back then
I think we disagree on who instigated the violence.
.....some un-named sources say it was because of the price of the cigarillos.... the store owner accused Brown of being a poor broke-ass and Wilson grabbed the whole box and threw money at the owner before leaving the store...Without conceding your point about the non-robbery (I've quickly looked at a couple of stories) but, I'm not finding any explanation for why Brown apparently assaulted the store owner on the way out. Is that explained anywhere?
I'm not sure what the value of relitigating the Wilson no-bill offers at this point, but if it opens the door to a conversation about the issues associated with the use of lethal force in police-public encounters, then the case is useful.
So, was it enough to pay for the cigarillos?
No charges were filed....
The alleged perpetrator was dead just a few minutes later.
Still, for insurance purposes..there has to be a police report..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
