Michael Brown's death and civil unrest in north St. Louis

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Is it unclear? You guys seem to have it figured out! What about if he was fighting with the officer for his weapon? Like you said, is unclear. It's sad this guy was killed. I think it's sad that for the rest of his life, this officer is going to have to life with the fact that he killed another human being. The whole thing is horrible. But what makes it worse are when people on the outside, that have no idea really, try to inject these narratives and motives.

What happened in or near the police vehicle and what happened in the street are two separate events. It's amazing how you don't get this.

MB's two crimes were theft and wearing socks with sandals. Neither warrant death.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

1. The fact that you phrased it as a question instead of a statement means you believe its unclear.

2. Like when you insinuated that the boy who died wasn't a victim. Was that impartial?

1) did you even read what I was responding to? Either way, I later agree with the poster I was responding to that it is unclear what took place between Brown and the officer.

2) No, Brown def a victim. My only point was the store owner would also be considered a victim. And the police officer would be considered a victim.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Because until this morning it was being stated as fact that this was just some innocent teen strolling down the road when some racist police man figured I'm just going to shoot one of these black people today. That is clearly not the case. So now we're told, well he robbed a store but he didn't assault an office... Why should I believe that? What I saw said he fought with the officer, shots were fired, he ran, more shots fired. That make sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that the officer sees him, he matches the description, officer approaches Brown, Brown surrenders, cop shoots him for the fuck of it. What does he gain from doing that. How does that make his day go smoothly. That makes absolutely zero sense. Only to you race baiters does that scenario seen plausible.

When he was surrendering and already wounded. The cop decided to shoot him again. Your own argument undercuts your thesis. Dumbass.

[Sturn]

Looks like my speculation on Fleeing Felon being important was spot on.

It's murder 1. The cop fired at a range of 10 feet into his back, paused, the kid turned, he fired again. Every eye witness has confirmed this was the chain of events. That's murder 1, regardless if the kid robbed a store.

2 or 3 witnesses. 1 is believed to have been a friend and with Brown during the alleged robbery/battery/shoplifting, or whatever it was. If 3 witnesses, 1 of which has a reason to lie, is all that is needed to convict someone then we need to build more prisons. I'm not saying they are lying. It still COULD be a police cover up and they are all telling the truth. But you do understand the problems with lowering the "without a doubt" level of our justice system, right?

It looks like two different people, unless he has some kind of magic ability to change his sandals into shoes and can change the color of his pants. But the biggest question is why wasn't this released days ago? This doesn't add up unless you're looking for a reason to blame the victim.

What pictures are you looking at? VERY GRAPHIC. Here is the alleged robbery/battery/shoplifting. Here is (WARNING GRAPHIC) Michael Brown minutes later. I'm seeing white t-shirt in both. Tan long shorts in both. Sandals in both. If yoiu look at the top left picture you can even see a little yellow tint to the socks (poor picture) which is what you see on Michael Brown.

You mean other than the fact that he put 10 bullets in a Black boy who had his hands up in the air and was surrendering?

Fact? I'm not disputing this could have happened. I wasn't there and there isn't video. But we've now heard 6, 8, and 10 bullets into the 6'5" 18 year old "boy".

[Talleyrand]

and this isn't a race thing right?

I'll think you'll find that several of those officers you're besmirching have black acquaintances to whom they nod at in a friendly manner when they see them in the bar

[Inigima]

I never thought I'd see the day Lev became a lapdog of the police state.

[Davos OnionKing]

Which victim are you referring to the store owner or the police officer?

Neither of them are dead. Sounds like they were the victims though

So you weren't insinuating that the boy who died wasn't a victim? Or you were saying something inflammatory that you didn't mean to provoke a response? If the answer is the latter then you were trolling.

[Reny of Storms End]

1) did you even read what I was responding to? Either way, I later agree with the poster I was responding to that it is unclear what took place between Brown and the officer.

2) No, Brown def a victim. My only point was the store owner would also be considered a victim. And the police officer would be considered a victim.

I find it odd you have criticized others for believing accounts from eye witnesses, but seem to take the cop's account as 100% accurate. You even called one eye witness' credibility into account because he was an alleged accomplice, but raised no such issues about the accounts coming from person who shot Mr. Brown. Why is that?

[Roose Seal]

I'll think you'll find that several of those officers you're besmirching have black acquaintances to whom they nod at in a friendly manner when they see them in the bar

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Because if not: what?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

What happened in or near the police vehicle and what happened in the street are two separate events. It's amazing how you don't get this.

MB's two crimes were theft and wearing socks with sandals. Neither warrant death.

Not really, if the officer is attacked and he makes the decision to fire that's he is targeting center mass. He's not aiming for the shoulder or the knee, you've been watching to many movies. And it's pretty gross to be making jokes about what the kid was wearing

[Maithanet]

I find it odd you have criticized others for believing accounts from eye witnesses, but seem to take the cop's account as 100% accurate. You even called one eye witness' credibility into account because he was an alleged accomplice, but raised no such issues about the accounts coming from person who shot Mr. Brown. Why is that?

Doubly so when Johnson's account matches well with other bystanders.

[Relic]

Is looting bad? Sure. But it's not even remotely close to proportionally bad relative to the shooting, and it makes me uncomfortable to see them brought up in the same conversation because of the implication.

Bingo. And you dn;t fight small scale looting with tear gas and sniper rifles. Anyway, seems the situation is finally being handled properly.

[Relic]

I never thought I'd see the day Lev became a lapdog of the police state.

He turned after he got married, i think. He didn;t sell out however, he bought in =P

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Inigima,

I never thought I'd see the day Lev became a lapdog of the police state.

Lev advocated getting rid of the 4th amendment warrant requirement and going house to house to collect all firearms after the Connecticut school shooting last year. When I pointed out how hugely problematic it was from a civil liberties perspective he scoffed saying not everyone was so obsessed with their Constitutional rights as I was.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

So you weren't insinuating that the boy who died wasn't a victim? Or you were saying something inflammatory that you didn't mean to provoke a response? If the answer is the latter then you were trolling.

Just saying he isn't the only victim... Did you get it that time or do I need to say it again

[Talleyrand]

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Because if not: what?

Sarcasm

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Sturn,

So 3 eye witnesses doesn't trump the cop's story. Only a cop would argue this. Keep that blue wall strong.

[Davos OnionKing]

Just saying he isn't the only victim... Did you get it that time or do I need to say it again

You were trying to provoke a response and you got one. Now you want to play dumb and rephrase your earlier post. And conveniently didn't re-quote it because it's clear what you were doing, so I will help you out.

"Which victim are you referring to the store owner or the police officer?" - Left someone out of that didn't you?

"Neither of them are dead. Sounds like they were the victims though" - Sounds like you left someone out again?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I find it odd you have criticized others for believing accounts from eye witnesses, but seem to take the cop's account as 100% accurate. You even called one eye witness' credibility into account because he was an alleged accomplice, but raised no such issues about the accounts coming from person who shot Mr. Brown. Why is that?

I don't take the officers account as 100%. But I don't believe that Mr Brown was shot just for the hell of it.

[Maithanet]

2 or 3 witnesses. 1 is believed to have been a friend and with Brown during the alleged robbery/battery/shoplifting, or whatever it was. If 3 witnesses, 1 of which has a reason to lie, is all that is needed to convict someone then we need to build more prisons. I'm not saying they are lying. It still COULD be a police cover up and they are all telling the truth. But you do understand the problems with lowering the "without a doubt" level of our justice system, right?

First of all, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "without a doubt". And you find the word of a policeman facing a potential murder charge to be more credible than 3 civilian eyewitnesses? I find that dissapointing.

If evidence comes out that the eyewitnesses are mistaken or something, then fine. But I see no reason to give the policeman the benefit of the doubt given the facts I've seen.