Michael Brown Shooting: The Aftermath of the Grand Jury Decision

[Roose Seal]

You do know that Brown's buddy Johnson admitted that Brown did indeed steal the cigarillos. And Garnder had been arrested about 30 times before his incident.

Again this goes back to my list of ignoring facts that don't fit the agenda.

While both things might be true, they have nothing to do with the cases at hand.

Wilson didn't know about the alleged robbery. Panteleo used an illegal move on a man begging for air.

these are all the facts that matter. All the rest is demonization to justify the murder of Black men.

their actions by not obeying a police officer's order led to their deaths.

you keep saying you don't blame them but this is putting the blame on the victims.

The only thing that led to these two men's death was in both cases policemen using unnecessary force.

[TrueMetis]

While both things might be true, they have nothing to do with the cases at hand.

Wilson didn't know about the alleged robbery. Panteleo used an illegal move on a man begging for air.

these are all the facts that matter. All the rest is demonization to justify the murder of Black men.

Actually he apparently did, after the chief of police said he didn't. Ferguson chief of police, not able to do even the most basic of fact checking before going to the press. And that's the generous interpretation.

[Roose Seal]

Actually he apparently did, after the chief of police said he didn't. Ferguson chief of police, not able to do even the most basic of fact checking before going to the press. And that's the generous interpretation.

He did but he did not know Brown was the suspect in question from what I understood.

They can't even get their cover ups right.

[Swordfish]

I don't get that at all. This implies that Brown and Gardner deserved to die because they did criminal actions.

They're obviously not martyrs, but they were killed despite being completely unarmed. Do you think that's reasonable?

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

Is your position that lethal force is never justified against a person that is not brandishing a weapon?

[Wee baby Shamus]

While both things might be true, they have nothing to do with the cases at hand.

Wilson didn't know about the alleged robbery. Panteleo used an illegal move on a man begging for air.

these are all the facts that matter. All the rest is demonization to justify the murder of Black men.

you keep saying you don't blame them but this is putting the blame on the victims.

The only thing that led to these two men's death was in both cases policemen using unnecessary force.

Honestly, I have zero pity or remorse for these two guys. If they would have obeyed the police officers orders they would still be alive.

I could care less that they happen to be black. If the police officers had been black and the suspects/victims had been white my feelings would be the same.

[Swordfish]

Honestly, I have zero pity or remorse for these two guys. If they would have obeyed the police officers orders they would still be alive.

I could care less that they happen to be black. If the police officers had been black and the suspects/victims had been white my feelings would be the same.

You realize that is possible to both have empathy for these guys and their families, and also believe that their actions contributed to the situation in which they were killed, right?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Wait a minute. Garner caused his own death by protesting? Have you seen videos on YouTube of white guys protesting their treatment by police? None of them end up dead. At best, they're allowed to leave with a warning. Don't you see a double-standard?

And they're not being martyred. They're being used as examples.

ETA:

So if a cop orders me to stop and I run, the cops can kill me and it would be my fault for running?

No, if you assault an officer and try to take his weapon, you'll meet the standards for the use of legal force. I wouldn't advise this because more than likely you'd be shot. But I'm sure deep down you know this, because it's common sense. You want to protest the Garner case, tell me when and I'll go with you. These are two very different cases with very different circumstances. Or is that something you guys will deny as well?

[Gertrude]

Not having any empathy for other people is a major obstacle in actually getting meaningful reform. Too many people can look at the situation and think they would never put themselves in that position, nor would their loved ones and it becomes a problem that doesn't matter. This despite the many voices sharing stories of why this is actually a problem and why.

[Larry of the Lawn]

No, if you assault an officer and try to take his weapon, you'll meet the standards for the use of legal force. I wouldn't advise this because more than likely you'd be shot. But I'm sure deep down you know this, because it's common sense. You want to protest the Garner case, tell me when and I'll go with you. These are two very different cases with very different circumstances. Or is that something you guys will deny as well?

No one is denying that. But a lot of people are still skeptical that Brown assaulted Wilson. I know you guys refuse to believe it, but some people don't believe Wilson's testimony.

[TrueMetis]

No one is denying that. But a lot of people are still skeptical that Brown assaulted Wilson. I know you guys refuse to believe it, but some people don't believe Wilson's testimony.

I'll deny it, once your a hundred plus feet away trying to grab the gun no longer matters.

[Gertrude]

As to Wilson's testimony, we have Johnson saying Wilson initiated it and Wilson saying Brown did. I find them both equally unreliable because they have the most stake in it. Was anyone else even close enough to see what really happened without guessing? That, right there, is enough doubt for me to say that Brown reached for the gun first is an unproved statement. People will put more weight on one version or another, but I don't see how anyone can say it's proven.

[Swordfish]

As to Wilson's testimony, we have Johnson saying Wilson initiated it and Wilson saying Brown did. I find them both equally unreliable because they have the most stake in it. Was anyone else even close enough to see what really happened without guessing? That, right there, is enough doubt for me to say that Brown reached for the gun first is an unproved statement. People will put more weight on one version or another, but I don't see how anyone can say it's proven.

The forensic evidence seems to support it though, doesn't it? We don't necessarily know if he reached for the gun, but we do know he was inside the car, right?

[Wee baby Shamus]

You realize that is possible to both have empathy for these guys and their families, and also believe that their actions contributed to the situation in which they were killed, right?

Of course I know that I can empathy and believe that their actions contributed to the situation in which they were killed. But these two incidents I don't.

[Swordfish]

Of course I know that I can empathy and believe that their actions contributed to the situation in which they were killed. But these two incidents I don't.

Why not?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

You realize that is possible to both have empathy for these guys and their families, and also believe that their actions contributed to the situation in which they were killed, right?

I definitely agree with you 100%. Both incidents are extremely sad and should have resulted in a different outcome. IMO, one is justified and the other isn't.

[Tywin Manderly]

I see.

[Tywin Manderly]

We are past 400 posts. You can continue the discussioon in the thread below.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/121458-michael-brown-shooting-a-bitterly-divided-nation/

[The Fallen]

I never stated that Garnder's death by Panteleo was justified.

I only stated that he and Brown were not angels nor innocent and their actions by not obeying a police officer's order led to their deaths.

And I will state again that both of them did not deserve to die just in case you missed that part.

Again and MY reading comprehension skills are questioned.

So according to you, anyone who questions, disagrees with or runs from the police is asking for it.

Why can't we question the police? We do have rights, you know.

No, if you assault an officer and try to take his weapon, you'll meet the standards for the use of legal force. I wouldn't advise this because more than likely you'd be shot. But I'm sure deep down you know this, because it's common sense.

Again, those aren't facts. There are two versions of what happened up until the altercation inside the car, so there's a 50% chance that Wilson is lying. Personally, as a minority who grew up in a poor neighborhood, Johnson's version rings true to me. But again, there's a 50% chance that Johnson could be lying, it just sounds more realistic.

And just because Brown was in a scuffle with Wilson doesn't make it an assault on an officer. Wilson could have been the one to initiate it.

Look, this is anecdotal, but in my experience, minorities in poor neighborhoods do as much as they can to avoid the police. For the most part nothing good will come out of it. Knowing this, I just can't see why a kid with no criminal past would not only decide to assault a cop, but take it one step further and try to kill him with his own gun. That's another thing. The worst thing you can do in this country is kill a cop. That's game over for you. Every law enforcement officer in this country will be looking for your ass. You'll be lucky to be taken alive. I'm sorry, but Darren Wilson's version just don't make any sense.

These are two very different cases with very different circumstances. Or is that something you guys will deny as well?

They are different cases with different circumstances. With the Garner case being even more egregious.