Support NeoGAF

[FreddieQuell]

Assuming that's what happened. Again, the other story is mike rushed the cop.




Depends on what thst unarmed person is doing to the officer.

Yes, that other story that is only supported by friends of the cop.

So let's say an unarmed man begins to run towards a cop. Do you believe the correct response is to pull out a pistol and fire?

 

[Devolution]

You are defaulting to authority that has:

Charged a innocent man with property damage due to bleeding on their clothing.
Beaten up journalists
trained sniper rifles at protesting white women in the day time,
tear gased media as well as arrested media.
An authority that runs away from killing a citizen.
Taunting citizens while engaging them.

You take this exact police departments word, as you default to their authority. Is this correct? I know you have a lot to respond to, so this is why I'm making sure you even read what I wrote.
This police department has done all of this. These are all universally horrible things to do to citizens of this country. I have to believe that you glossed over what I've read. But with this said, this is the reason that there can't be an honorable trust into this specific department. If you are being honest. How do you tell yourself that this PD's track record and ongoing record isn't deplorable, and that you can default to trusting their word? When their character has already been brought into question by other authorities. Like the authorities that have taken them off the case/involvement as they were making the situation on the ground worse.

Why not default to the greater authorities, that are seeing that the PD is part of the problem. Those are the good guys I feel like. But this specific PD isn't one that could be considered with great honor and respect for their job, other citizens, or frankly, even the law. Saying that you default to authority is an easy sort of explanation, but going deeper into it, how do you rationalize their actions (That other authorities have seen fit to remove their responsibilities )

Also this authority basically gave the middle finger to a higher authority via releasing footage.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

"MO State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal calls for police chief to step down: "I think he should resign...right now" http://t.co/p14csFHoJa"

Yes please

There are a lot of people who deserve to lose their jobs over this. I hope they find the name of the officer from this video:

http://youtu.be/razYgZ0P1KY

 

[Secret Fawful]

Assuming that's what happened. Again, the other story is mike rushed the cop.

"The pig has his gun out! Now's my chance!"

And before or if you want to tell me Mike could have been too close to be worried that the cop would get his gun out, how close can you be to be shot six times? Come ON with this.

 

[Schattenjäger]

I've been reserving judgement until all the facts are out including the officer's explanation..Hence I haven't been commenting much .. But it's looking more and more poorly on the officer.

 

[TheFatOne]

I have zero interest in Obama once again say nothing. It would be a great platform to talk about the institutionalized racism in the justice system or the militarization of the police. Instead he will say nothing of substance.

 

[captive]

omg, a lot of shit has happened since I went to bed last night, literally just read every page since 11:30 last night.

thanks for this, havent seen this gif in a while.
Seriously though, I was so hoping he didnt have weed in his system, not because I care if he does, but because i knew if he did the first thing the media would be like OH NOEZ.

OMG Al Sharpton made a logical and non-controversial statement. I wonder how conservatives will react.

what did he say?

People also seem to be ignoring he just turned 18, his record would have been reset.

Not necessarily, especially since he just turned 18. My wife is 34 and when she applied for her job a few years ago they did a back ground check which pulled up a misdemeanor as a minor, which was supposed to have been sealed when she turned 18.

You inadvertently agreed with the comic strip.

The narrative around white mass murderer:
-What mental health problems did he have? More attention/research is needed to combat this.
-Did bullying play a role? Schools and parents must do better for our kids.
-What could society have done to avoid this tragedy (gun control)?
-Where did this one-promising young man take a wrong turn in life? He was so kind and caring.

Murdered unarmed black person:
-What did he do to deserve death? Maybe it was justified in some action he took before being brutally killed.
-Were there drugs in his system? It could have made him aggressive.
-Was he a violent thug or immoral in any way? Let's find any evidence in his life history.
-Let's contrast how much of a good person his killer was.

don't forgot:
White people riot over winning or losing hockey games - media is all like yea this is stupid, but they're just a bunch of idiots.

Some black people riot/loot while others try to prevent them and media is all OMG STUPID BLACK PEOPLE RIOTING CAUSING TROUBLE FOR POLICE!

This is astonishing to watch.. What is this called? Cognitive dissonance?

It really is.

 

[Gaz_RB]

There are a lot of people who deserve to lose their jobs over this. I hope they find the name of the officer from this video:

http://youtu.be/razYgZ0P1KY

And the guy calling the protestors "fucking animals"

 

[Indicate]

You are defaulting to authority that has:

Charged a innocent man with property damage due to bleeding on their clothing.
Beaten up journalists
trained sniper rifles at protesting white women in the day time,
tear gased media as well as arrested media.
An authority that runs away from killing a citizen.
Taunting citizens while engaging them.

You take this exact police departments word, as you default to their authority. Is this correct? I know you have a lot to respond to, so this is why I'm making sure you even read what I wrote.
This police department has done all of this. These are all universally horrible things to do to citizens of this country. I have to believe that you glossed over what I've read. But with this said, this is the reason that there can't be an honorable trust into this specific department. If you are being honest. How do you tell yourself that this PD's track record and ongoing record isn't deplorable, and that you can default to trusting their word? When their character has already been brought into question by other authorities. Like the authorities that have taken them off the case/involvement as they were making the situation on the ground worse.

Why not default to the greater authorities, that are seeing that the PD is part of the problem. Those are the good guys I feel like. But this specific PD isn't one that could be considered with great honor and respect for their job, other citizens, or frankly, even the law. Saying that you default to authority is an easy sort of explanation to describe yourself in general. But there are actual specifics I'd like you to address. How do you rationalize their actions (That other authorities have seen fit to remove their responsibilities ) to still give them the benefit of the doubt when it seems all authority is removing their authority.

They also tear gassed kids and babies. Told media to turn off cameras, etc.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Yeah, even with proper training, most people aren't trick shots with a gun. That's one of the those Hollywood things that bleeds in public consciousness.

I'm sure it can't be that hard to do tho. I mean yeah, it depends on a lot of other factors but it shouldn't be that difficult.

You say the gun is a last resort, that's very true. But I think even there, the gun doesn't have to try taking a life first-thing, especially against unarmed citizens.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

You are defaulting to authority that has:

Charged a innocent man with property damage due to bleeding on their clothing.
Beaten up journalists
trained sniper rifles at protesting white women in the day time,
tear gased media as well as arrested media.
An authority that runs away from killing a citizen.
Taunting citizens while engaging them.

You take this exact police departments word, as you default to their authority. Is this correct? I know you have a lot to respond to, so this is why I'm making sure you even read what I wrote.
This police department has done all of this. These are all universally horrible things to do to citizens of this country. I have to believe that you glossed over what I've read. But with this said, this is the reason that there can't be an honorable trust into this specific department. If you are being honest. How do you tell yourself that this PD's track record and ongoing record isn't deplorable, and that you can default to trusting their word? When their character has already been brought into question by other authorities. Like the authorities that have taken them off the case/involvement as they were making the situation on the ground worse.

Why not default to the greater authorities, that are seeing that the PD is part of the problem. Those are the good guys I feel like. But this specific PD isn't one that could be considered with great honor and respect for their job, other citizens, or frankly, even the law. Saying that you default to authority is an easy sort of explanation to describe yourself in general. But there are actual specifics I'd like you to address. How do you rationalize their actions (That other authorities have seen fit to remove their responsibilities ) to still give them the benefit of the doubt when it seems all authority is removing their authority.

I'm not familiar with the bleeding on clothes story, but following the rest of your points; the stuff against the protestors isn't just Furgesson PD it's a mix of multiple departments. It's also a reaction to the recent violence/looting/vandalism/shootings. We also have to remember that when the officers were told to step back and not be aggressive more businesses were looted and left the protestors to handle the looters themselves.


As for assaulting/gassing media and taunting citizenry, that's inexcusable and asking for more problems.

As for taking their word of what happened in the events. I don't 100% believe either side they both seem very outlandish to me. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and I lean more towards believing the officer's story.

And before or if you want to tell me Mike could have been too close to be worried that the cop would get his gun out, how close can you be to be shot six times? Come ON with this.

You can get 6 shots off very fast.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I'm sure it can't be that hard to do tho. I mean yeah, it depends on a lot of other factors but it shouldn't be that difficult.

You say the gun is a last resort, that's very true. But I think even there, the gun doesn't have to try taking a life first-thing, especially against unarmed citizens.

I get what you mean, but a gun is designed to kill. A shot to a foot isn't a "wounding shot," it's just less likely to be lethal than a shot to center mass, or the head.

The decision to draw a weapon and the decision to fire at all are the choices that matter.

As for taking their word of what happened in the events. I don't 100% believe either side they both seem very outlandish to me. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and I lean more towards believing the officer's story.

What facts support the officer's story?

 

[everyday math]

Police briefing on now

Edit: Oh it's done...

 

[onadesertedisland]

And Obama will once again read a statement written by his team to try and upset neither those that support the police action, nor those who are protesting, and generally say nothing.

That's been his flaw his entire presidency.

 

[block tower]

Taser, etc isn't for deadly force, it's for compliance.

I'd agree the fact the officer is walking around in videos after the shooting goes against him receiving a scree beating,but again, the investigation is going to go off of his perceived threat.

that's my point, i know a taser is for compliance, which is what Wilson wanted in that situation. so why would a gun be his first option, threatened or not, why wasnt he going to chase and taser Brown or call for backup and persue him. even ignoring the behavior of Wilson after the incident caught on camera, how could he even reasonably have feared for his life given that Brown had no weapons and hadn't attacked Wilson after fleeing; so Wilson saying he feared for his life seems so ridiculous given his prior years of experience on the force and the fact that Brown wasn't armed. i just dont see how his use of his weapon, six shots included, falls under any sort of reasonable use.

 

[Abelian75]

Which is exactly why it's tiring to hear people (Brolic) who repeatedly tell others "quit all this speculation," "we don't know all the facts," Etc. when they themselves are doing the exact same thing (just with a police-apologist slant).

I was one of the people saying that we should be slower to jump to conclusions earlier. I wasn't concealing any hidden agenda, as you can probably tell from my recent posts. Understand that some people grieve by trying to make sense of a situation, which often involves trying to be as objective as possible until all the facts are in.

I'm not defending Brolic in particular, mind you. Just the idea that it's wrong to think we should be careful before jumping to conclusions. Not everyone who doesn't immediately jump on board the "Fuck the police" narrative has a secret racist agenda.

As an aside, I'm not buying into the "Wilson will never be punished" line either. I'm as skeptical as anyone and would hang the fuck out of juries if anyone was crazy enough to put me on one. Even I think this is starting to look pretty damning.

 

[Karkador]

As for taking their word of what happened in the events. I don't 100% believe either side, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and I lean more towards believing the officer's story.

Please find any way you can to skip jury duty.

 

[CrankyJay]

We also have to remember that when the officers were told to step back and not be aggressive more businesses were looted and left the protestors to handle the looters themselves.

I think the protesters did a better job of handling that than the police themselves, and while I can't speak for them, I have a feeling they would rather handle that type of stuff themselves anyway.

 

[FiggyCal]

what did he say? /QUOTE]
He wants police officers to wear the cameras and also we have to re-evaluate the way we look at our police.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

that's my point, i know a taser is for compliance, which is what Wilson wanted in that situation. so why would a gun be his first option, threatened or not, why wasnt he going to chase and taser Brown or call for backup and persue him. even ignoring the behavior of Wilson after the incident caught on camera, how could he even reasonably have feared for his life given that Brown had no weapons and hadn't attacked Wilson after fleeing; so Wilson saying he feared for his life seems so ridiculous given his prior years of experience on the force and the fact that Brown wasn't armed. i just dont see how his use of his weapon, six shots included, falls under any sort of reasonable use.

I'm waiting for those answers as well.

I think the protesters did a better job of handling that than the police themselves, and while I can't speak for them, I have a feeling they would rather handle that type of stuff themselves anyway.

I agree.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

Because I default to authority. I have no problem admitting that. I have a very hard time believing the cop simply decided to execute mike. He would know after doing that,that his career and life was over.

Even if he is found to have committed a "good shooting" after this. His life as he knows it is over.

I know everyone is already replying to your posts, but this is where you are transparently being mistaken. If you want to default to authority, that's fine. And I'm not a mod, but if you want to hold open the possibility that the officer is innocent, then I think that would be fine. But you can't objectively look at the two relevant scenarios here and equate them simply because you have a hard time believing an officer would shoot Brown.

Without even knowing any facts of this case, we all have to accept two things:

1. People do attack police for the primary purpose of A. killing or injuring the officer or B. escaping.
2. Officers do use lethal force when it is unjustified.

How often is up for debate, but both do happen. The evidence establishes that Brown clearly resisted. That's not up for debate, so you focusing on that is adding nothing to the conversation. Perhaps Brown was afraid of being caught, sure. But we also know that he disengaged and resisted primarily to escape as he ran at least 35 feet away from the vehicle. We can all believe this sequence of events, but at that point we then have two scenarios that on their face are on the opposite ends of the believability spectrum.

-One scenario is that Brown decided after running significantly farther than 35 feet away, he then taunted the officer in the face of gunfire and began charging at him with the intention of causing the officer harm.

-The other scenario is that Brown turned after the initial shots to put his hands up and surrender.

Further, multiple eye witnesses support the second more plausible scenario. One eye witness possibly supports the first less likely scenario but has not come forward to give any statements.

So if you want to believe the first scenario happened, that's fine, but it is not 50/50. It is, at this point, highly improbable. Possible, yes, but still improbable. And nothing that Brown did prior to his first interaction with the officer is going to change that probability, so you should probably stop trying to fit every fact into fitting that narrative.

 

[benjipwns]

 

[Flo_Evans]

Ron Johnson looks tired.

 

[onadesertedisland]

If you are withholding judgement for evidence, but hold the police officer's story as more believable until proven otherwise, you are not withholding judgement. You might believe you are, but you're taking a stand.

 

[CrankyJay]

Police briefing on now

Edit: Oh it's done...

Start: 3:00:00 PM CT

"The following is a joint statement by the Missouri State Police and the Missouri National Guard: FUCK YOU"

End: 3:00:10 PM CT

 

[Abelian75]

I'm sure it can't be that hard to do tho. I mean yeah, it depends on a lot of other factors but it shouldn't be that difficult.

You say the gun is a last resort, that's very true. But I think even there, the gun doesn't have to try taking a life first-thing, especially against unarmed citizens.

Aiming a gun, especially a pistol, is dramatically harder than you're imagining. It's hard.

 

[Rockyrock]

eh, both sides of the story seemed too sensationalized to me. I have not been following the story as closely as other, so I apologize if some of this has already been debunked or explained.

I don't believe that the officer just brutality murdered good-boy mike brown who was standing peacefully with his hands in the air. That just doesn't make sense.

I also don't believe that Brown rushed the officer in some drug induced state and ran threw a storm of bullets until he was fine hit in the hit. This isn't a damn zombie movie.

Has to be somewhere in the middle where the officer approached Brown. Maybe he panicked knowing he just committed a theft so he does something rash like punching the officer in the face, slamming the his door back on him as he's trying to exit or threaten him in some other way. As he is trying to flee the scene the enraged officer fires off at Brown like a dumbass. And Probably meaning to inflict some serious damage which is present by the bullet wound to the head.

 

[BronsonLee]

I'm sure it can't be that hard to do tho. I mean yeah, it depends on a lot of other factors but it shouldn't be that difficult.

You say the gun is a last resort, that's very true. But I think even there, the gun doesn't have to try taking a life first-thing, especially against unarmed citizens.

It is very hard. I rarely fire guns, but I would recommend doing so at a range just for experience's sake. Your accuracy drops very sharply if you're aiming for something specific. That's why I was very confused as to how the officer shot Brown in the eye. That requires extreme marksmanship. But it seems that wound started at the top of the head and went down, etc.

Also, a gun is a killing weapon, and as such should be an absolute last resort use item. Using it for the purpose of anything else is asking for trouble. Use something else.

 

[captive]

He wants police officers to wear the cameras and also we have to re-evaluate the way we look at our police.

thanks, that doesnt sound unreasonable.

 

[everyday math]

Start: 3:00:00 PM CT

"The following is a joint statement by the Missouri State Police and the Missouri National Guard: FUCK YOU"

End: 3:00:10 PM CT

Basically.
I don't even understand why they took the time to waste air on that statement.

@joelcurrier: MHP announced National Guard watching command center only; police prayed together, took zero questions. #ferguson http://t.co/br1O2CPIXb

ok

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

If you are withholding judgement for evidence, but hold the police officer's story as more believable until proven otherwise, you are not withholding judgement. You might believe you are, but you're taking a stand.

Same could be said of those taking the opposite stance. I still don't see it that way though. If it comes out the cop was wrong I'd have no problem accepting it as fact and not fabrication.

 

[Rembrandt]

Start: 3:00:00 PM CT

"The following is a joint statement by the Missouri State Police and the Missouri National Guard: FUCK YOU"

End: 3:00:10 PM CT

lmao, pretty much. I went to turn it on in the front room and it was off. Did they actually say anything?

 

[Nabs]

eh, both sides of the story seemed too sensationalized to me. I have not been following the story as closely as other, so I apologize if some of this has already been debunked or explained.

I don't believe that the officer just brutality murdered good-boy mike brown who was standing peacefully with his hands in the air. That just doesn't make sense.

I also don't believe that Brown rushed the officer in some drug induced state and ran threw a storm of bullets until he was fine hit in the hit. This isn't a damn zombie movie.

Has to be somewhere in the middle where the officer approached Brown. Maybe he panicked knowing he just committed a theft so he does something rash like punching the officer in the face, slamming the his door back on him as he's trying to exit or threaten him in some other way. As he is trying to flee the scene the enraged officer fires off at Brown like a dumbass. And Probably meaning to inflict some serious damage which is present by the bullet wound to the head.

Okay. I see where you're coming from.

 

[Gonzalez]

I like how none of these include the Latino populations opinion when we're one of the largest growing minority groups currently in America.

Edit: no wait it's just from August 2014 when they just conducted the poll with just Blacks, and Whites.

 

[kehs]

Basically.
I don't even understand why they took the time to waste air on that statement.

ok

They just found out obama is gonna invade them later.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

I was one of the people saying that we should be slower to jump to conclusions earlier. I wasn't concealing any hidden agenda, as you can probably tell from my recent posts. Understand that some people grieve by trying to make sense of a situation, which often involves trying to be as objective as possible until all the facts are in.

I'm not defending Brolic in particular, mind you. Just the idea that it's wrong to think we should be careful before jumping to conclusions. Not everyone who doesn't immediately jump on board the "Fuck the police" narrative has a secret racist agenda.

As an aside, I'm not buying into the "Wilson will never be punished" line either. I'm as skeptical as anyone and would hang the fuck out of juries if anyone was crazy enough to put me on one. Even I think this is starting to look pretty damning.

In theory, people advocating withholding judgment wouldn't necessarily also be racist and/or with a pro-police bias. However, the majority of posters who've said this in this thread have been abrasive, seemingly only use that argument against people who are making conclusions based on what is already known that paint officer Wilson in a bad light (and who acknowledge the very quantifiable trend in situations like these throughout American history), and those same people saying "you can't pass judgment" have frequently done just that with their own speculation.

I won't do a Jado-style post showcasing all of that, but just look up David H. Wong's last posts here. If I recall any more particular usernames, I'll mention them.

 

[thepotatoman]

Officer with gun chasing someone down the street vs. an unarmed guy running from an armed cop.

Who has more reason to be afraid for their life here?

I can't fucking stand the bullshit around this case. I can not take it. I am losing my ever-loving mind trying to wrap my head around the smear campaign on this kid.

I feel you man. Not since the terrorism scare of 2002-2004 has it been so hard to avoid such ignorant and hateful comments everywhere from both sides of the political spectrum all demonizing Brown.

At least with Zimmerman, it was one shot that clearly happened in a middle of a real fight so it's not a huge stretch to see why people might call it self defense regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

Here, all it took was taking 48 dollars worth of cigars and a single shove for everyone to turn and say that his death was justified, no further investigation needed. Neogaf is about the only place I know of not piling on to Brown for not being "an angel".

 

[onadesertedisland]

Same could be said of those taking the opposite stance. I still don't see it that way though. If it comes out the cop was wrong I'd have no problem accepting it as fact and not fabrication.

Not to be a jerk, but you tossing in the quip about other stance is sort of like the police chief releasing the robbery video...

 

[Setsuna]

If a black person shot a white cop I'm sure there would be a national manhunt on.

If anyone shoots a cop people are going to get mad

 

[FiggyCal]

This is why I hate CNN. Not everything us a 50/50 issue. There are 4 (?) Witnesses with the same story and they're pretending like it's still in the air whether or not Brown rushed at him.

 

[FreddieQuell]

Same could be said of those taking the opposite stance. I still don't see it that way though. If it comes out the cop was wrong I'd have no problem accepting it as fact and not fabrication.

The other side is not doing the same thing. We think Wilson murdered a surrending Brown because of the evidence and multiple unrelated witness testimony. You believe Wilson defended himself from an attacking Brown because of the testimony of a few of his friends and your admitted bias towards authority.

 

[user8503492]

Hate to say it..but I dont think this cop will be charged/convicted of any crime.

The autopsy mixed with massive character damage from thr robbery video will be more then enough to sway a jury/judge.

The video was enough for me to think this...the autopsy showing no real execution style killing sealed the deal.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

eh, both sides of the story seemed too sensationalized to me. I have not been following the story as closely as other, so I apologize if some of this has already been debunked or explained.

I don't believe that the officer just brutality murdered good-boy mike brown who was standing peacefully with his hands in the air. That just doesn't make sense.

I also don't believe that Brown rushed the officer in some drug induced state and ran threw a storm of bullets until he was fine hit in the hit. This isn't a damn zombie movie.

Has to be somewhere in the middle where the officer approached Brown. Maybe he panicked knowing he just committed a theft so he does something rash like punching the officer in the face, slamming the his door back on him as he's trying to exit or threaten him in some other way. As he is trying to flee the scene the enraged officer fires off at Brown like a dumbass. And Probably meaning to inflict some serious damage which is present by the bullet wound to the head.

I don't see anyone suggesting this in the thread at all. Everyone acknowledges that he at least resisted and ran away. Everyone would also acknowledge that he put his hands up in response to being shot at rather than his saintly disposition. I guess the truth will always lie in the middle if you misconstrue both sides.

 

[abuC]

Assuming that's what happened. Again, the other story is mike rushed the cop.

He had on slippers, SLIPPERS.

Rushing the cop is such a ridiculous story.

 

[BronsonLee]

Hate to say it..but I dont think this cop will be charged/convicted of any crime.

The autopsy mixed with massive character damage from thr robbery video will be more then enough to sway a jury/judge.

The video was enough for me to think this...the autopsy showing no real execution style killing sealed the deal.

I think you should look over the current information out there and reconvene. The autopsy does nothing but raise questions/put pressure on Wilson to account for what happened.

Considering the media highly reported the smokescreens as such, it's also unlikely a judge/jury would care.

 

[CrankyJay]

The other side is not doing the same thing. We think Wilson murdered a surrending Brown because of the evidence and multiple unrelated witness testimony. You believe Wilson defended himself from an attacking Brown because of the testimony of a few of his friends.

I think he's saying he wants to wait until all of the information has come out (including Wilson's side of events). Statements of friends of Wilson don't count.

The authorities are doing everyone, especially themselves, a huge disservice by not at least placating people with at least some transparency into the investigation (estimated timelines, an arrest, etc).

 

[Mariolee]

eh, both sides of the story seemed too sensationalized to me. I have not been following the story as closely as other, so I apologize if some of this has already been debunked or explained.

I don't believe that the officer just brutality murdered good-boy mike brown who was standing peacefully with his hands in the air. That just doesn't make sense.

I also don't believe that Brown rushed the officer in some drug induced state and ran threw a storm of bullets until he was fine hit in the hit. This isn't a damn zombie movie.

Has to be somewhere in the middle where the officer approached Brown. Maybe he panicked knowing he just committed a theft so he does something rash like punching the officer in the face, slamming the his door back on him as he's trying to exit or threaten him in some other way. As he is trying to flee the scene the enraged officer fires off at Brown like a dumbass. And Probably meaning to inflict some serious damage which is present by the bullet wound to the head.

I get that you haven't read a lot about the story, but a lot of gaps you claim the story has have actually been more than filled in with evidence and facts, and by overdramaticizing both factions in some weird way to appear objective you actually show that you don't know how level headed one side is more than the other and are kinda speculating from thin air.

 

[Nokagi]

This is why I hate CNN. Not everything us a 50/50 issue. There are 4 (?) Witnesses with the same story and they're pretending like it's still in the air whether or not Brown rushed at him.

haha yeah CNN is pretty hilarious. They want to remain neutral on everything.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't see anyone suggesting this in the thread at all. Everyone acknowledges that he at least resisted and ran away. Everyone would also acknowledge that he put his hands up in response to being shot at rather than his saintly disposition. I guess the truth will always lie in the middle if you misconstrue both sides.

The ultimate question we all want an answer to is "was the shooting justifiable in any way"

Anything else really doesn't matter. Can the shooting be justified.

 

[Punchy4486]

Well, I now understand why you feel the way you do about this case. You are clearly biased because of your job.

I understand the frustration towards people that disagree on this case because it seems so obvious to us. While I don't agree with his reasoning at all, he has relatively backed it up and managed to avoid being needlessly inflammatory (as far as I've seen).

Of course he has a different perspective after having lived a life not unlike a police officer. And I know law enforcement etc tend to vehemently defend each other too far. But he's said that if the judgment comes down against the cop he'll accept it as the truth, and I believe him.

We have to avoid vilifying the other side. There are plenty of good cops, and they probably require a little more evidence than the rest of us to assume the worst about one of their own. That's understandable I think.