Support NeoGAF

[Malyse]

How many posters that suggest we wait for solid details also deny that a problem with police militarization, police tactics, police training and/or institutionalized racism exists?

That's more of a thick circle than a Venn diagram.

 

[commedieu]

It's pretty silly to assume that people see a case that doesn't immediately pan out as "racist cop guns down unarmed teen" and believe that it means that institutional racism by law enforcement no longer exists. The only victory lap, I think, is in wanting people to, yes, wait for all the facts before crucifying every officer involved in a shooting.

That has nothing to do with the post saying "fuck all cops" is part of a side in this thread. Are the two sides?

1. Wait for all the facts. (which newly updated version with omissions and additions?)
2. Fuck police.

?

Because a lot of people are having well behaved discussions, and many understand what literally "WAITING FOR ALL FACTS" mean, but others don't quite get that its a pattern that plagues one group of posters here. No officers are crucified, they are alive and well. Wanting transparency isn't crucifying. Not wanting to see the same symptoms start up again.. changing officers story, Man jumped out of the bushes (We always jump out of the bushes), etc is no the same as demanding that the officer be crucified above the law.

 

[Ultrabum]

I believe institutional racism exists and is a significant problem plaguing many aspects of society.

I also believe in waiting for facts and evidence before condemning an incident such as this as a police sanctioned murder complete with cover up.

People that come in and and say shit like, "#allcops are racist" are way worse than any victory lap.

 

[Malyse]

That has nothing to do with the post saying "fuck all cops" is part of a side in this thread. Are the two sides?

1. Wait for all the facts.
2. Fuck police.

?

I personally ascribe to "fuck the police while we wait for emperical evidence

Spoiler

that invariably justifies a fuck the police response

" ideology.

 

[KHarvey16]

That's more of a thick circle than a Venn diagram.

Because you asked or because you like to make convenient assumptions? This is consistently one of the problems in topics like these where any hesitance to blindly accepting a particular narrative is interpreted as a denial of whatever social issue that narrative is supposed to represent.

 

[Velcro Fly]

I believe institutional racism exists and is a significant problem plaguing many aspects of society.

I also believe in waiting for facts and evidence before condemning an incident such as this as a police sanctioned murder complete with cover up.

People that come in and and say shit like, "#allcops are racist" are way worse than any victory lap.

i feel like i agree with this.

when this first broke i was curious as to what actually happened and in my earlier posts here I don't think I took a side.

i'm interested to see if the gunshot residue stuff is real because that would be pretty damning if true.

but i also acknowledge that there are problems with the police and how they handle things. i completely understand why people do not trust them.

 

[Malyse]

Because you asked or because you like to make convenient assumptions? This is consistently one of the problems in topics like these where any hesitance to blindly accepting a particular narrative is interpreted as a denial of whatever social issue that narrative is supposed to represent.

How many of these threads do we need before the suspicion is on the cop and not the dead body? And furthermore, who do I need to talk to about repealing the right of officers to unilaterally serve as executioners?

 

[Ultrabum]

How many of these threads do we need before the suspicion is on the cop and not the dead body? And furthermore, who do I need to talk to about repealing the right of officers to unilaterally serve as executioners?

I think you are dumb. Do you really honestly believe that police have the right to execute people? They have a right to self defense. This cop was probably shot at, and he shot back.

Guess what, police are still united states citizens while they are on duty, and have the same rights as any US citizen, including self defense.

 

[KHarvey16]

How many of these threads do we need before the suspicion is on the cop and not the dead body? And furthermore, who do I need to talk to about repealing the right of officers to unilaterally serve as executioners?

That doesn't make sense. Not accepting the cop acted wrongly without understanding the details is not the same as assuming the dead body earned a gunshot. Waiting for the details means just that, and the fact a position like that is interpreted to mean "taking the police's side" is precisely the problem. Your last sentence is a great example of the kind of hyperbole that makes these discussions unnecessarily difficult.

 

[Volimar]

How many of these threads do we need before the suspicion is on the cop and not the dead body? And furthermore, who do I need to talk to about repealing the right of officers to unilaterally serve as executioners?

These threads are more or less anecdotal. We don't really have the benefit of a new thread every time an officer isn't "executing" people because it's not as sensational. That's the entire point of waiting for the facts to come in before you throw anyone, cop or civilian, to the wolves.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

I believe institutional racism exists and is a significant problem plaguing many aspects of society.

I also believe in waiting for facts and evidence before condemning an incident such as this as a police sanctioned murder complete with cover up.

People that come in and and say shit like, "#allcops are racist" are way worse than any victory lap.

Who the fuck has ever done this, ever, even in the threads where the majority of people are (rightfully) coming down on Police Officers?

My position and others who are vocal about this type of thing is that "good cops" don't get a pass by remaining silent in a system that deals in corruption and is plagued by institutional racism.

Additionally, no, a victory lap about justification for someone being DEAD is not worse than a nameless, faceless person on a video game message board saying "fuck the police".

 

[stufte]

That's more of a thick circle than a Venn diagram.

I actually like to have all the information before getting too heated about shit like this. I also think that the militarization of the police is one of the biggest problems in this country, along with also believing that there are lots of poorly trained cops. I also think that institutionalized racism is a real thing.

But go a head and toss everyone like me into your tiny preconceived "bad person" box because you can't possibly imagine how me or anyone else could want to wait for more info and still think those other things are bad.

 

[Malyse]

I think you are dumb. Do you really honestly believe that police have the right to execute people? They have a right to self defense. This cop was probably shot at, and he shot back.

Guess what, police are still united states citizens while they are on duty, and have the same rights as any US citizen, including self defense.

First off

NeoGAF is a forum for holding civil, evidence-based discussion. Do not post disingenuously, or in an inflammatory manner for the sole purpose of upsetting others.

Say you disagree with me. Don't fucking call me dumb.

Second, you clearly have a bias toward the officer.

I actually like to have all the information before getting too heated about shit like this. I also think that the militarization of the police is one of the biggest problems in this country, along with also believing that there are lots of poorly trained cops. I also think that institutionalized racism is a real thing.

But go a head and toss everyone like me into your tiny preconceived "bad person" box because you can't possibly imagine how me or anyone else could want to wait for more info and still think those other things are bad.

That's exactly what I said. In no way, form or fashion was I using hyperbole to emphasize a point as I do with almost every post I make.

 

[Volimar]

That's exactly what I said. In no way, form or fashion was I using hyperbole to emphasize a point as I do with almost every post I make.

... the right of officers to unilaterally serve as executioners?

That doesn't sound like hyperbole to you?

 

[Ultrabum]

Who the fuck has ever done this, ever, even in the threads where the majority of people are (rightfully) coming down on Police Officers?

My position and others who are vocal about this type of thing is that "good cops" don't get a pass by remaining silent in a system that deals in corruption and is plagued by institutional racism.

Additionally, no, a victory lap about justification for someone being DEAD is not worse than a nameless, faceless person on a video game message board saying "fuck the police".

No it won't. Nobody on this country gives a shit when black people die, and that means when black people try to give a shit they'll be put down ruthlessly and ignored by everyone else.

I honestly don't know how black people deal with this shit.

Here is a quote from one page ago, suggesting black people will be put down ruthlessly, I assume by the white police.

 

[Ultrabum]

First off



Say you disagree with me. Don't fucking call me dumb.

Second, you clearly have a bias toward the officer.



That's exactly what I said. In no way, form or fashion was I using hyperbole to emphasize a point as I do with almost every post I make.

I am sorry for calling you dumb. I disagree with what you have said, and it is literally incorrect as unilaterally implies that no police officers have been shot and killed, and police officers have been shot and killed.

Second, yes I'm sure I do have a bias towards the officer. The bias is based on many things. I work in a hospital and on a handful of occasions patients started to get very violent with me, and always a cop stationed in the ER came immediately and peacefully diffused the situation.

To follow up, lets talk about your bias towards the victim. If he turns out to have gunshot residue on his hands, along with the recovered stolen gun and recovered bullets, will you still believe that he is innocent? I think you have a clear bias as well, probably for your own reasons in addition to the recent Mike Brown case. This is just my guess.

To suggest that anyone has absolute zero bias is silly.

 

[Malyse]

That doesn't make sense. Not accepting the cop acted wrongly without understanding the details is not the same as assuming the dead body earned a gunshot. Waiting for the details means just that, and the fact a position like that is interpreted to mean "taking the police's side" is precisely the problem. Your last sentence is a great example of the kind of hyperbole that makes these discussions unnecessarily difficult.

Problem is that the wait for the facts people aren't usually waiting for the facts, but rather any excuse that can be used to justify the officer in question. For example, Mike Brown. We have numerous eyewitness accounts saying her was surrendering. We have caught the cops in numerous lies. We have mapped out a recreation that shows that the story posited by FPD is empirically false. We have tons of data showing the moral calibre of the police in question. So why are there still people waiting for the facts?

Furthermore, I personally believe the police in STL are ar least in partially complicit in the Ferguson affairs. Remember, a lot of the things that were during the protests were the STPD (STLPD?). This isn't a new thing. Just reading in Roorda's background and the shit he tries to get passed is indicative of the problems in the area.

I think it foolish to assume that these police are in the right until proven otherwise. Same for the NYPD, but that's neither here nor there.


But that's just what I think

That doesn't sound like hyperbole to you?

JFC. You really need a /sarcasm?

 

[Ultrabum]

JFC. You really need a /sarcasm?

I usually try and avoid sarcasm in threads about people dieing horrible deaths.

 

[Volimar]

Problem is that the way for the facts people aren't usually waiting for the facts, but rather any excuse that can be used to justify the officer in question. For example, Mike Brown. We have numerous eyewitness accounts saying her was surrendering. We have caught the cops in numerous lies. We have mapped out a recreation that shows that the story posited by FPD is empirically false. We have tons of data showing the moral calibre of the police in question. So why are there still people waiting for the facts?

Furthermore, I personally believe the police in STL are ar least in partially complicit in the Ferguson affairs. Remember, a lot of the things that were during the protests were the STPD (STLPD?). This isn't a new thing. Just reading in Roorda's background and the shit he tries to get passed is indicative of the problems in the area.

I think it foolish to assume that these police are in the right until proven otherwise. Same for the NYPD, but that's neither here nor there.


But that's just what I think

I'm so stupid.

the police in STL

My brain - "what do the cops in Seattle have to do with anything?"

Fuck it, I'm going to bed.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Here is a quote from one page ago, suggesting black people will be put down ruthlessly, I assume by the white police.

Yep. It's not a wrong viewpoint.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but there's been a lot of stories recently about black people who have been being killed under, for the sake of not upsetting the balance of this thread even more, "questionable" circumstances. The reaction to these these things by some has been to make the victims somehow worthy of their misfortune. Very common in the mainstream. This is done by several people here on GAF as well, who hide behind the curtain of "wait for the facts" and "we don't know all the information", even in clear cut cases of wrongdoing such as Eric Garner and Renisha McBride. Black victims (or black people in general) aren't given the benefit of the doubt the vast majority of the time.

As far as the idea of people being "put down" in the post that you illustrated, I'm not the poster, so I can't say for sure what he/she meant. What I took it as was more along the lines of "black people who resist the status quo and try to do something will end up in the same situation as people who they're trying to advocate for". There hasn't been a mass killing of folks in the street (yet), but the idea of disproportate response isn't so unusual. We watched it just a few days after Mike Brown was executed in the street.

I'll end by saying that post doesn't say anything close to #allcopsareracist.

 

[Malyse]

I am sorry for calling you dumb. I disagree with what you have said, and it is literally incorrect as unilaterally implies that no police officers have been shot and killed, and police officers have been shot and killed.

Second, yes I'm sure I do have a bias towards the officer. The bias is based on many things. I work in a hospital and on a handful of occasions patients started to get very violent with me, and always a cop stationed in the ER came immediately and peacefully diffused the situation.

To follow up, lets talk about your bias towards the victim. If he turns out to have gunshot residue on his hands, along with the recovered stolen gun and recovered bullets, will you still believe that he is innocent? I think you have a clear bias as well, probably for your own reasons in addition to the recent Mike Brown case. This is just my guess.

To suggest that anyone has absolute zero bias is silly.

I would still argue against shooting 16 fucking shots.

To be clear, my argument is as often irresponsible use of lethal force as it is the presumption of guilt toward a black victim. My mind runs multiple threads at once constantly.

And cops kill a hell of a lot more than they get killed.

I usually try and avoid sarcasm in threads about people dieing horrible deaths.

Most people respond to trauma by laughing or crying. I'm tired of tears.

 

[Volimar]

This is done by several people here on GAF as well, who hide behind the curtain of "wait for the facts" and "we don't know all the information", even in clear cut cases of wrongdoing such as Eric Garner and Renisha McBride. Black victims (or black people in general) aren't given the benefit of the doubt the vast majority of the time.

You're ascribing prejudices to people without having any evidence other than they don't want people to make snap judgments.

 

[Malyse]

You're ascribing prejudices to people without having any evidence other than they don't want people to make snap judgments.

Internalized racism is still a thing, yo. Insidious as all fuck too.

 

[Malyse]

Nothing to see here.

 

[Ultrabum]

Yep. It's not a wrong viewpoint.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but there's been a lot of stories recently about black people who have been being killed under, for the sake of not upsetting the balance of this thread even more, "questionable" circumstances. The reaction to these these things by some has been to make the victims somehow worthy of their misfortune. Very common in the mainstream. This is done by several people here on GAF as well, who hide behind the curtain of "wait for the facts" and "we don't know all the information", even in clear cut cases of wrongdoing such as Eric Garner and Renisha McBride. Black victims (or black people in general) aren't given the benefit of the doubt the vast majority of the time.

As far as the idea of people being "put down" in the post that you illustrated, I'm not the poster, so I can't say for sure what he/she meant. What I took it as was more along the lines of "black people who resist the status quo and try to do something will end up in the same situation as people who they're trying to advocate for". There hasn't been a mass killing of folks in the street (yet), but the idea of disproportate response isn't so unusual. We watched it just a few days after Mike Brown was executed in the street.

I'll end by saying that post doesn't say anything close to #allcopsareracist.

I believe institutional racism exists and is a significant problem plaguing many aspects of society.

I also believe in waiting for facts and evidence before condemning an incident such as this as a police sanctioned murder complete with cover up.

People that come in and and say shit like, "#allcops are racist" are way worse than any victory lap.

I'm just gonna quote myself, and say that I agree with you institutional racism is a huge problem. I see it all the time. It is terrible.

I will also say, no one used the #allcops in this thread, I said shit like #allcops are racist, not literally using the hashtag.

 

[KHarvey16]

Problem is that the wait for the facts people aren't usually waiting for the facts, but rather any excuse that can be used to justify the officer in question. For example, Mike Brown. We have numerous eyewitness accounts saying her was surrendering. We have caught the cops in numerous lies. We have mapped out a recreation that shows that the story posited by FPD is empirically false. We have tons of data showing the moral calibre of the police in question. So why are there still people waiting for the facts?

Furthermore, I personally believe the police in STL are ar least in partially complicit in the Ferguson affairs. Remember, a lot of the things that were during the protests were the STPD (STLPD?). This isn't a new thing. Just reading in Roorda's background and the shit he tries to get passed is indicative of the problems in the area.

I think it foolish to assume that these police are in the right until proven otherwise. Same for the NYPD, but that's neither here nor there.


But that's just what I think

The issue with that is those arguing we don't have the necessary details to come to any conclusion have "nothing" to argue. In other words there's no narrative they're looking to support, so the only thing that can be done is to argue why the assumptions made or liberties taken with what we know are invalid, unjustified or illogical. And when you're arguing against the establishment of a narrative it's interpreted that you are arguing for whatever you perceive to be the contrary position. If you want to argue that a cop abused his power and I want to argue against that becoming the accepted narrative pending further information, you perceive that to be me arguing that the cop did not abuse his power. There's an assumed dichotomy and it's incorrect.

 

[Malyse]

The issue with that is those arguing we don't have the necessary details to come to any conclusion have "nothing" to argue. In other words there's no narrative they're looking to support, so the only thing that can be done is to argue why the assumptions made or liberties taken with what we know are invalid, unjustified or illogical. And when you're arguing against the establishment of a narrative it's interpreted that you are arguing for whatever you perceive to be the contrary position. If you want to argue that a cop abused his power and I want to argue against that becoming the accepted narrative pending further information, you perceive that to be me arguing that the cop did not abuse his power. There's an assumed dichotomy and it's incorrect.

I like how much faith you have in people to not be awful. I unfortunately don't.

 

[KHarvey16]

I like how much faith you have in people to not be awful. I unfortunately don't.

Not assuming they're awful isn't having faith that they aren't. Again a false dichotomy. You imagine it must either be assumed they are awful or assumed they are not awful, where I'm trying to explain to you that some of us approach it without assuming either.

 

[Ultrabum]

The other thing about the wait and see group is this. When enough evidence becomes available and they then make their comments / judgement they will get accused of having a victory lap. No, they simply waited to make their judgment of the situation until enough evidence was present, and then want to talk about it.

I don't think this has happened in this thread, or in the Mike Brown thread. But it sure as hell happened in the Daniele Watts thread.

 

[Malyse]

Not assuming they're awful isn't having faith that they aren't. Again a false dichotomy. You imagine it must either be assumed they are awful or assumed they are not awful, where I'm trying to explain to you that some of us approach it without assuming either.

Did you miss where I speak almost exclusively in hyperbole?

 

[stufte]

Did you miss where I speak almost exclusively in hyperbole?

I'll go ahead and post the same thing you did:

NeoGAF is a forum for holding civil, evidence-based discussion. Do not post disingenuously, or in an inflammatory manner for the sole purpose of upsetting others.

 

[KHarvey16]

Did you miss where I speak almost exclusively in hyperbole?

Is that all you want to contribute to the discussion?

 

[Malyse]

I'll go ahead and post the same thing you did:

Not remotely the same. Thanks for playing. Sorry I bruised your ego or whatever.

Is that all you want to contribute to the discussion?

Nope. I think you're being too pedantic on the denotation versus the connotation of my phrasing and refusing to see the intent beyond the occasionally poorly chosen word choices. But let's drop this and get back to yet another instance of the systematic destruction of black lives.

 

[stufte]

Not remotely the same. Thanks for playing. Sorry I bruised your ego or whatever.

So posting in an entirely hyperbolic fashion isn't posting disingenuously or being inflammatory?

Ok then, carry on.

 

[KHarvey16]

Nope. I think you're being too pedantic on the denotation versus the connotation of my phrasing and refusing to see the intent beyond the occasionally poorly chosen word choices. But let's drop this and get back to yet another instance of the systematic destruction of black lives.

I've directly addressed everything you've said. Right now you're trying to hide behind hyperbole ("oh I wasn't even being serious lol") and dance around anything even related to a substantive position. You have a strange way of demonstrating that you take an issue seriously.

 

[Malyse]

So posting in an entirely hyperbolic fashion isn't posting disingenuously or being inflammatory?

Ok then, carry on.

*sigh*

Saying it's all hyperbole was sarcasm.

That's more of a thick circle than a Venn diagram.

This is me saying there's a lot of overlap. Not that every single person is in both camps, but there's a hell of a lot in both.

I actually like to have all the information before getting too heated about shit like this. I also think that the militarization of the police is one of the biggest problems in this country, along with also believing that there are lots of poorly trained cops. I also think that institutionalized racism is a real thing.

But go a head and toss everyone like me into your tiny preconceived "bad person" box because you can't possibly imagine how me or anyone else could want to wait for more info and still think those other things are bad.

This is you being unnecessarily offended. Or disingenuous. I'm not really sure which. Because obviously the things that don't apply to you don't apply to you. As a side note, this is also the core of the #notallcops mentality.

And this is me saying that this tangent is fucking stupid, so let's get back on topic.

I've directly addressed everything you've said. Right now you're trying to hide behind hyperbole ("oh I wasn't even being serious lol") and dance around anything even related to a substantive position. You have a strange way of demonstrating that you take an issue seriously.

Believe whatever the fuck you want, but get back on topic.

 

[KHarvey16]

Believe whatever the fuck you want, but get back on topic.

Is this sarcasm, hyperbole or will you actually own up to this post being serious?

We could hardly be more on topic.

 

[stufte]

*sigh*

Saying it's all hyperbole was sarcasm.

So disingenuous then. Gotcha.

This is you being unnecessarily offended.

Am I offended? I was just pointing out #notallposters...

Or disingenuous.

In what way?

Anyway, yes, lets get back to not talking about you.

 

[Jmanunknown]

Guess what, police are still united states citizens while they are on duty, and have the same rights as any US citizen, including self defense.

When police killed John Crawford, Andy Lopez, Darrien Hunt, John Winkler, Eric Garner, Dillon Taylor, and Mike Brown were any of those gentlemen killed in self defense? 7 people who had their lives snuffed out by police officers. Not one officer was charged or has been yet charged with a crime in any of these cases. It is bs of the highest level and you wanna say police have the same rights as a regular citizen that is completely and utter bs. Police are basically a special class of citizen that may or may not be subject to the laws they are charged with upholding. Most of the time they are not held to the same standard as the average citizen when it comes to the laws and that is not right.

 

[Malyse]

When police killed John Crawford, Andy Lopez, Darrien Hunt, John Winkler, Eric Garner, Dillon Taylor, and Mike Brown were any of those gentlemen killed in self defense? 7 people who had their lives snuffed out by police officers. Not one officer was charged or has been yet charged with a crime in any of these cases. It is bs of the highest level and you wanna say police have the same rights as a regular citizen that is completely and utter bs. Police are basically a special class of citizen that may or may not be subject to the laws they are charged with upholding. Most of the time they are not held to the same standard as the average citizen when it comes to the laws and that is not right.

Plus if police were normal citizens, there would be a trial every time someone got shot.

----

Also.

In another installment of "Let's have a study to confirm that thing we already knew":

A new study by Pro Publica of FBI data on police-involved deaths found that black males between the ages 15 and 19 are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts.

[...]

Could higher rates of crime commission by black teens relative to their white peers explain that difference? Or, put differently, are black teenagers simply that much more likely than white teenagers to be involved in situations in which police violence is justified?

The data suggest that the answer is no.

 

[Ultrabum]

When police killed John Crawford, Andy Lopez, Darrien Hunt, John Winkler, Eric Garner, Dillon Taylor, and Mike Brown were any of those gentlemen killed in self defense? 7 people who had their lives snuffed out by police officers. Not one officer was charged or has been yet charged with a crime in any of these cases. It is bs of the highest level and you wanna say police have the same rights as a regular citizen that is completely and utter bs. Police are basically a special class of citizen that may or may not be subject to the laws they are charged with upholding. Most of the time they are not held to the same standard as the average citizen when it comes to the laws and that is not right.

I don't know the specifics of all of these cases.

I think Mike Brown was probably killed unjustly and I believe that the officer is currently being investigated and in the middle of a grand jury hearing.

Is that not true? I think he will be found guilty, because the evidence suggests he broke the law.

Just because someone is a police officer does not mean they can't commit a crime. And specifically, because the job of being a cop involves intrinsic power, the chance that the power will be abused is high. There are dirty cops, there are dirty departments. This is a serious problem.

However, if someone starts to shoot at you, I think you should be able to shoot back.

I'm not sure if that's what happened here, it appears that way because there is ballistic evidence (according to the cops who may be lying).

 

[KHarvey16]

Plus if police were normal citizens, there would be a trial every time someone got shot.

Is this more hyperbole or do you actually believe this? Because it certainly isn't true.

 

[Jmanunknown]

I don't know the specifics of all of these cases.

I think Mike Brown was probably killed unjustly and I believe that the officer is currently being investigated and in the middle of a grand jury hearing.

Is that not true? I think he will be found guilty, because the evidence suggests he broke the law.

Just because someone is a police officer does not mean they can't commit a crime. And specifically, because the job of being a cop involves intrinsic power, the chance that the power will be abused is high. There are dirty cops, there are dirty departments. This is a serious problem.

However, if someone starts to shoot at you, I think you should be able to shoot back.

I'm not sure if that's what happened here, it appears that way because there is ballistic evidence (according to the cops who may be lying).

John Crawford did nothing wrong gets killed by police officer no one gets charged with anything.

Andy Lopez did nothing wrong gets killed by police officer no one is charged with anything.

Darrien Hunt may or may not have "lunged" at police was shot from behind 6 times after he had ran away from police trying to escape certain death from the hands of police he was not fast enough and was killed. No charges as of yet.

John Winkler was being stabbed by a maniac managed to get away from said maniac only to then be shot and killed by a police officer no charges were filed. Maniac actually lived.

Eric Garner gets arrested for allegedly selling loosies gets put in choke hold no one really puts in any effort to help him even paramedics. No charges as of yet.

Dillon Taylor did nothing wrong police assume he is reaching for gun except he was pulling up pants and has no weapon is executed on spot. No charges have been filed.

Mike Brown well you know about Mike Brown no charges filed and personally i'll be shocked if charges are filed given the entire situation.

All of these are just within the last year and their probably more like them.

 

[besada]

Let's everyone stop trying to guess everyone else's ulterior motive and calm down a little. Rather than spend your time discussing each other, and each other's posts, please discuss the issue. Two rhetorical tactics we see in these threads constantly are when someone accuses someone else of bad faith or worse because they aren't willing to draw judgement based on the available facts and it's opposite, and unwillingness to allow anyone to draw judgements, no matter how many facts accumulate. Both are bad for real discussion, and both have been beaten to death in these threads.

If someone is unwilling to make a judgement, that's okay. And if someone else thinks they can make a reasonable judgement given the facts, that's okay too. But GAF isn't a courtroom, and we aren't bound by rules of jurisprudence to assume innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law. We're a discussion forum, and refusing to discuss what's going on by constantly shouting "not enough facts" is detrimental to discussion. No one is requiring you to draw a conclusion, but don't jam up every conversation in the thread insisting that other posters withold judgement until you've decided it's okay. If all you have to offer is that it's impossible to even discuss without all the facts, then drop out of the thread until you're ready to discuss the issue.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

There is an update to this:

The Missouri Highway Patrol analysis found gunshot residue on Myers' hands, on his shirt and inside the waistband and pockets of his jeans. Police said that although gunshot residue can be present on anyone near a shooting, the results show levels consistent with Myers being the shooter, because the police officer was standing too far away.

Ballistics evidence also revealed three bullets that hit the ground where the officer was trying to take cover matched Myers' gun. A round found inside a car behind the officer was too badly damaged to be able to to match it to his gun, however, it did not match the type of bullets the officer fired, police said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_3dafbce7-22b0-5c9a-b7e5-98460279f135.html

This article includes a picture of the deceased with what they say is the gun found at the scene.

 

[zeemumu]

Was it one of the guns on his lap in that picture?

 

[freddy]

Was it one of the guns on his lap in that picture?

Apparently, yea.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

From AP

http://m.lawofficer.com/article/news/gunshot-residue-links-pistol-s




Basically gunshot residue all over his guy.


Edit: missed that it was already posted.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Well, that's unfortunate.

As I said before, I still have a very big problem with the idea of a pedestrian check. But if he had the gun and the evidence is consistent that he was the shooter, I can't defend his actions. The shooting wasn't unjustified.

I'd still love to know why the hell the guy confronted the group to begin with, but I guess we never will.

What a messed up story.

 

[KHarvey16]

Let's everyone stop trying to guess everyone else's ulterior motive and calm down a little. Rather than spend your time discussing each other, and each other's posts, please discuss the issue. Two rhetorical tactics we see in these threads constantly are when someone accuses someone else of bad faith or worse because they aren't willing to draw judgement based on the available facts and it's opposite, and unwillingness to allow anyone to draw judgements, no matter how many facts accumulate. Both are bad for real discussion, and both have been beaten to death in these threads.

If someone is unwilling to make a judgement, that's okay. And if someone else thinks they can make a reasonable judgement given the facts, that's okay too. But GAF isn't a courtroom, and we aren't bound by rules of jurisprudence to assume innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law. We're a discussion forum, and refusing to discuss what's going on by constantly shouting "not enough facts" is detrimental to discussion. No one is requiring you to draw a conclusion, but don't jam up every conversation in the thread insisting that other posters withold judgement until you've decided it's okay. If all you have to offer is that it's impossible to even discuss without all the facts, then drop out of the thread until you're ready to discuss the issue.

If someone makes a judgment not supported by facts, is it permissible to point this out when arguing against it?