Let's argue about Mike Brown!

kickrockz713 said:
I stopped watching to go finish watching my team play. How bad is it?
Click to expand...
really bad, looting, fire, and they are even attacking news reporters, blocking off traffic/street. martial law will probably be enforce soon, and national guard will def be call in to maintain order. police has totally abandoned their post, because they fear the protesters. this is in fergeuson, and st,louis, and other places in missouri.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Kezmer" post="12267151" timestamp="1416893744"]I cant wait to deliver my mail route tomorrow a mile from Ferguson[/quote]
From what I've heard, all governmental services are shut down except for first responders.
 
Thats Government. We arent exactly Government. We are a part of the Government called essential government personnel. Im 18 years there they have never stopped the mail ever. We will see about tomorrow though may be a first
 
Finger_Shocker said:
Apparently LEO do not need such level of evidence before they start shooting?
Click to expand...
*sigh* Why do you not understand laws and rights (especially since you talk about them so much)? If a LEO (or any civilian for that matter) is attacked and believes that their life is in danger, they have a LEGAL right to use lethal force. If someone was kicking the shit out of you and you thought you were going to die, you could kill them. Sure, you'd have to prove your case. But if you aren't making shit up or exaggerating and can show evidence that you were being severely attacked, you can "get away with murder". That's the law. Seriously...look it up.

Are you still with me? Police officers carry guns. Any physical altercation they get into can very quickly escalate into a life threatening event. In this specific case, all the courts need to see is solid proof that validates Officer Wilson's claim that his life was threatened.

So, what proof does he have? He has his testimony. He has his medical documentation of injuries sustained, he has three autopsy reports conducted on Michael Brown that corroborate his story, and he has witness testimony (which, I'm sorry...probably takes a back seat here in the Grand Jury's eyes because there have been many different witness accounts and eye witnesses are generally regarded as unreliable to begin with).

So, when the Grand Jury says they reached their decision based on lack of evidence...this is what they're talking about. What evidence is there that supports charges being filed against Darren Wilson?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spokker said:
McDonald's windows were smashed. A local Mexican restaurant and a Little Ceaser's were set on fire. Cop car on fire. Saw a bunch of protesters say, in a separate incident, "fuck this car" and smash in the windows. Don Lemon got tear gassed.

Protesters marching in Los Angeles and New York as well. Police is escorting the group in Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
the protesters in nyc splashed the new york police department commissioner with fake blood. that is crazy

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/11/24/sharpton-calls-ferguson-decision-absolute-blow-protesters-hit-streets/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do anyone even know how many UNARMED individuals have been killed by police just this week alone in the USA?

Even North Korea and Saudi Arabia do not kill its citizens at such a alarming rate

 
n8rockerasu said:
*sigh* Why do you not understand laws and rights (especially since you talk about them so much)? If a LEO (or any civilian for that matter) is attacked and believes that their life is in danger, they have a LEGAL right to use lethal force. If someone was kicking the shit out of you and you thought you were going to die, you could kill them. Sure, you'd have to prove your case. But if you aren't making shit up or exaggerating and can show evidence that you were being severely attacked, you can "get away with murder". That's the law. Seriously...look it up.

Are you still with me? Police officers carry guns. Any physical altercation they get into can very quickly escalate into a life threatening event. In this specific case, all the courts need to see is solid proof that validates Officer Wilson's claim that his life was threatened.

So, what proof does he have? He has his testimony. He has his medical documentation of injuries sustained, he has three autopsy reports conducted on Michael Brown that corroborate his story, and he has witness testimony (which, I'm sorry...probably takes a back seat here in the Grand Jury's eyes because there have been many different witness accounts and eye witnesses are generally regarded as unreliable to begin with).

So, when the Grand Jury says they reached their decision based on lack of evidence...this is what they're talking about. What evidence is there that supports charges being filed against Darren Wilson?
Click to expand...
What do you not understand yourself !!!!

A individual right to self defense and prove such a act is far far far far more greater then the word of a police officer..

Do you not see all a police officer have to do is make a excuse of self-defense and it is up to the victim to prove they didn't deserve it

So you are farking clueless to the level of burden on either side and it always favors the officer regardless

 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267242" timestamp="1416895350"]What do you not understand yourself !!!!

A individual right to self defense and prove such a act is far far far far more greater then the word of a police officer..

Do you not see all a police officer have to do is make a excuse of self-defense and it is up to the victim to prove they didn't deserve it

So you are farking clueless to the level of burden on either side and it always favors the officer regardless[/quote]
I see you've read all the released eye witness testimony that's been released... oh wait, corroborating evidence is to be dismissed.

When witnesses change their story after autopsy results are released, there's a problem with their statement. Especially when they admit that they didn't actually witness anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finger_Shocker said:
What do you not understand yourself !!!!

A individual right to self defense and prove such a act is far far far far more greater then the word of a police officer..

Do you not see all a police officer have to do is make a excuse of self-defense and it is up to the victim to prove they didn't deserve it

So you are farking clueless to the level of burden on either side and it always favors the officer regardless
Click to expand...
You're scared that LEOs have too much power. I get it. All I'm asking is can you present evidence that Michael Brown was shot unjustly? This is how the courts work. They need evidence. If there is none...then this will be the end result. Every single time. Hell, even OJ got off for "lack of evidence".

If Wilson had a history of police brutality or was suspended in the past, you'd have something. But there's nothing here, man. There is literally nothing to pursue. All you have are personal beliefs and suspicions. We can't go around convicting people of murder based on that. As YBX87 brought up earlier, can you imagine how many wrongful convictions there would be if that's how the courts functioned?

 
Here's what I never get in these situations. If the problem is a corrupt justice system, why not go after that? Why do they go after local businesses, which means they'll suffer the economic impact. I don't think there should be any violence, I just don't get the logic of the rioters and looters. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
n8rockerasu said:
You're scared that LEOs have too much power. I get it. All I'm asking is can you present evidence that Michael Brown was shot unjustly? This is how the courts work. They need evidence. If there is none...then this will be the end result. Every single time. Hell, even OJ got off for "lack of evidence".

If Wilson had a history of police brutality or was suspended in the past, you'd have something. But there's nothing here, man. There is literally nothing to pursue. All you have are personal beliefs and suspicions. We can't go around convicting people of murder based on that. As YBX87 brought up earlier, can you imagine how many wrongful convictions there would be if that's how the courts functioned?
Click to expand...
Again how many people have been freed from prison for WRONGFUL convictions ( guess who the fark put them there in the first place, guess who investigated and used that evidence )

Most of the wrongfully imprisoned spend at least TWENTY years before the truth surface

Most of the wrongfully imprisoned are MINORITIES

How many POLICE AND GOV"T officials have been held accountable and imprisoned for fabricating or falsifying evidence: NONE

 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267328" timestamp="1416897181"]Again how many people have been freed from prison for WRONGFUL convictions ( guess who the fark put them there in the first place, guess who investigated and used that evidence )

Most of the wrongfully imprisoned spend at least TWENTY years before the truth surface

Most of the wrongfully imprisoned are MINORITIES

How many POLICE AND GOV"T officials have been held accountable and imprisoned for fabricating or falsifying evidence: NONE[/quote]
Orly? None? So glad you're citing facts... Because ia simple Google search will pull multiple examples.

Using THIS CASE as your stepping point for that is idiotic. It was a justified shoot, corroborated by witnesses and forensics.

The system isn't perfect. No one is saying that. I'm all for holding the appropriate corrupt officials accountable. Hell, outside investigators are great! But this case was investigated properly by multiple agencies.
 
 The logic of destroying:

County, towns, cities, survive only on the economic structure of said location.  The economic structure ( BUSINESSES ) brings in the capital $$$$ that supports the corrupt gov't and its cronies of armed thugs ( LEO ).  Destroying the economy of the area takes away capital from ever flowing to the corrupt gov't thus bringing the gov't down.  Since gov't like criminals only work for money !!!

Why you think the gov't is so pro-business and protecting business, they need its source of revenues.

Of course it'll be awesome to burn down the corrupt houses, but their houses are too well protected so one must destroy sources that feeds that octopus.

So here is in a nutshell why attacking businesses also affect taking down the gov't of that area

 
Spokker said:
Here's what I never get in these situations. If the problem is a corrupt justice system, why not go after that? Why do they go after local businesses, which means they'll suffer the economic impact. I don't think there should be any violence, I just don't get the logic of the rioters and looters.
Click to expand...
because that is one way to get the national attention for this issue, and 24/7 media coverage, since the media / news outlet eat this up like it is free buffet

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finger_Shocker said:
The logic of destroying:

County, towns, cities, survive only on the economic structure of said location. The economic structure ( BUSINESSES ) brings in the capital $$$$ that supports the corrupt gov't and its cronies of armed thugs ( LEO ). Destroying the economy of the area takes away capital from ever flowing to the corrupt gov't thus bringing the gov't down. Since gov't like criminals only work for money !!!

Why you think the gov't is so pro-business and protecting business, they need its source of revenues.

Of course it'll be awesome to burn down the corrupt houses, but their houses are too well protected so one must destroy sources that feeds that octopus.

So here is in a nutshell why attacking businesses also affect taking down the gov't of that area
Click to expand...
so you propose anarchy?

 
Fearia said:
Orly? None? So glad you're citing facts... Because ia simple Google search will pull multiple examples. Using THIS CASE as your stepping point for that is idiotic. It was a justified shoot, corroborated by witnesses and forensics. The system isn't perfect. No one is saying that. I'm all for holding the appropriate corrupt officials accountable. Hell, outside investigators are great! But this case was investigated properly by multiple agencies.
Click to expand...
You mean jailed for faking evidence....LOL how many

 
YBX87 said:
so you propose anarchy?
Click to expand...
Anarchy are the by-product of where citizens no longer trust the gov't who they entrust their lives to.....

But when the gov't ok's the killing of citizenry without due punishment, I guess the citizens don't care anymore about it as well... When you burn one bridge, other bridges will be set on fire as well.

The act of self defense is weak seeing that Wilson was attacked INSIDE his car but Brown was killed feets away from the officer's car. Even Zimmerman had more wounds then Wilson..

 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267361" timestamp="1416898553"]Anarchy are the by-product of where citizens no longer trust the gov't who they entrust their lives to.....

But when the gov't ok's the killing of citizenry without due punishment, I guess the citizens don't care anymore about it as well... When you burn one bridge, other bridges will be set on fire as well.

The act of self defense is weak seeing that Wilson was attacked INSIDE his car but Brown was killed feets away from the officer's car. Even Zimmerman had more wounds then Wilson.. [/quote]
Once again, are you even looking at the evidence released? Seriously. Take off the red glasses and look at it with a level head and open mind. Tell me you wouldn't of reacted the same way if or in the same situation.
 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267365" timestamp="1416898693"]A chemist? ORLY.....

Thats your proof of equal justice and fair justice[/quote]
Did you read ask the results, or just the first result? Hint: rhetorical question.
 
Fearia said:
Once again, are you even looking at the evidence released? Seriously. Take off the red glasses and look at it with a level head and open mind. Tell me you wouldn't of reacted the same way if or in the same situation.
Click to expand...
Again Brown was UNARMED and even in self-defense you have no right to kill someone UNARMED, justification would allow for shots but no justification to kill. The evidence showed blood on the EXTERIOR of the car meaning he was shot from the inside before killed outside. Meaning Wilson exited the car to finally KILL ( execute ) his target.

Again the evidence will show the over use of force, but over use of force is not illegal so its no wonder why the jury couldn't bring back a charge.

All I know is if it was a individual, his/her ass would of been in jail facing reckless endangerment or disregard of life charges

 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267371" timestamp="1416899053"]Again Brown was UNARMED and even in self-defense you have no right to kill someone UNARMED, justification would allow for shots but no justification to kill. The evidence showed blood on the EXTERIOR of the car meaning he was shot from the inside before killed outside. Meaning Wilson exited the car to finally KILL ( execute ) his target.

Again the evidence will show the over use of force, but over use of force is not illegal so its no wonder why the jury couldn't bring back a charge.

All I know is if it was a individual, his/her ass would of been in jail facing reckless endangerment or disregard of life charges[/quote]
Your proficiency in self defense case law is showing. If shots are justified, that means lethal force is justified. It means the same thing.
 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267372" timestamp="1416899132"]Did you .... Put up links with OFFICERS and/or PROSECUTORS names who are sitting in jail for crimes of railroading individuals[/quote]
I shouldn't have to fact check your statements that are blatantly false. I've watched documentaries showing prosecutors (who were then judges after furthering their careers) thrown in jail for precisely what you stated has never happened.

So, instead of throwing false statements out, how about you put out factual ones?
 
Fearia said:
Your proficiency in self defense case law is showing. If shots are justified, that means lethal force is justified. It means the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yes instead of meeting force justly Wilson decided to use a gun against fist, when logics states you should use a less lethal object like his BATON

Your issue is you think you can liberally kill in self defense regardless of the situation.
 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267389" timestamp="1416899719"]Yes instead of meeting force justly Wilson decided to use a gun against fist, when logics states you should use a less lethal object like his BATON

Your issue is you think you can liberally kill in self defense regardless of the situation.[/quote]
Do me a favor. Put on a 15 to 20 lb duty belt. Now, get in a car and attempt to access that baton. When you finely get your hands on it, try to hit someone with it while they hit you. See who taps out first.

Hint: batons work like fists. Without momentum from your legs to your hips, they are not impactful. But we've been over this. And you haven't even tried to understand that.
 
Fearia said:
I shouldn't have to fact check your statements that are blatantly false. I've watched documentaries showing prosecutors (who were then judges after furthering their careers) thrown in jail for precisely what you stated has never happened. So, instead of throwing false statements out, how about you put out factual ones?
Click to expand...
You're the one who put up a link to NOTHING and then came back and said you saw "documentaries"

Apparently Google can't search documentaries

Or maybe Google can't bring up any results because there ARE NONE !!!!

 
Finger_Shocker said:
You're the one who put up a link to NOTHING and then came back and said you saw "documentaries"

Apparently Google can't search documentaries

Or maybe Google can't bring up any results because there ARE NONE !!!!
Click to expand...
No results, eh? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24876145

But I guess it's never happened. Ever.

Fact check your statements. And quick spouting out shit that you haven't actually looked into. KTHX.

 
Side note:  These typically don't end in criminal charges, but civil settlements.  Why?  Because burden of proof necessities are different for the two different types of cases.

Things you'd understand if you actually knew the subject.

Try proving that someone purposefully charged and prosecuted the wrong man beyond reasonable doubt.

 
Fearia said:
Side note: These typically don't end in criminal charges, but civil settlements. Why? Because burden of proof necessities are different for the two different types of cases.

Things you'd understand if you actually knew the subject.

Try proving that someone purposefully charged and prosecuted the wrong man beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
LOL ... 10 days in jail for 26 years .... jail not PRISON big difference

Again civil settlements are just the exchange of OUR TAXPAYERS monies to pay for gov't misconduct... Again I do not see how the gov't is held accountable, do you, if you do you are a fool, a big ass fool

Once again I fail to see how anyone in gov't is held accountable, only the gov't can pay its way out of criminality

You are a fool if you think criminal charges and criminal liability are anywhere close to civil settlements in terms of justice

 
Can you prove wrongdoing outright?  If not, you don't have a case.  Unless, of course, you live in a country without due process.  Are you suggesting that due process should be removed?

Once again, we're getting off-topic.

Fact of the matter is though, corruption and improper prosecution is very rare now.  In the past, it was more common.  Can it happen now?  Yes.  But good luck trying to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.  Which is why civil suits take place instead.

 
Finger_Shocker said:
Again Brown was UNARMED and even in self-defense you have no right to kill someone UNARMED, justification would allow for shots but no justification to kill. The evidence showed blood on the EXTERIOR of the car meaning he was shot from the inside before killed outside. Meaning Wilson exited the car to finally KILL ( execute ) his target.

Again the evidence will show the over use of force, but over use of force is not illegal so its no wonder why the jury couldn't bring back a charge.

All I know is if it was a individual, his/her ass would of been in jail facing reckless endangerment or disregard of life charges
Click to expand...
Again, man...you just don't know what you think you know. You're wrong. You're saying things about laws that aren't true.

If I have a gun, and somebody punches me and tries to take it, it is a reasonable assumption that that person wishes to use it against me. If I allow that person to take my gun, they are no longer "unarmed". Can we at least agree on that?

So, if that person is attacking me, putting me in a vulnerable position, and trying to take my firearm, it creates a threat to my life, and you bet your sweet ass I would be within my legal rights to shoot and kill them.

We're not telling you this to argue with you. This is not our interpretation of the law. This is the law. You can't just dispute it because you think it's "unfair". I don't know if you're a 15 year old kid, or you've been raised to believe certain things, but you're just wrong, man. I'm telling you...what you are saying is factually incorrect.

 
n8rockerasu said:
Again, man...you just don't know what you think you know. You're wrong. You're saying things about laws that aren't true.

If I have a gun, and somebody punches me and tries to take it, it is a reasonable assumption that that person wishes to use it against me. If I allow that person to take my gun, they are no longer "unarmed". Can we at least agree on that?

So, if that person is attacking me, putting me in a vulnerable position, and trying to take my firearm, it creates a threat to my life, and you bet your sweet ass I would be within my legal rights to shoot and kill them.

We're not telling you this to argue with you. This is not our interpretation of the law. This is the law. You can't just dispute it because you think it's "unfair". I don't know if you're a 15 year old kid, or you've been raised to believe certain things, but you're just wrong, man. I'm telling you...what you are saying is factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

You are telling people to believe the officer's ( biased ) account of events... What happened to the victim right to testify, oh wait cause HE was KILLED by the perp....

Again saying that Brown a 300 lbs 6'4 male reach into a car window to attack Wilson is also subject to debate. I would like to see a 300 lbs guy even fit remote close to a car window;s opening, much less be stupid to attempt a attack while the car is still possibly not even in park.

But again all we have are possible lies by Wilson of why he need to draw a gun against a UNARMED person, when he was INSIDE the safety of his CAR...

 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267538" timestamp="1416906007"]You are telling people to believe the officer's ( biased ) account of events... What happened to the victim right to testify, oh wait cause HE was KILLED by the perp....

Again saying that Brown a 300 lbs 6'4 male reach into a car window to attack Wilson is also subject to debate. I would like to see a 300 lbs guy even fit remote close to a car window;s opening, much less be stupid to attempt a attack while the car is still possibly not even in park.

But again all we have are possible lies by Wilson of why he need to draw a gun against a UNARMED person, when he was INSIDE the safety of his CAR...[/quote]
Once again, read the eyewitness testimony that didn't change. For fucks sake, READ THE fuckING REPORT. Denying what is backed by others and forensics is absolutely ignorant.
 
You're talking in circles, Finger Shocker. We talk evidence with you, you question laws. We talk laws with you, you question motive. We talk motive, you question witnesses. And round and round we go.

Here, if you want to make a case for police aggression, this is what you're looking for.

http://news.yahoo.com/examiner-rules-nyc-police-shooting-homicide-160642948.html

I haven't read up on it any further than this article..but it sounds like the guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and was shot without a word being said.  it even seems to be documented that the officer was not following protocol (ie. having his gun drawn for no reason).

This is what negligence and carelessness looks like. THIS is what people should be outraged by and what should be getting media attention. Not a criminal attacking a police officer and getting the short end of the stick. This was a legitimately innocent, unarmed non-threatening person.

 
I work in news and this part sucks. Hold on to your feelings.

The results of this doesn't change anything.

Heard a guy say "OJ was let off, and what's the fuss?"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes and much of the evidence seem to be HERESY, by Wilson

I mean it sounded like Wilson tried to give enough reason as to why he had to shoot, I wonder why....  Unless we have audio recordings of Brown encounter with Wilson, Wilson story is full of possible B.S about the "shit" Brown said to him

Hearing Wilson account sounds like he had to come up with the most unbelievable story to justify his action

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267585" timestamp="1416909765"]http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Yep, until people educate themselves about the reality of our misguided and biased our system, the better to understand why NOBODY should ever trust the police or the gov't that hires them[/quote]
" The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case."

Strange... it's not like that is relevant in this case at all.
 
Cause cops never lie ;)

And yet prosecutors have brought charges and won cases on far fewer evidence even made up ones...

Wonder why cops get the benefit of the doubt

And for someone who has never had a run in with the law, the first time he seem very bent on being a tough guy....LOL

If you believe half the crap Wilson said Brown said to him, you probably a gullible fool.  But atlas dead men don't talk and Wilson can smear Brown as much as he possibly could

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12267594" timestamp="1416910629"]Cause cops never lie ;)[/quote]
Once again, when forensics and eyewitnesses corroborate the story... it's apparently all a lie in your world.

It's not like they literally threw an insane amount of evidence out there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top