Yeah I'm watching Anderson. I think it'll get violent. Everyone is on edge.
Riots in Ferguson, St Louis
- Thread starter PhilipB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
But...but.. all those credible eye witnesses saw the bad white man shoot that peaceful black teenager...How could this be?
Im glad they didn't feel pressured into indicting him just to appease the black community. Glad that some are able to protest peacefully...but of course it seems to give others free reign to loot and set things on fire.
http://www.policeone.com/ferguson/articles/7782643-Why-Officer-Darren-Wilson-wasnt-indicted/
Im glad they didn't feel pressured into indicting him just to appease the black community. Glad that some are able to protest peacefully...but of course it seems to give others free reign to loot and set things on fire.
http://www.policeone.com/ferguson/articles/7782643-Why-Officer-Darren-Wilson-wasnt-indicted/
I would be the first one to say that these things need to be decided in a courtroom but the fact of the matter is that there is too much socioeconomic stress that has built up over 300 years. It's not so simple as a criminal thug being shot by a police officer as not too long ago, black men, whether criminal or not, were being shot by white police officers. It's a disgusting part of US history and so people rightfully have to contend with it even in situations where the police officer is in the right.
The only way to prevent this nonsense is to educate black citizens in that community to vote for leaders who best represent them, educate them in general to get into better economic conditions, and to wait a few years for the older generations to pass on.
Last edited:
I am also glad that they looked at the evidence and didn't indict him as I don't want to live in a country where race tensions lead to legal results. With this said, the Ferguson police department deserves plenty of scrutiny for their general conduct over so many years. This wouldn't even be a story if the Ferguson PD was doing things by the book as cop related shootings happen probably everyday in this country.
Last edited:
I agree with you in regards to the past conduct leaving them open to incidents like this. Even on a bigger scale in regards to "a few bad apples spoiling the bunch" in regards to some corrupt cops being all over the news and media.
Something like this though, as soon as the sensational, racial headline...everyone made up their minds already. Looking back through this thread, no one wanted to wait and see what the actual truth was, but just wanted to say "cops are bad"..and of course, white cops are even worse.
shame most of the people in the thread who trashed him before won't be big enough to say they made a mistake...but the ruling is all that matters
, “The fact that Brown was found to be unarmed does not affect the reasonableness of the officer's decision
That seems bit ridiculous frankly. And to be justified shooting several times which is basically deliberately killing someone for a tussle even more ridiculous. So many other options available for a trained officer.
Or you are pretty much giving free reign to shoot anyone down and then claim this.
Anyway considering the witnesses in this case and how the case has evolved can see why either side would feel aggrieved. Just a mess.
It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/
I agree with you in regards to the past conduct leaving them open to incidents like this. Even on a bigger scale in regards to "a few bad apples spoiling the bunch" in regards to some corrupt cops being all over the news and media.
Something like this though, as soon as the sensational, racial headline...everyone made up their minds already. Looking back through this thread, no one wanted to wait and see what the actual truth was, but just wanted to say "cops are bad"..and of course, white cops are even worse.
shame most of the people in the thread who trashed him before won't be big enough to say they made a mistake...but the ruling is all that matters
There's no question that many people wanted Wilson indicted not because he was guilty but because of the opportunity to highlight police brutality especially against African American males. While I feel that Wilson got a raw deal for the way he was portrayed (especially considering he's a younger cop and not necessarily of an older, more racist generation) and that Michael Brown was no saint, Wilson is merely paying the price for his forefathers actions. It was those actions that helped put Michael Brown in the situation to rob a store. Life is unfair and there are no winners in this case.
A "trained officer" is taught to shoot until the threat is no more. If the officer felt Brown was a threat to his safety and/or his life, then he's going to use lethal force (as justified) and continue to do so until the threat is eliminated.
Don't want to get shot? Don't attack a police officer. Seems pretty straight forward..but you'd be surprised some of the things the people have told me after they've been arrested, as to why they did what they did.
How about shooting once on the Leg ? Smacking him with the back of the gun ? Firing warning shots in the air ? Using any other self defence techniques physically ? Even shooting several times seems strange and excess surely ?
Also There was no real proof of this attack though? It was just his word on it. Like that Police can shoot anyone and claim this, no? Sm1 unarmed and not a hardened criminal going unarmed and punching a armed officer unprovoked is strange to believe as well.
Add in that question of Police authority and where the line extends to in such cases, to feeling of distrust in the black community there based on history and also the underrepresentation of the community in law enforcement there can see why this would blow up like this. Very tricky situation indeed and have seen parralells elsewhere too in even lesser trickier cases world over.
Also, there's whole question of the process being like this as in having a trial before going to a trial basically, the whole past record of the prosecutor and history - https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/killed-robert-mccullochs-father.
The medical investigator took no photos
The medical investigator did not take photographs at the scene of Brown's killing because the camera battery had died, the grand jury heard.
The investigator, who goes to the crime scene to collect evidence for the pathologist, also did not take measurements of anything at the scene because they "didn't need to."
The investigator, whose name was redacted, said: "It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there."
Typically, a medical investigator will take crime scene photos in addition to the ones taken by police investigators.
The investigator testified that they did not see evidence of "stippling" (gunpowder) around the wounds on Brown's body.
..........
This part is particularly dodgy as well. There's no evidence to the wounds on Brown's body because 'the batteries ran out on the camera'. Wtf ?
The medical investigator did not take photographs at the scene of Brown's killing because the camera battery had died, the grand jury heard.
The investigator, who goes to the crime scene to collect evidence for the pathologist, also did not take measurements of anything at the scene because they "didn't need to."
The investigator, whose name was redacted, said: "It was self-explanatory what happened. Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there."
Typically, a medical investigator will take crime scene photos in addition to the ones taken by police investigators.
The investigator testified that they did not see evidence of "stippling" (gunpowder) around the wounds on Brown's body.
..........
This part is particularly dodgy as well. There's no evidence to the wounds on Brown's body because 'the batteries ran out on the camera'. Wtf ?
If there's a threat to your life...you don't aim for the leg. Or the arm. You aim for center mass..and stop the threat.
And no proof of what attack?
My friend ranting on Facebook because the KKK and neo nazis sided with Wilson and Holocaust Survivors and Civil Rights activists sided against the police, but the justice system sided with Wilson.
Because being a civil rights activist or holocaust survivor means you are the authority on all situations involving race obviously
Because being a civil rights activist or holocaust survivor means you are the authority on all situations involving race obviously
Why would you do that when the person is unarmed and 8 feet away ? Surely the first objective should be stop him and not kill him by firing several bullets in him ?
And re the proof i meant of the claimed attack. One witness account i have seen says Officer was aggressor and both were struggling and 2nd one he had his hands up in the air when shot.
And even Wilson's account seems strange to Me atleast - As in the unarmed Brown was pulled over and within 15 seconds or so started punching a cop. After being shot at twice, Brown struggled free and ran away from Wilson, but then inexplicably turned around and "charged" at the officer, forcing him to fire a volley of bullets that stopped him. Brown, now hit half a dozen times, "charged" at Wilson again, leaving the cop no choice but to shoot him dead.
Was there any corroborating evidence to this ? Anything come out yet ? Considering 9 out of 12 votes were required from Grand Jury in pretty much a full trial first to indict so that matter can actually go to trial Can see also thus why police involving contentious cases would mostly get away too.
Also, it's always been a cultural and legal difference re Police and law enforcement in terms of what they are allowed to do and where the burden lies in such a situation in America. In many other countries every shot fired would be investigated as matter of course in most cases. Maybe it varies state to state as well. Tricky situation.
If you are in a situation where it warrants shooting someone I don't think you aim for people's legs. As soon as you are firing a gun I think it can be assumed it's now a life/death situation. Whether you agree if that's the case or not here is irrelevant but once you start firing a gun you can't afford to be making mistakes. I'm sure officers would never be trained to shoot people's legs or arms. Too much risk involved.
Don't know a great deal about this but seems fairly similar to what happen in the UK a few years ago? Mainly just a load of scum out trying to get free stuff from the shops?
My focus is more on the police officer getting off free and easy after shooting an unarmed youth rather than some looting to be honest.
Pretty much. Any excuse.
Should he have paid with his life? No he shouldn't but when anybody no matter what race starts attacking an armed police officer or any armed human being for that matter they are asking for problems. I don't see a massive injustice here on the evidence I've seen but I wasn't there. Only those people who were know what happened.
I do think it's sad to see a community and small businesses being burned to the ground and looted. These people don't care about equality they are just assholes.
I do think it's sad to see a community and small businesses being burned to the ground and looted. These people don't care about equality they are just assholes.
Exactly like Jack said...when you've decided that a firearm is warranted, then its a life or death situation. If your firearm comes out, deadly force is being used. If my life is being threatened, and I need to get shots down range, I aim center mass...my best chance of hitting the target and eliminating the threat. NOT shooting at a limb..where the chances of a miss are obviously much, much higher.
As for what the evidence I've seen shows...is that gun residue was found on Brown's hand, indicating he was either close when it went off..or actually holding it. If someone grabs my gun, lethal force just got the green light, because if they get it, I'm dead. I won't list everything, but there's plenty of articles and autopsy reports showing a pretty detailed account of what happened.
Remember when alastair thought this forum was a namby-pamby liberal hippy commune?
Protect and serve....
Ahhh, you're a gun owner. That explains it.
Keep on shootin' those unarmed ethnic minorities. It's your constitutional right, after all. Land of the free and the brave.
Except, not actually that brave, because if you feel just a teensy bit uncomfortable, out comes the firearm and then there's another dead black teenager.
He was never going to be found guilty.
But ultimately, there's a reason why there's so much racial tension all over America when it comes to the police.
And there's been examples in the media of black & ethnic minorities shot/killed by the police since Mike Brown - most recently that 12yr old boy a few days ago.
Then there will be dozens more who will go unreported by the media also.
And this has been going on for decades.
Protect and serve.
But ultimately, there's a reason why there's so much racial tension all over America when it comes to the police.
And there's been examples in the media of black & ethnic minorities shot/killed by the police since Mike Brown - most recently that 12yr old boy a few days ago.
Then there will be dozens more who will go unreported by the media also.
And this has been going on for decades.
Protect and serve.
Last edited:
I'm a gun owner too. Anyone suggesting that a cop should 'aim for a limb' doesn't know what they are talking about, or is watching too many Steve Seagull films.
Accurately hitting a moving target in a limb with a pistol in any sort of stressful scenario would be incredibly difficult and most likely result in a miss and stray bullet, leaving aside that it is actually possible to die from being shot in a limb.
If you are firing a gun at someone you should assume you're going to kill them, regardless of where you think you might be aiming.
I'm not justifying the cop firing, or the loony US gun laws but I'd imagine all the training US cops get teaches them to aim centre mass, simply because its the biggest target.
Its the same reason you don't see many cops hanging out car windows shooting out tyres in real life.
The question should be 'was he justified in using his weapon' not where he should have aimed.
I shared your opinion, and still do in large part re attacking a police officer, none of us being there etc but a little scratch beneath the surface shows things to be a little more complicated.
Despite the population being almost 70% black their PD is 75% white. Their school board is 100% white.
And I wasn't talking about where he was aiming? I'm more concerned with the fact that the cop felt it was justified of him to just whip out his sidearm and shoot dead an unarmed man. It's the typical US mentality "I feel a bit threatened by you so boom boom, you're dead."
Are you a farmer, Eyepopper? I didn't think gun licenses were particularly easy to come by in Ireland beyond those who used them for pest control or game shooting.
Yea that's a problem but it's not relevant to this case for me. Should the police officer be locked up and the key thrown away because of that? I get the feeling only that outcome would have prevented these riots and the widespread anger I have seen despite what the evidence suggests. I've never come across a likeable police officer and this guy could be a racist for all I know but I don't want to see people being locked away for the incorrect reasons. It seems this has just been an incident for people to jump on to make a point about a wider and very possibly different problem altogether. Every incident has to be treated individually and the outcome should be based on the available evidence. In this case I don't see what the issue is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/1698165.stm
This seems a decent solution in Baltimore. Also training to shoot at limbs and catch people alive is part of special operations in many countries.
Anyway, the point i was making also was that how frequently firearm is brought out and how quickly and what evidence burden is required varies from country to country and would from State to state too i imagine depending on how jurisprudence evolves. Though in America on the whole the threshold of where you can shoot is fair bit lower compared to mose countries and cops given extra leeway even in normal circumstances and when non criminals unarmed involved.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ling-911-dispatcher-weapon-probably-fake.html
Leads to situations like above for example. Now sm1 can claim he had threat to life there too.
Out of the countries i know in UK every shot fired even aerially leads to investigation in normal circumstances. Let alone police, but Army or Paramilitary doing this kind of thing in internal operations of insurgency ridden areas would lead to a strong case of trial in military or civilian jurisdiction or protests here in India for example even with protection of special laws. That's a different matter that then the justice systems are poor on the whole.
Thoughts???
Some pictures of the officer's injuries
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-darren-wilsons-injuries-released--eyJu832E_e
I've not followed this case as closely as I'd have liked to. Just thought I'd share this link to anyone that has not seen.
Some pictures of the officer's injuries
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-darren-wilsons-injuries-released--eyJu832E_e
I've not followed this case as closely as I'd have liked to. Just thought I'd share this link to anyone that has not seen.
Doesn't certainly look life threatening. Anyway Hmm.. so the batteries went off only to take record of crime scene and Brown's body and bruises he may have sustained ?
Anyway going through slowly this which includes evidence and testimonies apparently -
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf
And will Jury explanation be released or nothing ? In a volatile case like this atleast that should come out and required.
Last edited:
The whole camera running out of battery excuse is just too much...
He doesn't look to have taken any significant damage but that's not relevant is it? Someone can be a threat without beating someone half to death?
I thought the explanation and evidence suggested that he attacked the officer, tried to grab his gun, got shot in a tussle in the police car. After that there's definitely a question about why so many shots were fired but it's difficult for me to feel Brown has suffered some kind of injustice here. Also baring in mind Brown had allegedly come from a crime at a store where he had threatened a worker I'm just finding it hard to take his side in all of it. He was a criminal acting like a loose cannon and unfortunately there can be consequences to that.
I thought the explanation and evidence suggested that he attacked the officer, tried to grab his gun, got shot in a tussle in the police car. After that there's definitely a question about why so many shots were fired but it's difficult for me to feel Brown has suffered some kind of injustice here. Also baring in mind Brown had allegedly come from a crime at a store where he had threatened a worker I'm just finding it hard to take his side in all of it. He was a criminal acting like a loose cannon and unfortunately there can be consequences to that.
There wouldn't even be a story if somebody hadn't decided to put his hands on a cop. Only fools and criminals show aggression toward a man with a gun and a badge.
Missouri law is that an officer is allowed to shoot an unarmed felony suspect if immediately necessary to make an arrest or that if you fear a forcible felony will be committed against you.
Just saw this earlier and CNN reporting that too. Seems bit strange law in which case was a lost cause anyway.
Just saw this earlier and CNN reporting that too. Seems bit strange law in which case was a lost cause anyway.
The more information that's coming out, the more it seems quite clear that Wilson's actions were justified. Its a shame that the case has to be viewed through the prism of decades or centuries of race relations, as opposed to on its own merits of what actually happened.
Exactly.
Also, am I right in thinking he had just robbed some cigars from a shop and was then walking straight down the middle of the road? Hardly trying to avoid confrontation..... If you pull enough stunts like that, eventually you are going to run out of luck.