Ferguson

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tshile

You give no credence to the idea that it's for his safety while an investigation is ongoing?

You think it means there's a cover up going on?

No, I don't accept that as a valid rationale. If I were to shoot someone, even in a heated exchange, my name would not be withheld for safety purposes. In fact it would be published out right. The better tact, imo, would have been to release the name, and at the same time release a statement that he has been suspended (with or without pay) while the investigation is ongoing. To show the community that a police officer can't shoot someone with impunity. Now maybe that would not have calmed the situation, but that is the appropriate way to handle it. Further, if you look at Ferguson, like in the Post article I posted earlier, this is not a community prone to violent resorts, and if they felt the situation was being handled openly, then I believe their response would have been more measured.

My use of the term cover up was probably poor word choice, I don't know that a coverup was going on, I do think police arrogance and refusal to acknowledge the community's anger, justifiable or not, was what was on display. And not releasing the name was a big FU to the community.

Finally, I think the vigilante justice aspect is ridiculous. With proper safeguards, no one was going to gun down Officer Wilson lest the police might over react and bring out militarized vehicles and start tear gassing them, oh wait...

[tshile]

If you shot someone it wouldn't cause mass riots for almost a week due to allegations of racism and corruption among the police force. That's why they wouldn't have any trouble releasing your name.


So they were forced to release his name.

Oh and the fact that Brown was suspected of assault and robbery of a local store.

So much for the innocent college kid walking in the street gunned down by the white racist simply because he's black narrative.

I'm sure all the people that immediately called everyone racist and rioted will apologize.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think the key thing I want to know: did this kid wrestle with the police officer or not?

According to CNN, they've spoken to eye witnesses that say they did indeed wrestle. They used the word 'tussle'

though the details of said tussle are a conflicting.

the more that comes out from officials the more the cop's story seems to line up with the facts.

the less the early narrative of innocent young black man in the street makes sense...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tshile

If you shot someone it wouldn't cause mass riots for almost a week due to allegations of racism and corruption among the police force. That's why they wouldn't have any trouble releasing your name.


So they were forced to release his name.

Oh and the fact that Brown was suspected of assault and robbery of a local store.

So much for the innocent college kid walking in the street gunned down by the white racist simply because he's black narrative.

I'm sure all the people that immediately called everyone racist and rioted will apologize.

So you basically accept the spoon fed police narrative, but disregard pictures of local police tear gassing and arresting journalists, and citizens. You also seem to disregard the fact that once the "good ole boy" local police were removed there was no need for tear gas, and suddenly the same citizens that were being teargassed now were able to go through the evening with only 3 rocks thrown.

two sides to every coin I guess.

Presumed innocence for the guy who was killed goes a lot further for me than a town's cops putting out the story 5 days after the fact in a way that makes them look the best they possibly could given the events of the intervening days.

And releasing his name wouldn't have caused mass riots, it was the fact that they did NOT release his name that caused the riots, AND if they had released the name, and the riots still occurred, there would be much less sympathy for those who rioted than when the police look like they are protecting one of their own.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by tshile

If you shot someone it wouldn't cause mass riots for almost a week due to allegations of racism and corruption among the police force. That's why they wouldn't have any trouble releasing your name.


So they were forced to release his name.

Oh and the fact that Brown was suspected of assault and robbery of a local store.

So much for the innocent college kid walking in the street gunned down by the white racist simply because he's black narrative.

I'm sure all the people that immediately called everyone racist and rioted will apologize.

So are you good with how everything went down?

[tshile]

well wait, let's not get carried away here.

I'm willing to believe the official reports from the people investigating the issue unless they're proven to be false.

I don't disregard the pictures of tear gassing journalists and people - I said I have no sympathy for people that stay out past curfew when the curfew was established because of mass rioting, looting, and destruction of property over MULTIPLE DAYS.

Just a little bit of a differnece there.

And you and all the media can say things are calmer now because the 'gool ole boy' local police force was removed all you want, you've been disingenuous from the start and now that your narrative on the 'victim' is falling to shit everyone's desperately looking to change the topic to anything else. But as I said earlier - days 1 and 2 were nothing like days 3 and 4, and things have slowly deescalated since day 4. There are multiple reasons for that, and yes one of the many reasons is because the local police force was replaced.

But pretending that was the only reason... well, lol.

Presumed innocence? I never questioned the presumed innocence - I had no facts about the case and I knew that. I've presumed nothing at any point. My entire stance on this issue has been that way too many people jumped the gun and tried to pick a side and defend that side and attack the other. I've said that's the problem with people in our country today. That's an utterly stupid way to behave - especially when it comes with the destruction of property and the ruining of people's lives.

But many others, on the other hand, immediately accused the cops of wrong doing. Many have said it's because of racism. Others went out of their way to say this kid was an innocent victim and there's NO reason for this.

Now we find out he was an assault and robbery suspect. L-O-L.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on the cause of the riots. Those people wanted their version of justice - without any facts. When they didn't get what they wanted they took to protesting and some took to rioting, looting, and destruction of property.

At first I wondered if people that were so quick to declare this kid innocent, the cop guilty, and anyone who disagreed racist would apologize if they were found out to have been wrong and jumped to conclusions (like many warned.)

The answer is clear. Not only will they not apologize - they're reaching desperately to cling to anything that supports their original narrative.

[CRedskinsRule]

It never ceases to amaze me, how people can view pretty much the same facts, and yet come to polar opposite conclusions. And this from people with little or no direct connection to the events being discussed. What it does make me realize is how easy it is for real conflicts and wars can escalate when people with passions and direct stakes in the outcomes are involved.

tshile, I basically disagree with every point of your last statement, but I don't think it's unreasoned, or inherently biased. Likewise, I have no axe to grind, and come from a pretty basic Republican background, though I am a pretty strong Libertarian at this point, I've even voted for 1 (). To me, this was an extreme case of police overreach and covering their own ass to the detriment of the community they work for. As I read you, it was merely a (possibly) overaggressive response to a community that was out of control.

I don't think I ever would be behind police assault tactics like we saw used on civilians and journalists in the way we saw them (and when I was an MP, I trained with riot gear frequently). I guess you are saying that there are cases where a police force should be able to use those tools on journalists and unarmed civilians.

I guess we can always agree to disagree.

[tshile]

I'm not saying I like it - I'm saying that after two days of rioting, looting, and burning of businesses to the ground, and after the Ferguson policed department had a **second** police shooting, I understand why they stepped it up a knotch.

Especially when you look back at the '92 King riots.

I'm sure you can find examples of the police making mistakes. In my opinion that's bound to happen in a situation like that, and for those that expect the police to always be perfect with no excuses - hah, is that the standard you live your life to? is your life/job as dangerous as theirs?

i'm not happy about any of it - but i understand it. and I don't think journalists should be able to violate curfew in a dangerous situation simply so the rest of us can sit on our asses and watch it after work.

i just wonder how different your view would be if it was your business that was destroyed. or if you were a cop being hit with rocks.

where i start getting irritated is with blatant twisting of facts. the worse is saying that the people are acting like this because of the military-esque presence - completely ignoring that they have their cause and effect completely backwards. it was two nights of rioting, looting, and burning businesses down that brought in the military.

what makes me laugh hysterically is who is twisting the facts. the people demanding everyone get angry about this. the whole narrative for days was how the police down there are racist. turns out the kid and his buddy, the eye witness who's story the media ran with for days without even questioning, were involved in an assault and robbery of a business down the street.


now all of that is to say - we could find out in two or three weeks the cops are full of crap. and if so they should be tried and sentenced accordingly, and I'll change my mind on the subject.

i've never once, from the start of this, been set either way on any of this.

i'm just laughing at all the idiots that were. they're being proven wrong. i don't know why so many people love to jump to conclusions like that.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So are you good with how everything went down?

no. the riots were unnecessary and without them the step up in police presence wouldn't have occurred.

from the start this should have been a - bring in the state and FBI, do an investigation, lets see what actually happened - kind of story. nothing else.

but the media likes riling everyone up, and at this point i've just come to realize that people like being riled up. they love feeling righteous. they want to attach themselves to something they think others will view as deeply important, or maybe even historic.

and that's dangerous. looks what it brings. look at who participates in it.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

To me, this was an extreme case of police overreach and covering their own ass to the detriment of the community they work for. As I read you, it was merely a (possibly) overaggressive response to a community that was out of control.

I don't think I ever would be behind police assault tactics like we saw used on civilians and journalists in the way we saw them (and when I was an MP, I trained with riot gear frequently). I guess you are saying that there are cases where a police force should be able to use those tools on journalists and unarmed civilians.

I guess we can always agree to disagree.

First off, the police were correct to withhold the name of the officer. When you have out-of-area agitators (NBPP, Al Sharpton, the media fanning flames of racism without facts) and straight out thugs and looters looking to take advantage of the situation shouldn't the officer and his family be protected from the threat of vigilante justice? Don't you remember the NBPP issuing a bounty on George Zimmerman?

Now it turns out Mike Brown robbed a store just prior to the incident with the police officer. Brown isn't a small guy and if (as witnesses have stated along with the police) he resisted and struggled with the officer and went for his gun....well the officer has a right to go home to his family and not end up dead.

How many police officers have been murdered in the US by gunfire in 2014? Answer 27, should Darren Wilson have been number 28?

How many young black men have been murdered by other young black men in 2014? I don't know the exact stats, but it's over 3,000. Where's the outrage about these murders? What is the NBPP, Al Sharpton, et al doing to stop that violence? Those are young American lives tragically and senselessly lost

[tshile]

for what it's worth:

"Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson told reporters the alleged "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown.""

So - I fell into the trap of doing what I was so angry for others doing, jumping to conclusions. I thought that information came from the police chief, but I guess it (like all the other 'information') came from the media and its bogus sources.

So... i'm firmly back at 'wait for FBI report' mode. And feeling quite silly that I allowed myself to get carried away with false information

[tshile]

And now the same police chief is saying the video definitely is Brown, and Brown's family even confirmed it's him.

And the officer spent multiple days in the hospital which seems to back his story of there being an altercation preceding the shooting.

What a mess. The local authorities should have not bent to the pressure of the media, the community, and political figures and kept their mouths shut until the investigation was complete and they were ready to reveal all the facts.

I was willing to give them a break (somewhat) in how they were handling things because it was a bad situation, but at this point they're making things worse.

[tshile]

So they pulled back the heavy police presence and those still there have been ordered to not do anything.

How'd last night and this morning go?

Looks like it went real swell.

Hope all the people saying the police were over reacting are happy now. Though I can't help but notice it's not their businesses and their community being destroyed.

Also lol at the CNN crew getting attacked. Your whole station has helped craft the military-war-zone narrative and are part of the people condemning the police. Maybe now you get it?

Probably not.

No one learned anything from the King riots in '92. Not a god damned thing.

[tshile]

Also can't help but notice CNN is referring to the robbery that Michael Brown was caught on video as 'the alleged robbery' and the shooting as the 'slaying of an innocent black teenager'

[CRedskinsRule]

If you listened to the reports you also may have heard that residents stepped in to confront and try to stop the looters. Was it as successful as tear gas maybe not but most residents aren't sitting and looting.
Again who knows if Brown was involved in an earlier robbery but his outright murder was what sparked this, especially if he was unarmed.