Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All it shows is that Mike's DNA was in the car, but it doesn't mean that he went for Wilson's gun as he claims or not. If he did go for his gun, then WHY didn't Wilson hand it over at the scene to get fingerprints?? WHY weren't there any fingerprints on the gun if he and Mike were struggling for it??
Oh yes, you again, you still have not managed to explain how Wilson could have grabbed and held onto Brown with one hand, while sitting in the car, with Brown struggling to get away.
You cannot explain because this is not what happened; it was not Wilson who was grabbing Brown, it was Brown who attacked Wilson. There is no way Wilson could keep Brown, who was nearly 300lbs, with one hand while sitting in a car.
You continually dismiss all the physical evidence, it is absolutely amazing how you just ignore facts because of your deep seeded racism.
Mike Brown and Eric Garner crossed the boundaries when they resisted arrest. Mike Brown did a whole lot more than resist arrest. If either of them had been cooperative with the police, they would not be dead. End of story.
So a person must obey and cooperate with police or they die? Isn't that extreme to you, "Obey or you die".
The fifth amendment says: "The government may not deprive citizens of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. This means that the government has to follow rules and established procedures in everything it does."
The question again, is did these officers follow the proper procedures in how they handled both cases--provided that they were trained in how to deal with citizens resisting arrest? Or did they skip steps/procedures and go right for the punch? And if this is the procedure, that a person that resists arrest or isn't 100% obedient deserves to be killed, then perhaps this needs to be translated so that we the citizens know clearly that this is the "new" way to resolve disobedience when your with a cop. Otherwise, some of us, still assume, that even if we don't fully cooperate, that we won't be killed as a result. In fact the very idea seems outrageous, don't cooperate and you die? The other idea people are suggesting is that because you didn't cooperate, and you have a criminal history--your death is warranted. You don't deserve a trial or any other legal proceedings appropriate to the crime you've committed, it is perfectly okay that you died because you asked for it by not simply cooperating. The moment you didn't, your life didn't matter and your death was deserving... Is it really that easy for people to justify lives lost unnecessarily? Yes both of these men MIGHT still be alive had they been cooperative. But it shouldn't be a situation where when citizens don't cooperate with an arrest, killing them is just fine.
This country has a larger percentage of its population in prison than did Germany in '39. It is the pre-eminent police state on planet Earth at the moment.
Wel yes. The place was run by criminals........ Not the smartest comparison.
So a person must obey and cooperate with police or they die? Isn't that extreme to you, "Obey or you die".
The fifth amendment says: "The government may not deprive citizens of “life, liberty, or property†without due process of law. This means that the government has to follow rules and established procedures in everything it does."
The question again, is did these officers follow the proper procedures in how they handled both cases--provided that they were trained in how to deal with citizens resisting arrest? Or did they skip steps/procedures and go right for the punch? And if this is the procedure, that a person that resists arrest or isn't 100% obedient deserves to be killed, then perhaps this needs to be translated so that we the citizens know clearly that this is the "new" way to resolve disobedience when your with a cop. Otherwise, some of us, still assume, that even if we don't fully cooperate, that we won't be killed as a result. In fact the very idea seems outrageous, don't cooperate and you die? The other idea people are suggesting is that because you didn't cooperate, and you have a criminal history--your death is warranted. You don't deserve a trial or any other legal proceedings appropriate to the crime you've committed, it is perfectly okay that you died because you asked for it by not simply cooperating. The moment you didn't, your life didn't matter and your death was deserving... Is it really that easy for people to justify lives lost unnecessarily? Yes both of these men MIGHT still be alive had they been cooperative. But it shouldn't be a situation where when citizens don't cooperate with an arrest, killing them is just fine.
No, but a person increases their risk of injury or death if they do resist. Unlike two non-cops getting into a fight and one running away and that is the end of it, a cop does not have the option of just "letting this one go"; the cop must continue until the person is detained. The longer any physical confrontation goes on, the more of a chance for injury or death, this is true of any physical confrontation.
There is also the issue that the cop has a gun, in which even the perception of the suspect attempting to grab the gun is a deadly force incident.
But as the poster you responded stated; the fact is that both of these people would be alive if they complied with the cop's orders, it is just that simple. That of course does not mean the fallacy you stated of "comply or die", but the suspect does greatly increase their chances of getting injured or killed.
Just here in Miami, some vandal got killed when hit by a cop car, the cop did not see him and ran over him as the vandal was running from the cop. A little over a year ago, another vandal was killed when he got tasered; what do those two have in common? Oh yes, resisting detainment.
No, but a person increases their risk of injury or death if they do resist. Unlike two non-cops getting into a fight and one running away and that is the end of it, a cop does not have the option of just "letting this one go"; the cop must continue until the person is detained. The longer any physical confrontation goes on, the more of a chance for injury or death, this is true of any physical confrontation.
There is also the issue that the cop has a gun, in which even the perception of the suspect attempting to grab the gun is a deadly force incident.
But as the poster you responded stated; the fact is that both of these people would be alive if they complied with the cop's orders, it is just that simple. That of course does not mean the fallacy you stated of "comply or die", but the suspect does greatly increase their chances of getting injured or killed.
Just here in Miami, some vandal got killed when hit by a cop car, the cop did not see him and ran over him as the vandal was running from the cop. A little over a year ago, another vandal was killed when he got tasered; what do those two have in common? Oh yes, resisting detainment.
Ah but it does--after all this is what happened and this was the defense that some of you have said. "Well if they would have obeyed they wouldn't have died." "They just needed to be obedient and cooperate. They didn't so welp, they got killed." My point is that it shouldn't be that way. A cop shouldn't resort to killing someone when other measures could be done to prevent it from happening. There are other ways to handle unarmed individuals resisting arrest. You don't have to kill em' all willy-nilly, just saying.
So a person must obey and cooperate with police or they die? Isn't that extreme to you, "Obey or you die".
.
It's called respect for authority, and some of our parents taught us that. Apparently the two who died were not taught that. If you have a problem with what you are being arrested for, you don't fight the police officer. You let them arrest you and you will have a court date where you can explain your side in a court of law. That's due process. But you cannot resist arrest, go for an officer's gun and charge an officer. The officer's not going to stand by and let you threaten HIS life; he will use deadly force. And he should.
It's called respect for authority, and some of our parents taught us that. Apparently the two who died were not taught that. If you have a problem with what you are being arrested for, you don't fight the police officer. You let them arrest you and you will have a court date where you can explain your side in a court of law. That's due process. But you cannot resist arrest, go for an officer's gun and charge an officer. The officer's not going to stand by and let you threaten HIS life; he will use deadly force. And he should.
So resisting arrest, unarmed, means your threatening the officers life?
And had Soviet citizens obeyed, the USSR might still exist. Or if the black had obeyed Jim Crow, maybe the government would still be enforcing segregation. Or if the Jews had obeyed, maybe they'd be gone from Western Europe. Or maybe if the founders had just obeyed, we'd still live under the British crown.
Since when did deference to authority (forceful and arbitrary authority, at that) become an American value?
Lighten up my Bolshevik friend. I hardly see the similarities to Lenin through Michael Brown OR Eric Garner, do you? Maybe 2 of the 3 stooges, sure. And it's unlikely we are going to build ovens to burn blacks like Hitler did the Jews so don't worry about the price of bricks and sterno anytime soon Mr. Wiesenthal.
If you think "greatness" comes from guys who rob stores, shove store owners immediately afterwords, disobey cops and then wrestle for the cop's gun, lose, only to charge the same cop a few moments later then I think we need to have a talk. I sincerely doubt that not-so-gentle Mike didn't have social justice on his mind as he was out strolling for that blunt that morning.....really don't.....Just spit balling here but, I'm not sure he was your tolerant peaceful type.
To the best of my knowledge, no great civil feat nor nation were ever created through the civil "efforts" put forth by Mr. Not-so-gentle Mike Brown or the humongous Eric, "just sellin' illegal cigarettes..wutz wrong wit dat" Garner........
No, I think if you believe this is the start of the great social revolution that will end right after everyone get's this year's Christmas bill we need to find you some counseling.......Michael Brown and Eric Garner...the two greatest civil rights leaders to ever hit the pavement....what? Too soon?
Oh yes, you again, you still have not managed to explain how Wilson could have grabbed and held onto Brown with one hand, while sitting in the car, with Brown struggling to get away.
Wilson probably didn't grab him by his neck, but it could have happened grabbing the upper part of his shirt. I'm "assuming" (because I wasn't there) Wilson got mad when the car door slammed back on him from hitting Brown and in retaliation he grabbed Mike's shirt to pull his head to the car window to probably talk crap to him. Like most NORMAL people (including ME), he struggled to get away and when he did, Wilson pumped with even more adrenaline grabbed his arm to make sure he didn't leave. The gun "struggle" is a mystery, because like I said numerous times, there is NO WAY I will ever believe that a kid not mentally ill, hopped up on drugs and without a criminal record would try to "go" for a cop's gun and try to shoot him.
If you could prove to me that Brown had MENTAL PROBLEMS or a history in his 18 YEARS on this planet of challenging officers, then I "might" believe that tale Wilson wove, but I don't.
Quote:
You cannot explain because this is not what happened; it was not Wilson who was grabbing Brown, it was Brown who attacked Wilson.
Okay, let's say Brown attacked Wilson.
Why??? Why on THAT day would Mike suddenly play Jesse James on this cop?
Please don't say for telling him to get on the sidewalk. Please. Give me that little bit of respect, will you?
Quote:
You continually dismiss all the physical evidence,
All the evidence shows is that Brown was shot inside Wilson's car.
It doesn't show HOW his body got in the car.
Quote:
t is absolutely amazing how you just ignore facts because of your deep seeded racism.
My "deep seeded racism"??? All because I'm questioning that BS story Wilson gave?
To be honest, I've changed my stance on whether this was a racist kill or not, but I do believe that WILSON started it somehow and it got out of hand. I don't believe he planned on killing anyone that day, but HE lost it.
Dorian Wilson's rumored change of events to the grand jury is also clouding things.
So resisting arrest, unarmed, means your threatening the officers life?
Unarmed has nothing to do with it. Brute strength can be deadly.
For all of you who keep saying unarmed, put yourself in this scenario:
Can your elderly parent fight off an unarmed 20 year old assailant? Would you like their safety to be left in the hands of police getting there in time?
I'm so tired of this unarmed argument. Strength can be a deadly weapon.
I'm also tired of the "why didn't he shoot him in his leg" argument. For those who have that argument, go the range. Hitting a stationary target as a stationary shooter is difficult enough under non-stressful conditions. Change stationary to moving for either or both shooter and target factored in with a lethal force situation and accuracy is diminished significantly.
Now I'm just saying that as a guy who has been shot at a time or two...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
