Ferguson discussion thread

[dijkstra]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

Mike Brown wasn't a threat to the "public" nor the cop at that point, so him shooting Brown while fleeing was definitely in violation of the law THAT YOU POSTED.





Dorian said that Wilson had shot Brown when he had pulled him into the police car. He said when Mike turned around he was already bleeding. He said (as did many other witnesses) that Wilson was shooting him WHILE RUNNING AWAY. He obviously didn't hit him, if only 6 bullets was found in his body after firing 12.


You can continue to believe what YOU want and I'll keep continuing to believe what I want. Cool?

Originally Posted by marilyn220

Dorian Johnson said that this shot came when Wilson shot Mike Brown inside the car when he pulled him in. When Mike turned around to flee, this was where he was bleeding. Mike yelled at Dorian to run to which Dorian did and hid behind a car that was close by to continue watching the rest of scene.

Whether it was racism or not, I don't know. The more I read the grand jury docs and re-read/listen to Wilson's and Johnson's descriptions of what happened, I'm beginning to believe that Wilson was more on the corrupt cop side and if not, then from the story he gave of Mike looking like a "hulking demonic aggressive" beast who needed to be put down, he might also be suffering from paranoid delusions. He is of that age where schizophrenia begins to manifest itself. Also, his mannerisms during his interview were quite odd, especially when he knew Ferguson was burning and his fellow cops were laying their lives out on the line for what HE caused.

His interview made everything worse.

Did you really actually read any of the evidence? You can't possibly believe that a police officer would actually "pull" a 6'4", 300 pound guy into his patrol car putting himself in a dangerous situation and then what? Fake a struggle for his gun and shoot brown? Then let him go and shoot him as he is fleeing? That is absolutely preposterous. You either are completely biased due to your own racism like the residents of that area or you just simply refuse to believe anything but that ridiculous scenario.

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by longnecker

For anyone who looked at the evidence it is pretty clear the grand jury made the proper decision. I expected an indictment because of all the political pressure. Hats off to the Jurors for having the guts to do the right thing.

I was not surprised at all but there are many people who disagree that the grand jury made the right decision. Even Nancy Grace who is as 'pro' law enforcement as they come.

Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould

The sad thing about this is that some see a cop who had never fired his weapon before, with no history of attacking anyone, as a racist who killed an innocent "gentle giant".

Others see a 300 pound bully who did not have a clue about how to behave in public.

Our public discourse has become so mean-spirited and partisan that who knows if we will ever find the truth.

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere between gentle giant and demonic hulk as described by Wilson.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by RUDE DUDE

I actually agree with you. Based our history, you have to eff things up and basically riot to get the changes you want in society (i.e. Boston Tea Party) but you have to bring the poop to the right doorsteps.

But if you feel you were wronged, the image you present is a huge part of the judgement of any onlookers. People like Black Friday, and they choose to come and shop, and when a group with political motives tries to close down the store and is disruptive, ALL it does is paint the one who believes in the wrong as pointless and out just to cause trouble. You LOSE the message.

The Boston Tea Party was hardly a thing of pride in our revolution and the people on the ship were mearly merchants. The captain was nearly killed, and his crew injured and all they did was dock the ship. It was percieved by many as a bad rabble, not in good terms. Groups like the Sons of Liberty today would be called terrorists. And life for your average person especially early on as the revolution was dangerous since things were inflamed so badly that if you were a partriot and your neighbor wasn't, his side might burn down your farm. Then your side would burn down his.

The only tie with politics was the ship had tea. Otherwise it was a bunch of drunks acting bad. History has skimmed over the real act of violence. Beware of the pc versions and look up the real thing before you use examples.

The people who went and burned business and went after malls get zero respect for advancing a cause from the people they want to convience. You want to get respect? Then go and help the people who's livelyhoods were burned and do some sweat labor help to show your mean it.

And while your at it, don't raise your kids to rob stores and steal as if it was okay. Respect is EARNED.
Anger does not win you anything but MORE anger.

[ChicagoMeO]

Originally Posted by PJA

So you are justifying Zimmerman's reactions based on past actions of other people based on the color of their skin. So if I go to pick up my child from school and see a white boy walking around, then it would be okay for me to act as Zimmerman did since most white boys are responsible for mass shootings in schools. Makes a lot of sense.

Hey it could happen. im just posting the possible mind set of him. He saw a black kid in the neighborhood - and he jumped to the conclusion that he was gonna be another black doing criminal stuff in the neighborhood. I am saying i understand his possible mind set. its the perfect storm for this to have happened.

He knew there was previous crime, and when he saw Trayvon, he fit the picture, and that is what set things in motion.

[PJA]

Originally Posted by ChessieMom

Speaking for myself, and my friends at work, it's just tiresome when Sharpton and Jackson wind up in the media railing about "the latest injustice". It always seems that they are there to promote themselves as saviors for the black race - no matter what the facts in the particular case are. They do more to keep themselves in the limelight, and I truly believe that they do more to hurt race relations than anything else. And since you don't hear or see any disagreement from the black community regarding Sharpton and Jackson, one tends to assume that the general feeling is one of agreement. I would LOVE to see the media show a black non-solidarity with them, and if it existed, then it sure would seem like we would see it. I try to never lump any race together, but in this issue specifically (backing Sharpton and Jackson), it does seem that it is all for one and one for all.

Originally Posted by ChessieMom

I never said that I did - just that it appears that way when there is silence. I guess you are ASSuming that as well.

I didn't have to ASSume anything.

[Cape Cod Todd]

This is a very good take on the Ferguson issue by Benjamin Watson, a black NFL player. I like the part about "it is not about SKIN but SIN". He makes some very good points here.


NFL player Benjamin Watson's Ferguson post on Facebook goes vira - Spokane, North Idaho News & Weather KHQ.com

[MJ7]

The next question, what are you going to do about it?

[NLVgal]

Good post. Thanks.

[apexgds]

I have a hard time finding sympathy for someone who is PREGNANT and goes into an area where there was a strong possibility of rioting. She's lucky it's just her eye.

[todd00]

"How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That’s not right". ~ Benjamin Watson

This part is very true, at least he put it out there for people to think about.