"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" . . . "Pants Up, Don't Loot" (how much, crimes)

[TooLoud]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Well for starters, how about more then three black police officers on the force.

Diversity doesnt help out a police force

Look at NYC, minorities are basically a majority in the police force. There have been plenty of brutal incidents that would have been seen as racist if not for the officer being black. NYPD is basically its own gang

I'm from Miami and black officers are well represented at 42% for the county police (black population of dade county is about 25%) and 17% for the city where blacks are at about 15% last I checked

Miami still has a brutal and corrupt force

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by danielj72

Story of Detroit Michigan. Detroit had major riots in 1967, the decay and abandonment continued for 50 years, and you have the result you see today. First the middle class whites leave, followed by middle class blacks, then only the most poor remain. This may be not just Ferguson, but St Louis in general. If you want to see the future look at Detroit Michigan. I feel so bad for those business owners, many of the black by the way. They believed their neighbors would not do what they did, they believed it would remain peaceful. Sadly they were long. I also feel bad for the officers there. That city will never be easy to police again. In fact I am not sure how that police department will survive. The citizens have declared war on the police and their city government. I agree with you, Ferguson is done and it will not recover in this generation. It may never recover.

Uh, no... Btw, massive oversimplification... lol...

[slingshot]

I don't remember white people rioting after the "OJ Simpson' verdict. What a crock!!! The authorities better start taking care of business or this will happen again and again. If a cameraman can take videos of people burning and looting surely a sniper could see them too. I'm just saying......

[Hourglass45]

Originally Posted by Skylock

I think we all know what it is about. On 9 august 2014 a young white police officer with a five year long unblemished record intercept a young black man who moments before had robbed an Asian convenience store. The young black man understand he is about to be arrested. He attacks the police officer who kills him with his service pistol.

The police officer was not indicted by a grand Jury. What I can see about the information available – the officer should have shot him in the leg. I think that would be the most prudent thing to do but instead the police officer shot four shots at the black man and killed him. Did the police officer do is job – of course he did. Although I think he did he used to much force. Deadly force was not needed. How to you judge in cases like this. I don’t think the police officer committed murder or anything (just as the Grand Jury) but I still think the police officer used to much force. Being in a situation like that most people would fire their gun but who would fire at the head or chest? I wouldn’t. Personally, I think the police officer should be fired because he is not fit to be a police officer.

Police officers are trained to shoot center of the body. If somebody is coming at you full force you shoot. You don't wait till after something bad happens to you. If you have anybody in your family that is in law enforcement you wouldn't be saying that.

[dizzybint]

Wasnt the boys hands in the air.... its a disgrace and how many whites were on the jury.. I rest my case. This policeman should be in jail, like others from the past on the way blacks have been treated.

[Longtimelistener]

Originally Posted by ctwhitechin

or that the video wasn't him, or it was "photoshopped" that's the best one.

Watching the news networks I actually heard the photoshop insanity on one of them last night. Let's just say MSNBC was bordering on inciting a riot with their coverage. For all the lefty/righty talk about CNN and Fox their coverage pretty much mirrored each other.

[Longtimelistener]

There was no verdict. They found there wasn't even enough evidence to indict him.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by Skylock

The police officer was not indicted by a grand Jury. What I can see about the information available – the officer should have shot him in the leg. I think that would be the most prudent thing to do but instead the police officer shot four shots at the black man and killed him. Did the police officer do is job – of course he did. Although I think he did he used to much force. Deadly force was not needed. How to you judge in cases like this. I don’t think the police officer committed murder or anything (just as the Grand Jury) but I still think the police officer used to much force. Being in a situation like that most people would fire their gun but who would fire at the head or chest? I wouldn’t. Personally, I think the police officer should be fired because he is not fit to be a police officer.

Yeah, I wonder what you would do in the same situation, with a person much larger than you attacking you and then charging toward you and you fearing for your life. I'm sure you are going to try to shoot his leg so you don't kill him.

Officers shoot to kill. If it comes to the point that you put an officer in a position that he feels he needs to shoot, he is going to shoot to kill. Deadly force was most definitely needed in this case and it's ridiculous for you or anyone to tell an officer who feared for his life that he should have shot him in the leg.

[wankel7]

Originally Posted by Skylock

I think we all know what it is about. On 9 august 2014 a young white police officer with a five year long unblemished record intercept a young black man who moments before had robbed an Asian convenience store. The young black man understand he is about to be arrested. He attacks the police officer who kills him with his service pistol.

The police officer was not indicted by a grand Jury. What I can see about the information available – the officer should have shot him in the leg. I think that would be the most prudent thing to do but instead the police officer shot four shots at the black man and killed him. Did the police officer do is job – of course he did. Although I think he did he used to much force. Deadly force was not needed.

Police don't shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the threat. Shooting someone in the leg does not stop a threat. Not only that is is difficult to do. How much time have you spent behind a hand gun?

This isn't the movies. This is real life and you don't aim for the leg. You aim to stop a threat.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by W33ZER

I pray to god there are no more riots tonight...

Just in: Darren Wilson found not guilty by the grand jury ! !

This post displays in all its glory ignorance. A Grand Jury does not determine guilt or innocence but merely whether a crime was committed against the people of Missouri. This Grand Jury decided that the killing of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson did not represent a crime against the people of Missouri.
That Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown is an established FACT that he will have to live with as long as he lives.