The NYPD Declares Martial Law in Brooklyn - MSM Blackout?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

He turned and ran... and the police opened up after that. In which case he surely was not threatening them with a gun at that time. Because he was running away. After he fell, they kept firing hitting him four more times.

That would fit, if he indeed did have a gun, and was a threat to the citizens in the area. The police can legitimately shoot someone that is a real threat to the public, just as they could if someone is a threat to the police. In this case, that seems the most likely scenario, IF this shooting was legitimate. It is still also very possible that the shooting wasn't legit. Have we heard any report from the police involved, that would explain their version of events, or is that being withheld pending investigation?

Originally posted by intrptr
The police always justify shooting somebody if you haven't noticed. If they can't they always say there was a gun. Where's the gun? Wheres the shots fired? Wheres the record of said "kid" (like you said) of brandishing a firearm ever before?

Of course they do. We have three possibilities here:

1. The shooting was legit, under circumstances like described above.
2. The shooting was accidental, and the guy had something, or did something, that indicated he had a gun.
3. The shooting wasn't legit at all, and there was no reason to think he was a threat.

Plus, there is no requirement that a person is known to have committed a prior crime in order to end up shot.

Originally posted by intrptr
The report says that eyewitnesses accuse the police of lying about a gun. The "hood" did not riot until they heard the autopsy that reported "3 bullet wounds to the back". Thats what brought them into the street several days after he died. Maybe they even know a little more than us? Something the Media isn't reporting? I mean if there was criminal activity, surely the media would have brandished it as the cause?[/quote]

Oh....right....because the media is always responsible, always does exactly the right thing, and never, ever misrepresents any details to mislead people and milk a story for everything it is worth? Plus, is the media supposed to report every single shooting that occurs, without knowing any details? You stated yourself that rioting occurred AFTER details of the autopsy were revealed. Until then, what would the media have reported? The media seems to have waited for more information. i did read about this, once those details were out, and about how people were reacting. In other words, after there was enough for a story. The media simply cannot report every single thing that happens in a big city. Waiting for more details seems responsible, which is a rather nice change!

Originally posted by intrptr
But they did not report this story at all, did they? Got to be some kind of clue.

They reported it once there was a reason for it to be a story. If all that happened was some guy with a gun was shot, and all was legit, with no questions, where is the story? That sort of thing isn't exactly uncommon, sadly, these days. Plus, did all those people claiming the guy didn't have a gun come out before the autopsy details were released, or after? Seems like the media aren't the only ones that waited. I recall a story where a guy tried to run down a cop with a car, was shot for it, and people STILL called for rioting, because no gun was found. The sad fact is that some will complain, no matter what. Hence, the need to wait for more details.

Originally posted by intrptr
And if the police are preparing to declare Martial law, then they must be oppressive anyway in that neighborhood. And what does oppression typically bring? Rioting.

What actions that indicate desired "martial law" did the police take BEFORE rioting started? From what I have read, that happened afterward.

Originally posted by intrptr
Ask yourself how you would behave if the police pumped seven bullets into a teen in your "hood" and three of them were in the back... and he wasn't armed.

Well, I cannot imagine most of the neighbors around here rioting as a result. I could see people wanting to know what happened, and even contacting the authorities to find out details, but rioting? No. Rioting, in this area, would almost certainly result in people using their guns to protect their families, homes, and neighbors. Legally. Protesting is one thing. Rioting is another. One is legal, and one is not. Waiting for all the facts is the best course of action. Remember the Rodney King case? The media where I lived showed, ONE TIME, the entire video, with King getting up over and over and attacking the police. Most never saw that part of the footage. The media caused riots there.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Well, I cannot imagine most of the neighbors around here rioting as a result.

Because police aren't shooting children in the back is my guess. As to why Brooklyn went off... Rodney King ring any bells?

We can even side with the frustrated people there in LA. Difference of course with Rodney, there was a video. Is there a video? We'll never see it. Just like we have no updates either.

Back to black.

My GF works in NY city,.
says,, all seems quite,. no martial law or anything of the sort
nor has she heard of anything in Brooklyn