When does smoking pot or even stealing cigars justify 2 bullets in the head ?

originally posted by: j.r.c.b.
a reply to: Ex
Whether we agree or not, your opinion is just as good & I'm glad you posted. That part about leaving the body on the ground so long, yep. That does bug me also. I don't get why they did that??

When it is obvious the person is dead you need to preserve evidence. If they would have tampered and moved him, then things would really snowball out of hand. "see they moved the body to make it look like self defense, etc"
Firepiston

originally posted by: Bundy
Am I the only one who doesn't buy the "new chain of events" they're presenting? They took a week to cook up a BS story now everyone's lapping it up. For shame.

And whats with all this robbery talk? Did the kid #ing rob a store or did he shop lift a cigar? Those are two entirely different ballparks if you ask me. Can someone at least iron that fact out for me please?

No matter what he did, it's not about JUST mike brown. I see a new video every week it seems of a cop in an extremely questionable shooting IF NOT an straight forward murder who gets not even a slap on the wrist.

Has anyone seen the story of the kid shot in walmart because he was purchasing a BB gun, the police were called because he was walking through the store with it and they opened fire on him. A 37 year old bystander also died of a heart attack. According to his GF who was on the phone with him, he said something like "Don't shoot its a toy" then she heard gunshots, followed by the police shouting "get on the ground". Ahh sometimes its hard to remember the 1 comes before the 2 when you're facing down a teenager with a bb gun.

Another case that you failed to research. The guy was walking around with the bb gun pointing it at people. And he was told 2 times, according to witnesses, to drop it, and he did not. This is the pellet gun he had.
firepiston

www.crosman.com...

originally posted by: Iamthatbish

originally posted by: texasyeti
The corpse had gunpowder burns on his hands and arms meaning he was in the car fighting the officer for his gun, which finally led to the officer hitting him in the top of the head and eye with his weapon. After shooting him in the arms probably trying to keep his gun in his own hands and not give his weapon to the 6'4 guy fighting him on top of him.

So clearly this officer needs to be better trained. My 15 yr old nephew is 6'5" if height becomes a legal excuse for not having the proper training I will be very afraid for the future of my country.

For the record, you should all look up when the human brain is fully developed. An 18 yr old "man " has not finished developing. His brain was still an adolescent brain.

You may not have known that, the police officer certainly should have. I garentee Judges know this. They have to keep this pertinent information in mind.

The police are trained. When your life is in danger, all the marksmanship training on paper at the range goes out the window to a point. Heck in Vietnam we killed one enemy for every 50,000 rounds fired.
firepiston

a reply to: 727Sky

I'm not going to read the comments past your OP, but suffice it to say that you're NOT relaying the whole story. Stealing cigars and smoking weed does not justify deadly force, but busting the orbital socket of a police officer and (possibly) attempting to take his weapon and (possibly) rushing at him when you're probably twice the size of him, THAT justifies deadly force.

Jetison emotion, otherwise it will cloud your judgment in instances like this. Learn to look at (and wait for) the final presentation of facts before implying that this officer was no better than those in ISIS who behead journalists for no damn reason.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: texasyeti
The corpse had gunpowder burns on his hands and arms meaning he was in the car fighting the officer for his gun, which finally led to the officer hitting him in the top of the head and eye with his weapon. After shooting him in the arms probably trying to keep his gun in his own hands and not give his weapon to the 6'4 guy fighting him on top of him.

Um, so far, actually, the opposite is true. They have found no gunshot residue on his body, which would call into question the cop's story.

Well, no, the official autopsy hasn't been released, and Baden wasn't given access to the clothing to determine whether there was gunshot residue. The gunshot wounds themselves indicate the shots came from more than 2 or 3 feet - which isn't particularly telling. Nor has the officer's statement been released - but the friend of Wilson said the following:

Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

So, basically, there's no claim in this account that Brown was close enough to have gunshot residue on him (though it is hard to square the reports of the gun being first fired inside the car with this account.)

That's the problem with much of this - people on both sides are repeating often-wildly exaggerated claims as true, and then other people form judgements based on these false reports.

MoIn answer to your question, it doesn't.but he wasn't shot for those things, he was
Shot because he rushed a police officer to the degree that he made that officer in fear for his life to the degree that he fired shots. No, what he did in the store didn't justify his death. But him moving in a hostile manor towards the officer when he might have overpowered that officer, and gotten he gun away from him did warrant acting in self defense. IMHO a taser would have been better, but to answer your question you would have to ask the policeman what was going through his head as he was being approached in a possibly hostile manner.

I would also like to clarify the case of the bullets to the top of the head if it hasn't been done so yet. If you shoot someone coming to you which way do you generally fall? Its not like the movies, you don't get blown back off your feet. You generally fall forward. While you are collapsing downward you have an officer that is firing multiple rounds to stop a threat. As you fall forward the top of your head is now where your chest used to be. There have been cases that it was claimed that officers shot a subject in a back but through forensic evidence it was shown they were shot in the back as the rotated forward in a downward fall. My suggestion is wait until the official report is completed then make wild claims.

a reply to: 727Sky

Please don't embed gore, like one poster said, and just link it with a warning.

---

This mentality does not belong to just the TPTB. It is shared by those on this site also, and general public. There was this one thread on punk kids going around punching random people. Many people here felt these kids should be shot. Yeah its not good that these kids do this, but lets not kill them. People do all sorts of stupid things when their kids. And people who are poor, down and out might steal, but no need to kill them. It's just a lack of respect for the lives of others IMO.

When you live in the land of the free......

oh wait.

Maybe some of the people who don't think the officer was justified should be placed in a similar situation and see what it's like to be rushed and hit by such a large man.

The black teen killed by a white cop in Ferguson, Mo., viciously attacked the officer as he sat in his patrol car, delivering a bone-crunching punch that shattered the cop’s eye socket, a report claimed Tuesday.

Officer Darren Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket,” Gateway Pundit reported, citing sources in the St. Louis County Police Department and the DA’s office.a reply to: 727Sky

originally posted by: jaxnmarko
a reply to: 727Sky
They are separate issues. The one does not justify the other. Nor does rioting and looting become justified by what happened either. He was not shot from behind, as the autopsy showed. Witnesses are saying that he was approaching the police. I think the police over-reacted. They spend too much time practicing unloading a complete clip rapidly at the firing range instead of shot placement that can put a man down. A bullet to the knee does wonders for ambulatory threats, and there are two knees.

Maybe I'm crazy and I admit I'm not an expert shooter but I don't think it's easy to hit someone in the leg when they are charging you, you have a few seconds to react, and in the heat of the moment. Self Defense Teacher's usually teach you aim for body mass not in the legs or arms, let's not forget they could easily miss trying to shoot him in the leg and hit a innocent bystander. I'm also pretty sure if they admit to aiming at the legs the lawyers could use that as proof they didn't feel threatened for their life, I've heard it can be used against the shooter in self defense cases and really hurt their claim they felt their life was threatened (same goes for warning shots).

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
How about this. Instead of dismissing violent crime and even some other crimes as "they didn't deserve to get shot"...we instead allow all citizens to carry guns and inform the potential criminals that they WILL be shot if they are a menace to society, rob someone, violate someone, etc. That way, if someone decides to strong-arm a purse away from a woman...they get shot...and either won't do it again or can't do it again?

I like that idea. The key is to make sure everyone is well aware that if you steal a car, you can be shot and killed for doing so. Then...only the uncontrollable will still commit such crimes and will be "removed" from society. Others who are smart enough to NOT want to get shot, will abstain from committing such crimes.

Then we would have a society of law abiding individuals and finally be rid of the violent criminals and maybe all you liberal asses who pretend that depriving someone of property or assaulting them is somehow, in your screwed up minds...just fine. You know...like back in the good ole days when people thought twice about committing crimes because they would get their ass kicked.

And again...only the uncontrollable (see: Furguson) would be shot and we don't need or want these people in our society anyway. PROBLEM SOLVED!

THIS, i like.

Cut like bread, dry like wine.

To the claim of the officer fearing for his life, he probably was.

They fear for their life when you walk away, don't answer questions, drive away, look at them wrong, move your arm, don't move your arm, etc...

We should know better to believe anything the police says.

I'll tell you one thing, if he was in fact shot dead unjustly, we wouldn't be hearing it from them. We never do. That is a fact.

Looking at the convenience store video, yeah, that kid was straight bully'; he definitely used his size to muscle past the clerk. That's not that great of a kid. We don't know if how he treated other people, but in this instance, with this man, in this store, he was a dick.

With that out of the way, am i going to sit here and believe another claim of a suspect going for his gun, then CHARGING at a COP, when ALREADY SHOT, with his GUN DRAWN? You people must realize that to these cops, they will construe a simple step forward as charging, a deadly threat. Them running away is also a threat; there wsas a case in Las Vegas where a person was stopped by a cop because he resembled a suspect they were looking for. The person ignored the cop and proceeded to walk of. The hero cop SHOT HIM IN THE BACK OF HIS SKULL. You know what the department and the grand jury concluded? His disregard for authority could have evolved into disregard for general welfare of all, the cop had to kill him. Because the man said "pffshhh" to this cop's, and went about his way.

There is no waiting for the official report, it will be whatever they tell us it is, whether it be true or nonsense.

originally posted by: FirePiston

originally posted by: Iamthatbish

originally posted by: texasyeti
The corpse had gunpowder burns on his hands and arms meaning he was in the car fighting the officer for his gun, which finally led to the officer hitting him in the top of the head and eye with his weapon. After shooting him in the arms probably trying to keep his gun in his own hands and not give his weapon to the 6'4 guy fighting him on top of him.

So clearly this officer needs to be better trained. My 15 yr old nephew is 6'5" if height becomes a legal excuse for not having the proper training I will be very afraid for the future of my country.

For the record, you should all look up when the human brain is fully developed. An 18 yr old "man " has not finished developing. His brain was still an adolescent brain.

You may not have known that, the police officer certainly should have. I garentee Judges know this. They have to keep this pertinent information in mind.

The police are trained. When your life is in danger, all the marksmanship training on paper at the range goes out the window to a point. Heck in Vietnam we killed one enemy for every 50,000 rounds fired.
firepiston

We? Nope me or mine did not invade any country for no reason and murder over a million innocents.

a reply to: FirePiston

Did he point it at the cops?

According to who did he point it at people?

How much time did he have after the last time they said drop it before they shot him dead? Did he know what "drop it" meant when they said "drop it"? Did he not drop it out of hard headedness or because of total confusion and bewilderment as to why these cops have guns pointed at me screaming "drop it!" (WTF!?? DROP WHAT!?)

Things to consider before deciding to believe the police.

originally posted by: subtopia
a reply to: 727Sky

There is a reason they don't call it The Reason System.

Justice by it's nature cannot always be reasonable in order to be effective.

Many make this mistake and become upset at The Justice System for being at times unreasonable.

Yes, justice can, and must, be always reasonable to be effective.

Those who are upset at true, empirical justice are themselves unreasonable or disadvantaged in some way by this justice, and should not be regarded by anyone or anything.

Now we can get down and discuss what justice is and what it constitutes, and that can clear up certain perspectives. But from what i am reading from you, paves the way for some unwanted possibilities.

It seems people are starting to lose the ability to identify extreme, irrational responses from people, and in result, come up with extreme, irrational reasoning and solutions, ignoring the reasonable, intelligent, even minded middle ground.

Everything which occurs to someone is a result of the decisions they've made. Make good decisions, and you will do dandy. Bad decisions produce undesirable consequences. Fighting an on-duty cop is not wise. Going for his gun is 101% insane. Mr. Brown was ready to die.

a reply to: FirePiston

TY!! I was hoping there was a good reason for doing that...

Unless I misunderstood the several stories I read on this, it's not either the fact that pot was smoked, cigars were stolen, or that he even roughed up a store clerk to get them. From all I've read - he charged the police officers.

Now, if you want shot, do just that, charge the police. If they feel threatened, they will respond with force.

Same goes for me, if I feel my safety is in danger (or that of my family), I too will respond with force, meaning a firearm.

I'm not the one breaking the law, I'm not the one charging to do harm to another.

So from what I've read is this: If you're gonna break the law, and then charge the police when they arrive, don't expect a cookie, cotton candy and a soda with a fluffy ride on a cloud. Expect to have your force dealt with force. If you don't want the ends, don't supply the means.

So sick of people expecting to do whatever they want and expecting NO consequences. Society is messed up that way...