Ferguson teen had a gun (Video)

so what?

Shall we kill everybody who has a weapon now?

A bit of a problem can arise.

If shots are fired and many people have guns in their hands, who is shooting and who is defending. Hard to determine in a few seconds. Are more shots about to be fired? If a lot of people are going to be armed then expect some mistakes and plain old stupidity.

This isn't a small town in a western where every one knows to good guys and bad guys.

originally posted by: snypwsd

originally posted by: hammanderr
Dispute this!!!

Michael Browns friend did have a gun and aggressively rushed at someone while pointing it. This video is as clear as it gets.

www.reuters.com...

Just as anyone with any common sense expected, this "teen" was far from an innocent victim.

www.msn.com...

There is no proof provided.. just hear say. There was no video in your sources, there for he is still an innocent teen.

theres video in both sorces that show him holding a gun....how did you miss that?

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: DeadFoot

That proves something.

You obviously have no idea what that word means.

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
so what?

Shall we kill everybody who has a weapon now?

no, just everyone that points their weapon at a car full of cops. Or even a car full of nuns who were packing. It woudl have ended the same.

#nunslivesmatter.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: DeadFoot

That proves something.

You obviously have no idea what that word means.

Well, he was alleged to have a gun, his friends denied the allegation. Theres a video clearly showing him being aggressive with a gun. So that's proof of the allegation, isn't it? Is that what it means?

a reply to: hammanderr

Well if the point that you're actually trying to prove is that he shot at police officers with no aggravation or cause for defense by use of a weapon, then this video is not a "proof". It's evidence, but it's no proof.

Yes, it is proof that he had a weapon, but that's kind of worthless information if we don't know why shots had already been fired.

Him having, and even brandishing a weapon does not prove the defense wrong. And this video clearly shows that shots had been fired before he drew his firearm.

So far the 2 sides to this idiot parade are:

1. Cops just shootin' people cause they wants to

2. Turds be thugs and get what they deserve

No middle ground. ALL idiots, sorry.

originally posted by: rexsblues

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: yuppa

Yes, it conclusively counters what anyone claiming he was unarmed has stated. You're within your rights to carry a firearm in this country. However if you pull your gun and rush at someone......they might shoot you. That is what occurs in this video.

yeah, I doubt he had a concealed carry permit.

Actually even with a concealed carry permit, he probably wouldn't be allowed to possess a firearm. He was already on bond following a recent arrest (theft of vehicle, theft of firearm, fleeing from police). While I haven't specifically checked for MO, I'd almost put money on the condition of the bond including some element of restriction on possession of firearms, even if it's just a restriction on possessing them in public.

a reply to: DeadFoot

If you were forced to choose; who would you hire to house sit while you were out of town? The kid in the video with the gun, or the cop who shot him? Do you feel like the kid shows pretty good judgement? Would you trust him enough to loan him $10, 000?

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: DeadFoot

The video shows a man in a crowd of people pull a gun, point it at and run at something off screen. That proves something.

Unless there was a murderer on the loose and this guy was defending his friends(and that hasn't hit the news yet) then there seems to be a good likelihood that the police version is correct.

This is the second young man from Ferguson that has been caught on video doing something reckless and dangerous before being shot. The first one being Michael Brown. Why are people still making excuses for them?

Ferguson seems to be having a parenting crisis. Why are all these young guys running around in the streets all hours of the day and night committing crimes?

Young men their ages should have jobs AND be in school.

I wonder do most parents there have insurance on their kids? Y a know maybe they are raising them to be used as insurance claims(or they just dont care really) and if thye get shot they play the dutiful parent,try to sue and get paid. This is not just in the African american community mind you btw.

a reply to: DeadFoot

Have you read th TnC? I suggest you go back and read it.

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
so what?

Shall we kill everybody who has a weapon now?

If they're running at you with the weapon pointed at you, then you have every right to defend yourself with deadly force from what can reasonably be perceived as an imminent threat to your life.

That's different than someone just having a weapon...this kid didn't just have a weapon.

a reply to: DeadFoot

So, from you:

And this video clearly shows that shots had been fired before he drew his firearm.

and then...

ALL idiots, sorry.

Yet, here you are, claiming "proof" that shots were fired before he withdrew his weapon and ran at whomever is off-screen, yet there is no "proof" of shots being fired prior to him drawing his firearm--you're deducing that from the reactions of the people in the video.

Your level of "proof" seems to lower when you claim you have "proof" of your claim, yet raises when you want others to prove their claims. So which is it, DeadFoot: Does this video show proof of shots being fired before he drew his firearm, or doesn't it?

No. No it doesn't. It shows evidence that there may have been shots fired, but does so without proof.

Don't call people idiots when you are making the same loose claims of "proof" as others are, as it reflects terribly on your own intelligence.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: hammanderr

It looked like he was running away at first from someone firing. Then he ran back to return fire? Idk

I don't even know if I'm even talking about the same guy you are. Wasn't very clear.

ETA:

Yeah, why does everyone start running for cover before he supposedy "rushed" the cops?

You're assuming he was running for cover. Clearly, his first inclination when confronted by the police was to run away (probably because he was guilty of something), not run for cover.

The msm will spin the story and manipulate it into something far worse.

This article explains the alleged order of events pretty well.

www.policeone.com...

It discusses the undercover officers responding to a shootout between two rival gangs. Upon doing so, the suspect that was shot observed them and opened fire, striking the windshield of their van multiple times. The undercover officers then gave chase. During that chase the suspect stopped, turned back around and pointed the gun at the undercover officers who subsequently opened fire and shot the suspect.

My guess is that the police had information that something was going to "go down" between the two rival gangs. That would explain the undercover police presence.

I think the two videos of the incident match up to the explanation of events by the police pretty well.

a reply to: WeRpeons

"Whether he was running away or rushing the cops, he still brandished a gun. I don't think I missed anything that said he had a permit to carry a fire arm. So the kid is just as guilty as the person who was doing the shooting"

Its not brandishing if your life is threatened. Be careful with your word choice. I have a carry liscense and be damn straight if I hear shots im unholstering and two anded in .25 seconds.
Im sure the kid did not have a CHL but at the end of the day can he really be blamed for starting the incident if shots were off before he pulled the weapon? Last I remeber cops (plain clothed or not) do not have the right to shoot at an armed civilian for brandishing a weapon (in case he did lift his shirt and show his tool). I will agree that there are 2 parties at fault here. However as we know from past incidents only one will be made responsible.

"I know there are a lot of police being caught abusing their authority, but carrying a gun during a supposed non-violent protest is simply asking for trouble."

Abusing authority like only posting partial coverage of a parking lot that undoubtedly has cameras covering the entire scene? Possibly.

What say you about the "oath keepers" and officers in plain clothes or officers carring in general (At a peaceful event)?

The possibility of the event turning violent was inevitable. You can thank the justice system for that, there can't be peace when those sought to uphold the law can run behind a blue curtain and become impervious to it.

Wengardium leviosa! (My invisible cloak appears) I am now above the law and can kill who I see fit.

Atleast this guy was armed. It will be much easier to vilify him now.

I also keep hearing about this rival gang B.S. why weren't any of these members arrested? Also if thats the case and these plain clothed cops waltzed into a shootout between gangs why is there only one person with multiple holes?

Speaking of, the whole senario sounds off to me. Because even gangs can hate cops together.

The whole thing just seems planned provoked and executed to me. Then again I've seen 1st hand what tactics alphabet agencies use to carry out missions on american people.

In this case the greater good would be militarized states.

One tick closer now.

originally posted by: Tardacus
it doesn`t matter if he had a gun or not he was black so he was right,the black folks are gonna riot no matter what the facts are,they don`t need facts they just need excuses.

And white people are going to be bigots they don't need logical reasons, they just need a race to try and pick on. And then cry when they are bit for being bigots.

originally posted by: Eye4NeyE

originally posted by: Tardacus
it doesn`t matter if he had a gun or not he was black so he was right,the black folks are gonna riot no matter what the facts are,they don`t need facts they just need excuses.

And white people are going to be bigots they don't need logical reasons, they just need a race to try and pick on. And then cry when they are bit for being bigots.

So those are the facts as you see them? This kid didn't get shot because he made the choice to attack someone with a gun? He got shot because white people are bigots?

Where in the video do you see evidence of bigotry?, where do you see him getting picked on?

Michael Brown too. He got shot because white people are bigots? What about the actual video of him "picking on" the shop keeper?