Michael Brown

[BluesStringer]

I find the title of this thread to be confusing. It is not about Michael Brown or the justification (if any) for his killing, it's about, as whodat said, the opportunistic citizens just looking for free stuff and the thug-life hardened criminals added to the mix. Michael Brown is not rioting. Michael Brown hasn't egged anyone on to commit crimes. The post of ezkl's that whodat replied to above is not particularly validated by the video of the friend who was with him walking down the middle of the street, "...forcing traffic to avoid them." He says they were in the street, but says absolutely nothing about traffic. They were walking home from going to get candy at the store. If they were in a neighborhood, and if it's anything like mine or any I've ever lived in, there would've been little to no traffic to "force" to avoid them to begin with. The way I hear it, it is unclear who the friend is saying hit whom with the car door, but it is not unclear at all what the guy is saying about the execution-style shot to the head that Brown got after he was on his knees with his hands up pleading with the cop not to shoot him.

This guy is in an apartment or house talking to his friends about what happened. I find no lack of credibility in his recounting of the shooting. Neither he nor his friends are outside rioting while this narrative is being delivered, and mostly, his friends are quiet, just kind of soaking it in.

Strong language warning, and strong NSFW warning unless you're listening through headphones. Even if everything ezkl and others have keyed on regarding "lawful orders" and some resistance being given by Brown are 100% true, I defy anyone to listen to just the first 25 to 27 seconds of this video and tell me that shooting sounds justified or legal in any way, shape, manner or form.

If this thread is about Michael Brown, this account needs to be discussed, analyzed against the "official" story and given whatever weight it is due in determining if the killing by a cop has any justification in this once-free society.

If this thread is about looters, thieves, thugs and arsonists, it was named wrong, and the entire discussion thus far has been one-sided from the cop's perspective (on this forum???), and has been off-topic.

Blues

 

[ezkl2230]

So it sounds like JimTh has bought it hook, line and sinker. There is no other explanation, it HAD to be police brutality. They were justified in rioting and destroying the work and investments of others who had absolutely nothing to do with shooting. You have bought into the lie that rioting and wanton destruction are the only options available. I'm sure this young man would love to know he has your support:

Video: Protester justifies the looting in Ferguson | FOX2now.com

As I posted earlier, the friend laid everything out in his taped interview.

He was disobeying the law. He was given an opportunity to rectify that. He disobeyed a lawful command and fought the officer. We'll see if the FBI concludes the shooting was justified or not. On that, I am not going to speculate, but it is clear that the young man was by no means an innocent who was just minding his own business when he was rousted by cops.

And btw, I am a white man who is married to a black woman. She has seen the same evidence I have seen. Her conclusion? He was a thug who bought it while trying to prove he was a strong black man who could do WHAT he wanted WHEN and WHERE he wanted.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

However- This thread has been more about the person it was titled after- than the looters who claimed their actions were in response to the injustice of.

 

[ezkl2230]

I find the title of this thread to be confusing. It is not about Michael Brown or the justification (if any) for his killing, it's about, as whodat said, the opportunistic citizens just looking for free stuff and the thug-life hardened criminals added to the mix. Michael Brown is not rioting. Michael Brown hasn't egged anyone on to commit crimes. The post of ezkl's that whodat replied to above is not particularly validated by the video of the friend who was with him walking down the middle of the street, "...forcing traffic to avoid them." He says they were in the street, but says absolutely nothing about traffic. They were walking home from going to get candy at the store. If they were in a neighborhood, and if it's anything like mine or any I've ever lived in, there would've been little to no traffic to "force" to avoid them to begin with. The way I hear it, it is unclear who the friend is saying hit whom with the car door, but it is not unclear at all what the guy is saying about the execution-style shot to the head that Brown got after he was on his knees with his hands up pleading with the cop not to shoot him.

This guy is in an apartment or house talking to his friends about what happened. I find no lack of credibility in his recounting of the shooting. Neither he nor his friends are outside rioting while this narrative is being delivered, and mostly, his friends are quiet, just kind of soaking it in.

Strong language warning, and strong NSFW warning unless you're listening through headphones. Even if everything ezkl and others have keyed on regarding "lawful orders" and some resistance being given by Brown are 100% true, I defy anyone to listen to just the first 25 to 27 seconds of this video and tell me that shooting sounds justified or legal in any way, shape, manner or form.

If this thread is about Michael Brown, this account needs to be discussed, analyzed against the "official" story and given whatever weight it is due in determining if the killing by a cop has any justification in this once-free society.

If this thread is about looters, thieves, thugs and arsonists, it was named wrong, and the entire discussion thus far has been one-sided from the cop's perspective (on this forum???), and has been off-topic.

Blues

Not entirely true, Blues. The friend said that they were walking downn the street and that no one stopped to tell them they were in the way.

 

[whodat2710]

I find the title of this thread to be confusing. It is not about Michael Brown or the justification (if any) for his killing, it's about, as whodat said, the opportunistic citizens just looking for free stuff and the thug-life hardened criminals added to the mix. Michael Brown is not rioting. Michael Brown hasn't egged anyone on to commit crimes. The post of ezkl's that whodat replied to above is not particularly validated by the video of the friend who was with him walking down the middle of the street, "...forcing traffic to avoid them." He says they were in the street, but says absolutely nothing about traffic. They were walking home from going to get candy at the store. If they were in a neighborhood, and if it's anything like mine or any I've ever lived in, there would've been little to no traffic to "force" to avoid them to begin with. The way I hear it, it is unclear who the friend is saying hit whom with the car door, but it is not unclear at all what the guy is saying about the execution-style shot to the head that Brown got after he was on his knees with his hands up pleading with the cop not to shoot him.

This guy is in an apartment or house talking to his friends about what happened. I find no lack of credibility in his recounting of the shooting. Neither he nor his friends are outside rioting while this narrative is being delivered, and mostly, his friends are quiet, just kind of soaking it in.

Strong language warning, and strong NSFW warning unless you're listening through headphones. Even if everything ezkl and others have keyed on regarding "lawful orders" and some resistance being given by Brown are 100% true, I defy anyone to listen to just the first 25 to 27 seconds of this video and tell me that shooting sounds justified or legal in any way, shape, manner or form.

If this thread is about Michael Brown, this account needs to be discussed, analyzed against the "official" story and given whatever weight it is due in determining if the killing by a cop has any justification in this once-free society.

If this thread is about looters, thieves, thugs and arsonists, it was named wrong, and the entire discussion thus far has been one-sided from the cop's perspective (on this forum???), and has been off-topic.

Blues

Blues, I think the title of the thread at least prevents multiple threads about the same topic, no biggie. I see this being another 100 pager with both topics covered. Up to this point I may have been the closest to "justifying" the shooting, just by pointing out that he was a lone cop vs 2 arguably aggressive and not defenseless (though "unarmed") gentlemen that wanted to "stand their ground" against a cop that didn't want them impeding traffic. I don't think anyone's "eyewitness" account will now be anything but agenda colored fiction laced with a bit of reality. I think the rioting has cemented that fact and everyone on both sides is in CYA mode.
-
I don't think anyone has said the shooting was justified, though one idiot says the rioting was :wink:

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

More leaks- none confirmed- none from a credited source-

The officer that shot the teen- is an African american?.

The two boys were stealing from the QT?- The same one that was later burned down. which has surveillance cameras inside that caught them stealing??

I'm curious to see how much of these things are true- vs. completely made up.

I asked my LEO bf if any of these are true. He said NONE. hmm..

 

[BluesStringer]

As I posted earlier, the friend laid everything out in his taped interview.

He was disobeying the law. He was given an opportunity to rectify that. He disobeyed a lawful command and fought the officer.

...but it is clear that the young man was by no means an innocent who was just minding his own business when he was rousted by cops.

Is one sentence, word or punctuation mark of the above based on a witness account of anybody other than the cop who shot Brown? Particularly relevant I would think, is who says he fought the officer? If the witness account is correct and the cop came to the back seat trying to shoot him, then Brown had every right and reason to fight his way out, where the witness says he then surrendered and pleaded for his life.

Not entirely true, Blues. The friend said that they were walking downn the street and that no one stopped to tell them they were in the way.

The video's in the post of mine you replied to when you typed the above. Tell me at what time-stamp he says that. I only heard that the cop passed them and put it in reverse to give them their "lawful order." Even if it was lawful and he did give them two chances to obey, tell us how it goes from there to shooting an unarmed man who is said by an eye-witness to be on his knees begging for his life, in the head, with the witness mentioning only the door swinging against somebody's leg (upon review, I'm willing to concede it was the cop's leg), but zero mention of any fight. He said the cop tried to shoot him and Brown got out, went to his knees, put his hands over his head and started begging. Eight shots later, he's dead in the street.

I don't care if your wife is black, if Brown is black, or if the cop is black (or white for that matter), this isn't about the riots or the racial makeup of the rioters or the principle players. It's only about whether or not it was a righteous shoot for me, and with you guys accepting everything the cops say, and extrapolating things the witness said into things he didn't actually say, the Ferguson cops have a ton of salesmanship yet to do before I'm a buyer.

More leaks- none confirmed- none from a credited source-

The officer that shot the teen- is an African american?.

The two boys were stealing from the QT?- The same one that was later burned down. which has surveillance cameras inside that caught them stealing??

The only time the other people in the room in the witness account above make any noise at all is when they tell the obviously surprised witness that the "rumor" is that the theft was supposedly from the QT. Without a second's hesitation the witness says that is a lie, they bought the three boxes of Rollos from Ferguson Market.

I asked my LEO bf if any of these are true. He said NONE. hmm..

Sounds like your LEO bf is inclined to believe the witness. Based on some inside information he has I presume?

Up to this point I may have been the closest to "justifying" the shooting, just by pointing out that he was a lone cop vs 2 arguably aggressive and not defenseless (though "unarmed") gentlemen that wanted to "stand their ground" against a cop that didn't want them impeding traffic. I don't think anyone's "eyewitness" account will now be anything but agenda colored fiction laced with a bit of reality. I think the rioting has cemented that fact and everyone on both sides is in CYA mode.

So when do you say the cops' side of the story is "arguable" and when do you say the friend-witness' side is arguable? You seem at least willing to accept some thin-blue-liners' "investigation" results, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion to anybody paying a modicum of attention to what's going on in this country, but all you've got for the witness is that he's spewing "agenda colored fiction laced with a bit of reality." If the only "bit of reality" from his perspective is that they were confronted by the cop who ended up shooting Brown, but everything else originates from the cop's perspective, it's hard to take that bit about a bit of reality as a meaningful concession at all to the witness' side of the story, which in reality, is the only person willing or able to provide Michael Brown's side of the story.

The objectivity in discussing this story and the players involved is underwhelming to say the least to this observer.

I don't think anyone has said the shooting was justified, though one idiot says the rioting was :wink:

I hold no quarter for thugs, thieves or arsonists, but I'm here to tell all that if the government itself won't stop the murders by the state(s), uprisings will become more prevalent and also become much more multicolored. Fewer unpunished murders by cops and more successful Bundy Ranch Sieges should be the goal here. If everything the cops say has a thread of truth to it, but only one thing the witness says is true, that the cop went to the back seat with gun drawn trying to shoot Brown, then Brown had every right to defend himself, and the killing is murder.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Anonymous - #OpFerguson: http://youtu.be/eOSRQ-c1XW0

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

Police shoot man pointing gun at officers in Ferguson; woman shot in drive-by | FOX2now.com

The FBI sent a warning to the news, alerting of the possibility that the black panther party was coming to st. louis. Looks like is what happened.

 

[BluesStringer]

Police shoot man pointing gun at officers in Ferguson; woman shot in drive-by | FOX2now.com

The FBI sent a warning to the news, alerting of the possibility that the black panther party was coming to st. louis. Looks like is what happened.

So now every black man with a gun in St. Louis is an out-of-town Black Panther member???? Total and complete conjecture based on nothing more substantial than, "FOX 2 was emailed what is believed to be an alert from the FBI" that came from your link. Even the report doesn't claim they know the source of the email, and they certainly get nowhere near claiming that any of the shootings are related to what they believe to be an alert from the FBI about Black Panthers coming to town.

Good grief.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

I heard from somebody who knows somebody else who has access to the emails of CNN that an unconfirmed possible alarm email said it was the tea party.

Hahaha this post sounds exactly like simple Paul.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

Sounds like your LEO bf is inclined to believe the witness. Based on some inside information he has I presume?

I think he was referring to the theory that the QT was burned down to destroy surveillance tapes. Also- he has not worked with the riots related issues yet- however on Monday his dept or team was called in to help today. I will post if anything interesting comes up that is okay to post.

I get the there have been police involved injustice- and a lot of you have personally been through/witnessed- or simply recounted injustices from the past that made headlines. However- no system is anywhere near perfect. It seems like unless these cops keep a perfect record of zero error (not saying anything about this case) - no amount of all the good shootings/arrests that they have achieved- would seem to make a difference to those who favor the opinion i am currently speaking of.

I'm too young to have much of an opinion on this. And my opinion would be too biased. My bf is LEO- and i've had nothing but good experiences with any dealings w/ LEO. I've been reading the threads about "encounters with LEO" - a lot of them are bad. A lot of them are about cops being on an ego trip. Some are good. I know i would be VERY PO'ed if some of those things happened to me. But despite any of that- I would still think that- the injustice came from the individual, who happened to wear a badge- and not from the institution from which the badge came from.

I watched the video of the friend several times- I had a lot of trouble understanding what he was saying. I tried to the do closed captioning- but then it did not make any sense either. If someone can make a transcript of that youtube video- it would be great- obviously, minus the curse words and slurs. His response, when he reacted to the audience stating that the rumor was the cigars were from QT- is atypical to the response that 1) i see on cops, when the cop finds a stash of drugs in the vehicle- and the person vehemently denies that its theirs. or 2) when someone is telling the truth. So what i am saying is: its impossible to tell based on his reaction if he is telling the truth.

Heres a piece of differing information. The video guy says- there was a total of 9 shots fired INTO the body. Am i correct? I excluded the shot supposedly fired into the car. One. Then four, then four. Unless the cop missed a shot at what seems like very very very close range. My source at the morgue says there were 8 bullets entries into the body. That is still a lot. The entries included (but i'm not sure if limited to): back and side.

 

[BluesStringer]

Heres a piece of differing information. The video guy says- there was a total of 9 shots fired INTO the body. Am i correct? I excluded the shot supposedly fired into the car. One. Then four, then four. Unless the cop missed a shot at what seems like very very very close range. My source at the morgue says there were 8 bullets entries into the body. That is still a lot. The entries included (but i'm not sure if limited to): back and side.

So either the witness miscounted or the cop did miss one shot. I hope if you're ever in any kind of highly stressful, adrenaline-dumping situation that you get every single detail just right so a bunch of internet Monday morning quarterbacks don't hold you to account for a miscount between eight or nine.

Otherwise, I would say the evidence available publicly at this time at least lends some support to the witness' account of Brown having been shot in the face or head.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Will anything happen to the officer if the shooting was found unjust?....doubtful....

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

I heard from somebody who knows somebody else who has access to the emails of CNN that an unconfirmed possible alarm email said it was the tea party.

Hahaha this post sounds exactly like simple Paul.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

That's quite nice. Didn't you post a video that was from "anonymous"? Everything is conjecture up to this point. I agree with Blues.

But- FFChen- Do you have points of your own besides being Blue's cheerleader? You seem to follow him around this forum. I don't blame you. He does give plenty of valid points regardless of which angle he views it from. Maybe it's because i know i am young and naive- but I come here with my perspective and an open mind ready to learn from wherever I can stand corrected. But I have my own mind.

And so what if I want to say that "I heard from someone who knows someone?" The bullets info came from the examiner at the morgue. And regardless of all this- I'm sure there's people here who find it interesting.

I've never claimed to be the almighty truth. But I do believe that it was the black panthers that was behind the shooting involving the four men. It was four men who were ready to die- for a political cause. They had nothing to gain from this. And they knew it was a suicide mission. How many martyrs do you know - much less FOUR. Organized crime anyone-

Why would they tell us the source that warned of black panther coming to St. Louis? And if I was going to betray a dangerous organization- I would call myself "anonymous"-

 

[Firefighterchen]

That's quite nice. Didn't you post a video that was from "anonymous"? Everything is conjecture up to this point. I agree with Blues.

But- FFChen- Do you have points of your own besides being Blue's cheerleader? You seem to follow him around this forum. I don't blame you. He does give plenty of valid points regardless of which angle he views it from. Maybe it's because i know i am young and naive- but I come here with my perspective and an open mind ready to learn from wherever I can stand corrected. But I have my own mind.

And so what if I want to say that "I heard from someone who knows someone?" The bullets info came from the examiner at the morgue. And regardless of all this- I'm sure there's people here who find it interesting.

I've never claimed to be the almighty truth. But I do believe that it was the black panthers that was behind the shooting involving the four men. It was four men who were ready to die- for a political cause. They had nothing to gain from this. And they knew it was a suicide mission. How many martyrs do you know - much less FOUR. Organized crime anyone-

Why would they tell us the source that warned of black panther coming to St. Louis? And if I was going to betray a dangerous organization- I would call myself "anonymous"-

I did post a video that was sent out by someone in anonymous. Seems they have all ready leaked the names on all the employees of that dangerous organization. We will see if they do what they said they would if police started harming the protesters.

My views align with blues nearly identical. Been this way long before I met blues here or since you started posting. There is no reason to post what all ready has been said.

Are you just going to be the cheerleader for your boyfriends gang? I'll start believing our government and the police, when they stop killing just for the sake of killing.

You're right, you're not betraying the dangerous organization, because that is what anonymous is doing...they are betraying your organization.

Btw...another alarm believed to be from dhs...who knows...just said it may have been Hamas in those ski masks...love the unconfirmed information...it's so easy to spread...almost like I'm just making it up.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

And how do you know anonymous did this when anonymous is anyone?

Have you read the thread? I'm not cheering for my BFs organization. I simply said my views on the LEO are biased bc of my experience with them- when and how have I taken a side in this matter besides making snide remarks about thugs and their credibility and making fun of a mother who has the time to go get her hair done amidst all her grief.

Do you know for certain that it was "anonymous" that posted the police roster online? No. I took you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

No reason to post what's already been said of you on here? Well if I was sensitive I would say that's rather dictatorial of you. But I'm playful. So I say that's reason enough. ;P Cheer on-

 

[Firefighterchen]

And how do you know anonymous did this when anonymous is anyone?

Have you read the thread? I'm not cheering for my BFs organization. I simply said my views on the LEO are biased bc of my experience with them- when and how have I taken a side in this matter besides making snide remarks about thugs and their credibility and making fun of a mother who has the time to go get her hair done amidst all her grief.

Do you know for certain that it was "anonymous" that posted the police roster online? No. I took you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Do you understand who anonymous is made up of?

You simply cheer for your bf as much as I cheer for blues.

You can make fun of a woman who just lost her son all you want, I'll make fun of whoever I want...unless of course you only agree on making fun of people behind their backs?

I'm responding to you who quoted me...don't want to argue, don't talk to me...I never had the intention of drawing your attention.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[whodat2710]

So when do you say the cops' side of the story is "arguable" and when do you say the friend-witness' side is arguable? You seem at least willing to accept some thin-blue-liners' "investigation" results, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion to anybody paying a modicum of attention to what's going on in this country, but all you've got for the witness is that he's spewing "agenda colored fiction laced with a bit of reality." If the only "bit of reality" from his perspective is that they were confronted by the cop who ended up shooting Brown, but everything else originates from the cop's perspective, it's hard to take that bit about a bit of reality as a meaningful concession at all to the witness' side of the story, which in reality, is the only person willing or able to provide Michael Brown's side of the story.

The objectivity in discussing this story and the players involved is underwhelming to say the least to this observer.

Going from the eyewitness video in post #4, Link Removed I saw bias in the way it was told (understandably). Never justified shooting, but I question that the confrontation (not the shooting) was unprovoked. At about :50 he discusses the cop trying to open his door and it "ricocheting" back closed because he was "too close" to the guys.
-
Here is my interpretation just from my experience in reading between the lines while questioning someone. The cop tells them to get out of the street. If they politely replied about being "close to their destination", which sounds fishy to me, I bet he didn't hear it and was driving away. UNTIL he sees in his rearview that they are not getting out of the street. He backs up and tries to get out of the car and they push the door back shut on him. He gets angry and goes jackbooted thug on the thugs.
-
So in MY OPINION based on nothing but my interpretation of the statement of the guy in the video, The cop was probably in the wrong. The guys claim to be perfectly innocent and polite, go figure. I think the best thing the police have done since is to keep their mouth shut. I would not believe the bulk of what is said by either party, hence my "agenda colored fiction laced with a bit of reality." statement. Both sides have an agenda, whether it is police brutality CYA or "we was just minding our own business" claims from the other side. I would believe video.

I hold no quarter for thugs, thieves or arsonists, but I'm here to tell all that if the government itself won't stop the murders by the state(s), uprisings will become more prevalent and also become much more multicolored. Fewer unpunished murders by cops and more successful Bundy Ranch Sieges should be the goal here. If everything the cops say has a thread of truth to it, but only one thing the witness says is true, that the cop went to the back seat with gun drawn trying to shoot Brown, then Brown had every right to defend himself, and the killing is murder.

I agree that the thin blue line BS has to stop. I think protests are fine and justified. I don't think that ANYTHING justifies looting and destroying other citizens lives under the guise of some guy getting killed by a cop justifying it.

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

Do you understand who anonymous is made up of?

You simply cheer for your bf as much as I cheer for blues.

You can make fun of a woman who just lost her son all you want, I'll make fun of whoever I want...unless of course you only agree on making fun of people behind their backs?

I'm responding to you who quoted me...don't want to argue, don't talk to me...I never had the intention of drawing your attention.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

No- and until you have the IP address and identities of anonymous- you do not know who they are either. And until then- them being responsible for the posting of police roster is simply conjecture of coincidence- as is my comment about the panther party.

Again I ask you- how am i cheering for the police organization?

What does any of my "making fun" have to do with your reaching your comment "you only agree on making fun of pekoe behind their back's?" Is this a "you got something to say- say it to my face" deal?

You didn't have the intention of drawing my attention- so you come to a thread I started and contribute to - and then poke fun at my remarks with your "I know someone that knows someone too" and expect me not to poke fun at you back. And now you say "don't talk to me". Temper tantrum :O

I made fun of that woman who lost her child bc I'm not convinced of her grief. Call me prejudice. Bc I am. Whoever isn't- is not human. I made this comment based on no fact. And ALL SPECULATION.