Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Amazingfun · 26-11-2014 04:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

apparently only tried to take it. if that was even true it is nothing major if the gun was secured properly. if he had any chance of taking it it would have been because the officer was to stupid to secure it properly

You write the most ridiculous posts. "Nothing major" to try and take a police officer's gun? LOL!

BoJack Horseman · 26-11-2014 04:04PM

end of the road wrote: »

apparently only tried to take it. if that was even true it is nothing major if the gun was secured properly

Attempting to violently disarm an officer is rather serious.

The storage status of the firearm is very very secondary.

Nerdlingr · 26-11-2014 04:06PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Attempting to violently disarm an officer is rather serious.

Yeah but if the officer had it firmly secured there's no way Brown could have got it. So what was the problem like?!!!! :P Bit a harmless fun attacking a police officer. Its not like anyone got hurt...no wait...

Beano · 26-11-2014 04:06PM

end of the road wrote: »

apparently only tried to take it. if that was even true it is nothing major if the gun was secured properly. if he had any chance of taking it it would have been because the officer was to stupid to secure it properly

Oh thats ok, he only tried to take it. So its the officers fault that somebody tried to take this gun? The gun was in a holster? how hard do you think it is to unbutton a holster?

end of the road · 26-11-2014 04:06PM

jugger0 wrote: »

Sig Sauer is a small caliber weapon, the lad killed was a big fella so it would of taken a few shots to kill him, tho the officer could of shot him between the eyes but i imagine people would be complaining about that too.

He wasn't "murdered" for robbing a shop, he was killed for attacking a police officer, the world is a better place without him.

Also the community of Ferguson have really let themselves down by thrashing the place for "justice"... any excuse to steal and destroy.

he was murdered. by stating the world is a better place without him you are condoning violence and in turn condoning what it is said he supposibly did. the world isn't a better place without him as people are now engineering situations to have the police come so they can attack them eventually leading to god knows what.

Beano · 26-11-2014 04:07PM

end of the road wrote: »

he was murdered, and i doubt he went for the gun unless the officer was to stupid to secure it properly

you doubt??? I prefer to base my opinions on facts not suppositions.

Amazingfun · 26-11-2014 04:08PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Attempting to violently disarm an officer is rather serious.

Every single rational person knows this. Even here in Ireland where there isn't the (well ..not quite yet anyways) racial tension that exists in the US. Just try to imagine yourself taking anything from an officer and envision how that particular scenario might go :pac:

Beano · 26-11-2014 04:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

he was murdered. by stating the world is a better place without him you are condoning violence and in turn condoning what it is said he supposibly did. the world isn't a better place without him as people are now engineering situations to have the police come so they can attack them eventually leading to god knows what.

He wasnt murdered. that is a matter of fact. your opinion of it is irrelevant.

end of the road · 26-11-2014 04:08PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Attempting to violently disarm an officer is rather serious.

The storage status of the firearm is very very secondary.

its very very primary. if someone is able to apparently almost try to take it its down to not being secured properly

BoJack Horseman · 26-11-2014 04:10PM

end of the road wrote: »

if someone is able to apparently almost try to take it its down to not being secured properly

Just like, if you forget to lock your door & are robbed, no blame should rest on the thief.

Stretching here do defend the kids tragic actions.

Amazingfun · 26-11-2014 04:11PM

end of the road wrote: »

its very very primary. if someone is able to apparently almost try to take it its down to not being secured properly

Are you some kind of stealth comedian? You think you can even touch a police officer without severe consequence much less try to take a weapon off them ? Pure fantasy.

Killer Wench · 26-11-2014 04:12PM

The problem with the Grand Jury is that it is not an adversarial process. There isn't a prosecutor and defense attorney asking questions from two different directions. In this case, the prosecutor served as a defense attorney, working to defend Wilson's actions.

If this had been an adversarial process, then Wilson's testimony would have been challenged instead of taking as the truth. There are inconsistencies in his story.

He said that there was a confrontation at his window and that Mike Brown had tried to disarm in the car. Drivers sit on the left side in the US. Wilson's window would have been on his left side. Mike would have had to reach through this window and attempt to disarm Wilson. Wilson said that Brown struck him twice and he was afraid that the third strike would kill him.

Well, the pictures of his bruises show light pink marks. They do not appear to be the crushing blows that Wilson said that they were. Secondly, these marks are on his right side of the face. If Brown had been reaching threw the window, he would have been facing Wilson's left side. These marks should be on the left side of his face not the right side.

take everything · 26-11-2014 04:12PM

jank wrote: »

Powerful video by someone who actually wants to fix the problem and not perpetuate the usual agenda driven social justice warrior crap that some want.

For context.

Wow, that was brilliant.

Earl Turner · 26-11-2014 04:14PM

end of the road wrote: »

its very very primary. if someone is able to apparently almost try to take it its down to not being secured properly

Mike Brown was a dumbass and deserves a Darwin Award. Trying to take an American cop's gun, may as well just shoot yourself and get over with it.

Beano · 26-11-2014 04:14PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

The problem with the Grand Jury is that it is not an adversarial process. There isn't a prosecutor and defense attorney asking questions from two different directions. In this case, the prosecutor served as a defense attorney, working to defend Wilson's actions.

If this had been an adversarial process, then Wilson's testimony would have been challenged instead of taking as the truth. There are inconsistencies in his story.

He said that there was a confrontation at his window and that Mike Brown had tried to disarm in the car. Drivers sit on the left side in the US. Wilson's window would have been on his left side. Mike would have had to reach through this window and attempt to disarm Wilson. Wilson said that Brown struck him twice and he was afraid that the third strike would kill him.

Well, the pictures of his bruises show light pink marks. They do not appear to be the crushing blows that Wilson said that they were. Secondly, these marks are on his right side of the face. If Brown had been reaching threw the window, he would have been facing Wilson's left side. These marks should be on the left side of his face not the right side.

There is an adversarial element to it. The members of the jury are allowed to question any of the evidence presented.

jugger0 · 26-11-2014 04:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

he was murdered. by stating the world is a better place without him you are condoning violence and in turn condoning what it is said he supposibly did. the world isn't a better place without him as people are now engineering situations to have the police come so they can attack them eventually leading to god knows what.

One less scumbag to be fair, anyone ambushing police will meet the same fate, good riddance!

Beano · 26-11-2014 04:23PM

Here is the link to the actual grand jury testimony. It is obvious that some people here not read it or if they have they are not interested in the facts of what happened.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370569-grand-jury-volume-5.html#document/p224/a189408

nadey · 26-11-2014 04:24PM

The black dude went for the gun, what did he expect

Nerdlingr · 26-11-2014 04:29PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

The problem with the Grand Jury is that it is not an adversarial process. There isn't a prosecutor and defense attorney asking questions from two different directions. In this case, the prosecutor served as a defense attorney, working to defend Wilson's actions.

If this had been an adversarial process, then Wilson's testimony would have been challenged instead of taking as the truth. There are inconsistencies in his story.

He said that there was a confrontation at his window and that Mike Brown had tried to disarm in the car. Drivers sit on the left side in the US. Wilson's window would have been on his left side. Mike would have had to reach through this window and attempt to disarm Wilson. Wilson said that Brown struck him twice and he was afraid that the third strike would kill him.

Well, the pictures of his bruises show light pink marks. They do not appear to be the crushing blows that Wilson said that they were. Secondly, these marks are on his right side of the face. If Brown had been reaching threw the window, he would have been facing Wilson's left side. These marks should be on the left side of his face not the right side.

Where does he say that? He doesnt mention being in fear of being killed at all. He doesnt mention "crushing blows". Left side, right side injuries doesnt matter. This was a 'scuffle' at a close proximity. Any side of the face can be hit.

Killer Wench · 26-11-2014 04:33PM

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Did white people riot/loot/set fire to cars/stores after OJ was found not guilty of murdering a white woman? A bit of perspective is needed in this thread.

No. White people didn't loot after OJ was found not guilty.

But White people looted when Joe Paterno, a famed football couch, was fired. He was fired after stories surfaced that one of his assistant couches had sexually abused and raped young boys who participated in children's football camps. Paterno knew and did nothing about it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/10/rioting-penn-state-students-topple-tv-van-attack-reporter-in-wake-of-paterno-firing/

Rioting after a Pumpkin Festival in Keene, New Hampshire:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/19/us/new-hampshire-pumpkin-festival-riot/

Here are our cousins in Canada, looting and rioting after the Canucks lost Game 7 in the Stanley Cup Finals:

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/looting-breaks-out-as-riots-intensify-in-vancouver-1.657730

Yes, there was rioting and looting in Ferguson after an 18 year old was shot and killed by the police.

Since Brown's death, a 12 year old Black boy was shot and killed by police in Cleveland. The child was carrying a toy gun and when he was commanded to put the gun down, the child froze, and then was shot twice in the stomach.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/26/cleveland-to-release-video-12-year-old-boy-shot-by-officer/

Since Brown's death, a Black man was gunned down in the middle of a Walmart. He had picked up a toy gun and was carrying it around the store. Most customers didn't care. But then someone called it in saying that he was pointing it at customers; police responded by killing the man. The 911 caller later retracted their statement about the man pointing the gun at people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/25/ohio-wal-mart-surveillance-video-shows-police-shooting-and-killing-john-crawford-iii/

Since Brown's death, a Black man in Utah was shot in the back after police responded to a 911 call that a man was swinging a sword. It turned out the man was wearing an anime costume and the sword on his back was for show. Police said he charged him with the sword. Witnesses said that the man had been talking and laughing with the police before he was shot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/29/utah-police-shooting/18102775/

The reason people are angry is because in these police shootings, police have said that they feared for their life and they responded with deadly force. Witnesses contradict the police statements. Police are using the deeply entrenched fear that most Americans are programmed to have about Black people--Black men in particular.

Wilson described Brown as being a hulking figure. Wilson said that he felt like a five year compared to Brown's size. He said that Brown practically grew with rage. His comments mirror the old racist images of the apish Black man.

Killer Wench · 26-11-2014 04:34PM

Beano wrote: »

There is an adversarial element to it. The members of the jury are allowed to question any of the evidence presented.

No there is not an adversarial element to it. That is not the purpose of the Grand Jury. Trials are adversarial in which there are two opposing sides.

Nerdlingr · 26-11-2014 04:39PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Wilson described Brown as being a hulking figure. Wilson said that he felt like a five year compared to Brown's size. He said that Brown practically grew with rage. His comments mirror the old racist images of the apish Black man.

Saying a 300lb man is bigger than you and you felt dwarved compared to him is racist how? Fact was Mike Brown was bigger than Wilson!! Wilson said he felt over powered in the car during the scuffle. He couldnt get the door open because Brown was leaning his strength and weight against it.
There's no "images of the apish black man" being called up at all.

Amazingfun · 26-11-2014 04:40PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

No there is not an adversarial element to it. That is not the purpose of the Grand Jury. Trials are adversarial in which there are two opposing sides.

He was right. The Grand Jury was allowed to grill them and ask for anything they wanted and in whatever manner they so desired-including aggressive/adversarial.

end of the road · 26-11-2014 04:40PM

jugger0 wrote: »

One less scumbag to be fair, anyone ambushing police will meet the same fate, good riddance!

he didn't ambush police. willson was obviously a bit ferrel and looking for an excuse to shoot him. scumbag or not is irrelevant. by using one being a scumbag as an excuse to have violence done to them, you also condone any violent act they may have done

nadey · 26-11-2014 04:42PM

Wilson was working class so it was ok to kill him

BoJack Horseman · 26-11-2014 04:43PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

His comments mirror the old racist images of the apish Black man.

As an NFL fan I used to marvel at the size and physicality of the mostly black offensive & defensive linemen.

Then I realised that I'm a vile racist.

end of the road · 26-11-2014 04:43PM

nadey wrote: »

The black dude went for the gun, what did he expect

a properly trained officer to be able to fend him off. not some ferrel trigger happy dreg looking to shoot someone to stir up whatever. thats if he went for the gun at all, which if it was secured properly he wouldn't have been able to anyway had he supposibly gone for it

Amazingfun · 26-11-2014 04:43PM

end of the road wrote: »

he didn't ambush police. willson was obviously a bit ferrel and looking for an excuse to shoot him. scumbag or not is irrelevant. by using one being a scumbag as an excuse to have violence done to them, you also condone any violent act they may have done

Yeah. He was the wild one alright.

Killer Wench · 26-11-2014 04:46PM

Mistakes in the investigation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

26-11-2014 04:46PM

nadey wrote: »

Wilson was working class so it was ok to kill him

what are you talking about??? Wilson wasnt killed, Wilson is the officer, Mike Brown is the name of the man killed.

Jaze, at least get the names right

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments