Michael Brown verdict discussion policy (page 8)

designs

You are mixing all protesters in the same bowl, try again.

designs

Since I left the JWs I have become politically active and engage in social and environmental protests, all protesters are not the same.

I march with the Peace Alliance as one group. We are a non-violent group opposed to war and other forms of violence. At a Hollywood rally we had other groups try to mix in with our purpose. Marxists who were also selling Che Guevarra T-shirts. I took the opportunity to speak to the young people wearing the Che shirts about Che's violent actions. It was a very good and enlightening exchange.

Don't lump looters and government plants, and radical insurrectionists in with those who march in Ferguson for proper Justice and better lives.

Marvin Shilmer

Law enforcement personnel have tough jobs. Rightfully we want them to keep us safe. Rightfully we second guess them. My impression of Mr. Brown is that he had little respect for law and order, or for the average hard working citizen. One look at the video robbery and how Mr. Brown threatened that storekeeper with his physique tells me this. Respectful law abiding citizens do not treat their fellowman like that. Ever!!!

I'm waiting with everyone else to learn more about the shooting incident. But if officer Wilson was concerned about safety of residents, and if he had reason to think Mr. Brown was a threat to citizenry then he'd have taken measures to apprehend Mr. Brown without needlessly jeopardizing third-parties.

Officer Wilson had choices regarding his own welfare. He could choose to place himself in danger or he could choose not to. Mr. Brown had the same choices. Officer Wilson could not decide for Mr. Brown and Mr. Brown could not decide for Officer Wilson, though both could initiate a physical altercation. For the life of me I can't think of a single reason why Officer Wilson would have initiated a physical altercation with Mr. Brown, that is unless he's some kind of bigot. I can say the same for Mr. Brown. The difference is that only moments prior to the shooting incident we have Mr. Brown on film choosing to threaten someone with violence, and for what reason? From all appearances Mr. Brown was wholly intolerant of objections from a storekeeper over theft of property. That’s a disturbing form of bigotry. Rather than being empathetic Mr. Brown instead chose bravado of the worst kind. He stood up for criminal behavior and against someone who made use of nonviolent civil behavior to voice opposition to thievery.

The storekeeper was using non-violent civil behavior in objection to petty thievery. Mr. Brown responded with utter disrespect and chose physical confrontation and intimidation. This tells me of Mr. Brown’s leanings when it comes to bigotry. He apparently respected his own choices, but not the views of those of objected to his own. That makes Mr. Brown a bigot.

As for law enforcement officers, we have legislatures pass laws requiring them to wear firearms. There is a reason for this. We want to be protected, and we want our children protected. In particular we want to be protected from people in society who are willing to stand up for law breaking and against honest hard working folk whose “crime” is to object to law breaking in the face of law-breakers.

Mr. Brown was a predator. He was a bigot. What he did that day on that video shows it. That is the kind of man Mr. Brown was. These are precisely the folk we ask law enforcement officers to protect us from, and hopefully BEFORE they become more emboldened.

designs

Since I have been arrested it is obvious that different methods of confinement produce different results. You can have your shoulder dislocated by having your arm wrenched behind your back, which produces excruciating pain. A person's reaction would natually be to move away from that position and pain. You can also have your hands cuffed in front of you, tightly or loosely.

Look at a photo of Arnold Abbott the 90 year old arrested and cuffed for serving food to the homeless in Florida. Cuffed loosely in front so as to not cause any pain. Then look at photos of the man in New York who died because he was being choked and his arms were twisted behind him..

Marvin Shilmer

You are mixing all protesters in the same bowl, try again.

When I see images and video of vandal hoodlums doing what they did during the Michael Brown protests I see men acting just like Mr. Brown acted earlier the same day of his death when he was not under threat and was free to leverage his physical presence against an innocent store clerk.

Those hoodlums are Mr. Brown’s behavioral brethren. What better way to honor someone than to act like them? Those guys are the real protestors! They want law-enforcement to leave them alone so they can do what they want to do and with utter disregard for other persons’ welfare and property. Isn’t that what Mr. Brown wanted that day in that store?

designs

You could not be more mistaken Mr. Shilmer.

My wife was a member of the Socialists For A Democratic Society (SDS) in her college years. She left when the groups began to advocate violence, and why was this new message being preached, it was government agents who had infiltrated into the groups and began taking over. Things are not always what they appear.

There are protesters in Ferguson whose purpose is peaceful and they want a Just system.

Simon

My theory based on what we know and what seems a reasonably likely explanation:

The officer drove up to them because they were walking in the middle of the street but MB assumed it was because of the robbery they had just committed and they were going to be arrested. Rather than be arrested he decided to again use his size and attack the officer before he could leave his vehicle. The officer of course faught back and MB was shot in the hand inside the vehicle. After that MB didn't run away - the crucial part that the jury has to decide is whether he was then surrendering, in which case the killing could be considered unlawful, or if he turned to continue the altercation which resulted in him being lawfully shot and killed.

The other scenarios seem unlikely and counter to common sense (e.g. the officer trying to pull MB into the vehicle through the window!).

I'm not saying this is absolute and proven, it just seems a believable series of events based on what we know. Through the tinted spectacles of race it seems people want to believe a series of unlikely events that stop just short of claiming an officer on duty decided to shoot a black man for no reason but didn't pick someone alone or away from potential witnesses - instead he chose to begin with a physical assault on someone much larger than him who had a friend with him. It just doesn't seem likely however it's spun, no wonder it's shortened to "hands up don't shoot" instead.

It's hard to come up with any explanation for the presidents involvement and statements in selective cases while there are ongoing investigations and legal processes are for any other reason than race which is a disappointment for several reasons. I think it gives the appearance of him being a black president first and the american president second and it seems designed to retain the black vote which he and his party realy heavily on. I don't think he should be weighing in on the matter before the legal process is complete.

Simon

There are protesters in Ferguson whose purpose is peaceful and they want a Just system.

Most violent protests are preceeded with claims that they want peace. What matters more is the language they use overall and whether they are truly promoting that idea or not and reminding their supporters of it.

While I believe many protesters do feel that they want to peacefully protest, if you step back and look at the rhetoric, many are not calling for justice or for a fair process to happen, they are demanding a result and seem to be holding the threat of violence over the area if they don't get it. We've had comments on this forum suggesting people should riot if they don't get the result they want - I find it hard to imagine that the protestors are not "more" extreme in their views.

What are all the shop keepers boarding up their shops for? One guy on the news claimed the protests would be peaceful and he was actually boarding his shop up to protect it from the police. I can't recall any incident of police looting ever so that's a first! But it shows how people can be a little illogical with all that is going on and not want to admit to the reality of the situation.

Marvin Shilmer

Does some faction of society make it easier to justify putting 0.26oz. of lead into another human by labels of predator bigot jerk and thug.

A label is one thing. The shoe fitting is something else.

A bigot is someone who strongly and unfairly dislikes another person’s idea solely because they hold a different opinion.

There are bigots who’d love to ply labels as justification of lethal force. But in this case we’re not talking about a label. We’ve talking about someone who demonstrated bigotry with predatory behavior against a weaker man who was doing no more than exercising non-violent civil behavior in the form of objecting to theft. That storekeeper voiced his opinion of a theft in progress, and Mr. Brown shared his strong and unfair dislike of that man’s opinion by threatening him with violence.

Mr. Brown acted as a bigot therefore he was a bigot. If this label’s Mr. Brown then he labelled himself because he freely chose to behave as he did.

designs

And that can be happening in any protest. But I believe, based on experience in protests, that the person throwing a cinder block through a store window to take a TV is not the same person standing peacefully with some symbol of their purpose- candle light vigil, hands held up in symbol of peace, a sign etc..

Michael Brown verdict discussion policy

Share this