Who could expect to go for an officers gun, hell ANYONES gun and not get shot?? common sense people.
Was justice served fairly in the Micheal Brown tragedy, whats your opinion ?
by Finkelstein 164 Replies latest social current
-
-
punkofnice
Let it go. Please. ~ Minnyman
Yes. I agree. These threads seem to be banging on ad nauseum just like the 'tight pants' stuff.
Enough is enough.....it's this kind of rhetoric that bores me. Okay, I suppose some may say: 'Well don't read them then.'
My reply would be: 'I guess you're right but from a people watching point of view how can I resist? It seems to weed out the sanctimonious to the humble and all in between.'
It gives me a handle on what I think of whom.
-
Finkelstein
Your desire for to investigate the facts seems intent on being very one-sided fink. Why is that? Why the agenda?
Just being open minded thats all, after I had a long talk with my cop friend, I was left wondering were there possible mistakes made in this violent tragedy ???
During the struggle over the gun at the police vehicle and it wasn't proven exclusively that Brown was intent to turn the gun directly at Wilson and fire directly at him, then of course Wilson had all the right to open fire at Brown.
It was stated by Wilson during his testimony that wasn't what happened , more of he grabbed the gun and he pushed it down toward the side of the seat of the SUV.
I don't recall reading that he tried strenuously to turn the gun directly at himself during his testimony.
-
minimus
What a ridiculous comment. If you grab a gun and it is trying to be maneuvered, I don't know if you are pointing at me or not, I just know you are trying to take a gun away from me. Stupid reasoning, insulting the intelligence of anyone that has even little bit of brains.
-
Simon
Really? So now the burden is that not only does someone need to be trying to grab your gun but conclusively trying to turn it toward you ! You're unbelievable.
You think that's how it works? When someone is attacking you? "hey, I must let him point the gun at me so that it's clear he is intend on doing harm".
Wait, what was he doing before he was grabbing for the gun? Oh yeah - punching him!
-
Finkelstein
It seems I cant express my thoughts and opinions freely without occurring vitriol attacks against myself (Minimus), therefore I will leave this thread for good.
I just noticed I had my last comment erased, without explanation .
This forum used to be quite open to debate and discussion, if it was done so with respect to others people's opinions.
I've noticed with this particular topic discussion that people are getting way over emotional with it for reasons that have left me a bit puzzled.
-
TheSilence
I would like to sign up for this job:
In this job I will put my life on the line to protect and serve those in my community.
In the course of this job I must wonder every time someone reaches where I cannot clearly see if they are pulling a gun to take my life.
When I see someone putting themselves in danger and others by walking in the middle of the road I must first approach respectfully. I cannot have a bad day where I am cranky. Divorce, breakup, death in the family, trouble with a kid at home... don't ever let it bring my demeanor to be less than ideal because if I do then it justifies someone going for my gun. Actually, nevermind. It does not matter if I respond ideally for it will automatically be assumed that I was one of the "asshole" cops who just acts a bully no matter what.
Once I have ideally addressed the walking in the middle of the road if I notice that the people in question match the description of someone who just participated in a strong arm robbery I must decide what to do. Call and wait for backup... robbers possibly get away, possibly participate in another crime, possibly hurt someone seriously this time... I am villified by the public and the media for not doing my job to serve and protect. Decide to address it immediately knowing I have called for backup and it's on the way... possibly the situation will escalate and I am villified by the public and the media. Well, if I'm going to be villified by the public and the media anyway I may as well err on the side of public safety since I am sworn to protect law abiding citizens.
So... say something to the gentleman on the street again... again remembering to be respectful... no thoughts of anything negative... don't let your concern for the fact that this person has already used force in a robbery cause enough concern to deter you from being perfectly courteous.
Wait! WTF! I'm being attacked! Hit by someone signifigantly larger than myself. Wrestling over my gun. Now before I do anything take the time to stop, even though the person attacking me is not going to stop and give me time to think, but stop and take the time to think anyway... am I sure his intent is to use the gun on me before I decide to fire it? I mean, not just sure... really really sure? I mean it isn't *currently* turned directly at me. So let me stop and think... am I absolutely certain, without any doubt, that he means to use the gun on me? Yes, that's a reasonable expectation of the public to have of me at this moment, to have this conversation with myself in my head at this particular moment.
So, okay, I've decided... even if I'm not 100% sure, I'm at least sure enough, or maybe scared enough, to fire the gun. Okay, now he's running away. He's pissed off. He has already used physical violence against a store owner and myself... should I risk letting him get away to continue doing this to others? I mean, I know I called for back up so maybe I should just let him go until they get here so he has time to force his way into some innocent person's home and threatens them with physical violence while we do a manhunt door to door. And once we figure out where he is, *if* we figure out where he is, we have a hostage situation on our hands. No, I know it will be frowned upon that I didn't wait for backup but I really think I should try to get him to stop now.
Out of the car. Pull my gun. Order him to stop. Not just him. Both of them. Remember it's 2 on 1 now. I might not be able to shoot as well as at the range considering I've just suffered blows to the head, I've never been in a situation of high enough stress to fire, and I'm trying to worry about 2 people not just 1... so how close do I let him get before I start firing? I know he's not going to stop and give me time to figure it out... but I'm going to stop and do the calculations in my head anyway... how close is far enough that I have enough time to defend myself in a not so great, able to shoot straight frame of mind but yet close enough that the public will decide that I had reason to fear for my life? Screw that, I already fear for my life. I would rather be indicted than dead and I shouldn't be indicted because at this point I do honestly and reasonably fear for my life if he gets my gun.
So I take the shot. More than one. I see one hit him and stop firing. He still comes at me. Apparently at this point I'm just supposed to shrug and say, well, it didn't work the first time and I don't want it to look like I went into overkill so I'm just going to give up at this point. But, again, I'd rather be indicted for a crime I'm not committing than be dead so I take the shots again. I shoot until he stops. I do not shoot into his back once he is down because I have now eliminated the threat and despite the fact that I have just been attacked and hit in the head, despite the fact that I have fired my weapon in the line of duty for the first time ever, despite the fact that I have killed a man for the first time ever, despite the fact that I know his friend is somewhere around, despite the fact that I know I will be villified in the public and the media at this point because I've seen it a thousand times before, despite the fact that I will be accused of having acted in anger, despite all of that I am still thinking clearly enough to know that once the threat is eliminated it is my job to stop. I know that I will be accused of not doing my job right in this situation no matter what I do, but I am still going to stop now that the threat is eliminated because it is the right thing to do.
Now there is a public outcry and media outcry for me to pay for every bad cop that ever existed, to pay for the wrongs others have committed in the name of racism. It doesn't matter that I am not racist. It doesn't matter that I didn't do this because the guy was black. The public and media are going to cry for me to be crucified in the name of everyone else who has committed a racist act. The hypocrisy of saying "don't judge my by my skin just because other black people are criminals doesn't mean that I am" while judging me for the uniform I wear and the others who have not done right by it before rather than on the content of my character and the merits of the evidence in this case.... that hypocrisy does not matter. The call will go out for my head.
There will be protests. That I can accept. What I cannot accept is the looting and burning of the place I am sworn to protect. What I cannot accept is a bounty put on my head and the heads of my family.
But, yeah... completely reasonable. Sign me up.
-
Simon
I just noticed I had my last comment erased, without explanation.
You have had umpteen explanations and reminders - I made it very clear that we were not going to have this endless invention of non-evidence and muddying of the waters with "what if" and "why didn't". A jury has decided based on the evidence and the facts are clear.
This forum used to be quite open to debate and discussion, if it was done so with respect to others people's opinions.
And it still is if you stick to the rules. Other people seem to be managing it.
I've noticed with this particular topic discussion that people are getting way over emotional with it for reasons that have left me a bit puzzled.
It's because your stupidity is exhasperating. YOU are winding people up and I believe doing it intentionally. I am telling you to stop.
-
Finkelstein
I made it very clear that we were not going to have this endless invention of non-evidence
I thought the in court testimony by Wilson was viable evidence relevant to evaluating the actual events. ??
YOU are winding people up and I believe doing it intentionally. I am telling you to stop.
Not my sincerest intentions at all, I'm just trying to make an analytical investigation to the crime at hand via Sherlock Holmes style as it were.
Did you notice all along this thread and the one you started, that I've respected other people's opinions on the matter including the ones posted by yourself ?
In any case, I can see thats its not worthy to openly discuss this particular issue due to the upending involving emotions that it has stirred up right now, perhaps later in the future when things quiet down.
Let cooler heads prevail !
Feel free to delete this thread if you wish Simon ...... Best regards Fink.
-
Simon
You are not looking at the evidence, you are cherry picking looking for minor inconsistencies or gaps to quible over and use to assume guilt or apportion blame where it isn't warranted. This is grossly unfair to an officer who did nothing wrong.
Any retelling of any event is going to have little things that we think don't quite make sense or are maybe just phrased awkwardly. They are absolutely nothing compared to the outright lies told against the officer such as "he shot MB in the back while running away". The facts of the case are clear and well supported by the forensic evidence.
It's all part of a narrative designed to undermine the correct legal decision through innuendo and rumour and endless repetition of false claims in an attempt to inject doubt and make the lies stick. It's not helpful and we don't need it.
I made it clear that we were not going to have that crap again this time and you repeatedly ignored the request.