Ooh, I like this game. I wanna play too. John Dillinger -- killed by the police for going for a stroll after seeing a movie. Bonnie and Clyde -- killed by police for taking an afternoon drive through the backwoods on a nice summer day Osama Bin Laden -- killed by Navy SEALs for getting ready for bed. Am I playing it correctly?
Yeah you're playing the game correctly, all 4 of those guys never killed anyone. Let's compare those 4 to Michael Brown's situation. Jaywalking made him a gangster, so I guess he's like John Dillinger? Edit: Made example.
you are playing it wrong. let's stick to the pattern of your own original argument. your argument was based on the claim that the only relevant action that led to the killing is what the person was doing when the police confronted him, conveniently ignoring any other detail or action that may have contributed or was the direct reason for the shooting. now you want to add additional qualifications when that formula of such an argument is revealed to be completely f'ing stupid. when you have to continue to qualify your argument with more narrow qualifications it is because your original argument is proven to be shit.
The scenarios you presented isn't the same as Michael Browns. Those guys had a history and more than likely were already wanted by the police. That's why I said what I said originally. it's amazing how you guys are trying to justify a kid being shot 6 times but whatever it's not your problem or your kid. This game is worse then Superman 64.
And you're trying to suggest that he's some innocent "kid" that got gunned down simply for "jaywalking". Remind me what event immediately preceded his innocent "jaywalking". _
we live in a such a dishonest society that continuously attempt to portray an 18 year old, which is the legal age of adulthood in the U.S., as a child. more pleas to emotion. the entire defense of Brown is based on that.
So the officer was injured, is that good enough for you? or do you want the officer to take bullets before he is allowed to retaliate with the use of deadly force? Or would you rather have him just get killed?
Jaywalking isnt a criminal offense here in NY at least, we have "violations" which dont get labeled as criminal material.
But that's not the point. Jaywalking happens a million times a day in NYC or all over America. It's a stupid innocent thing folks do to cut across the street quickly and technically illegally to "get to the other side". It's not something you ever get cited for, much less brutally shot down. This dude was not jaywalking. 101 keeps making the red-herring argument that an innocent "kid" was minding his own business, jaywalking as if were just like any of the millions of jaywalkers every day and for that minor infraction got gunned down by an over zealous and probably racist cop. It's a heaping pile of horseshit. _
A cop has every right to use deadly force if they feel their life is threatened. Due to the fact they are trained that way, I must automatically assume that the cop felt his life was being threatened (unless I hear otherwise directly from him). And to the people claiming that the cop is a nutcase, any respectable department puts an individual through both psychological and backgrounds tests. The chances an individual with the mentality of a cold blooded killer slipped through is not the individuals fault, rather the people who hired him. (but again until I hear otherwise, I must assume he felt his life was being threatened so this is rather null for this situation).
the initial confrontation happened in the police car,where a shot was fired. That is pretty telling in who started it. I doubt the cop drew the struggle to his car,he was more likely pushed in. I always find it hard to understand why people don't realize how hard it is to be a cop,especially in certain neighborhoods. Anti-police and gang mentality is popular coulture to a large number of youth. Then,in a tense area,a large teen has the audacity to attack a cop,injure him and possible go for his gun? Right after he just robbed a store. In one breath people will call cops incapable,then expect them to react perfectly in every situation. I am sickened by the bullshit image of this whole thing created by the media They pretty much set the riots and looting up. Doesn't even matter if it comes out that Mike Brown was far in the wrong,the cop will still always be wrong and there would be no apology for the calls to go after his family etc.
As I say to everyone who gets up in arms every time there is a police incident to just wait for the facts to come out. Now after hearing for weeks about racist scumbag cops whatever we kno now certain things to be true. Last week all u heard was a cop shot an innocent little kid in the black that was all we knew. Now we know there was a struggle, Michael Brown wasnt an angel but a scumbag and this kid was not shot in the back like the media whipped it up to be. Now why are people looting again? Im sure they really are upstanding citizens.
One less mouth to feed in jail on the taxpayer's dime. The looters deserve the same as Brown got. Theft is not justified and is one of the easiest raps to beat or get off lightly. Probation and Community service are not good deterrents for robbing. Everyone has a choice to do right or wrong. There is just no consequence anymore.
Jaywalking did not make him a gangster. Jaywalking or actually walking down the center of the street, was just another example of his antisocial behavior after he robbed a convenience store. Of course walking down the center of the street is not an offense punishable by death but the point that was being made by others is that it is just another example of his mindset thinking he can do as he pleases without repercussion. The 5 witnesses are really questionable in some regards, did you see Dorian Johnsons' video interview? It sounded like he was coached on exactly what to say. Johnson says, "were not but a minute away from our destination, and we would shortly be out of the street,", do you really see Johnson saying this? Seems a bit contrived to me. The first wave of "eye witnesses" who said he was shot in the back have now been dropped for this new set of "eye witnesses". I do find it hard to believe some of this, the one says that Brown stated right before going to rob the convenience store, "The man said Brown told him that he was “feeling some bad vibes” but that the “Lord Jesus Christ” would help him through it.". Really? Right before he goes robbing a store? Yes, many questions and as yet not many answers.
I am pretty liberal in most regards but even I can see this fairly easily. This guy wants to go home alive, not in a body bag. His life is more important to him than the individual assaulting him.
An innocent kid gets shot in the back while nonchalantly crossing the street in the middle of the block rather than a cross walk and you better damn well believe looting is justified. _
One detail I haven't seen mentioned - maybe I've overlooked it - how many bullets did the cops magazine hold? We hear about 6 or 7 shots fired. We see 6 bullet holes on the front of the deceased. These 5 witnesses talk about "shots" fired while he was running away which to me indicates more than one. There is also the one shot that went off during a struggle in the car. So thats: 1 bullet for the struggle shot "shots" while running away = at least 2 6 bullet holes in the front -------------------------------------------- at least 9 shots If the struggle shot hit the deceased there would be blood of the deceased inside or on the car. Assuming that's not the case, since we haven't heard that detail there could be a math problem here with the reported number of bullets. The casings for each bullet fired should be able to be retrieved in the investigation too. edit: I did a little research and it sounds like they usually have higher capacity mags than I assumed.
