Do you think Officer Darren Wilson should indicted?

What I thought what you were trying articulating was that civil protesting and being vocal about bias/inadequacies in the systems treatment of minority was injurious to the cause of improving the system, and instead, the key lied in people of color simply trying to behave better.

@pooty:

Smarter is a better word. Be respectful, be polite, be intelligent about the laws in your area, know your rights and know their authority, understand that the only place to fight a cop is in a courtroom (unless your body/life is threatened) and most importantly DONT. BREAK. THE LAW.

@wolverine08:

No that isn't my position at all. Civil protesting and being vocal are great tools to use. I'm saying that in conjunction with that we should learn from the mistakes of Mike Brown and the looters/rioters and get smarter than that. If Dr. King were alive he'd vilify the looters and criticize Mike for a) Robbing that store and b) not just getting on the damn sidewalk when the cop told you to.

What you say applies to ALL PEOPLE. but when you singled out black people it made it appear that you were implying that black people DON'T do the things. or should do a better job at it. but misinterpretations happen all the time

It wasn't really Brown's fault in regards to the sidewalk incident. According to Dorian Johnson's testimony that was released Monday, when Wilson told them to get f%ck on the sidewalk, he replied that they were on their close to their destination, and Wilson only came back when he thought he heard Brown say something. If true, it's not really Brown's fault for Wilson misinterpreting him.

@wolverine08:

There are conflicting stories to say the least. That's a different story than the one on the news in my area last night. So I won't argue against because I don't know if what I heard is true or what you heard is. But other than that, I hope you understand where I'm coming from now.

@sog7dc: Yeah, I get what you were trying to articulate and it is a sensible posiiton. Oh, and in regards to the testimony I was referring to:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story

Here's what I think.....summed up nicely in bullet points

• Brown attacked an officer. Lets just get that out of the way. He was in the wrong, and whatever happened to him was his fault. I don't think anyone is disputing that.
• However, should Officer Wilson go to jail for the murder of Michael Brown? (YES) According to Missouri law the answer is.....no.....kind of.....
• Missouri Law basically states that an Officer can, at his/her discretion, use deadly force to achieve the arrest (doesn't make any sense), when the arresting Officer has probable cause to suspect the suspect has committed a felony, may be a danger to others, and/or attempts to escape using a deadly weapon.
• Federal/Constitutional Law states that officers are permitted to use deadly force to protect their own life/the life of another or to prevent the escape of a suspect who has committed a violent felony. The two laws are close but there are several nuances between them that make all the difference.
• I firmly believe if this had not happened in Missouri, Officer Wilson would be heading to Court, and rightly so.
• However, I also want to say the indictment hearing was a bunch of bull
• Officer Wilson is a liar and arguably has questionable history with black people (srsly look it up)
• His story has changed from he picked up Brown for jaywalking to he immediately identified brown as the robbery suspect
• Even with Missouri Law, you can only defend your life long enough to ensure your survival. Brown was shot once in the car and then fled. For some reason he turns around and charges the man who just shot him? The distance between Wilson and Brown just doesn't sit well with me either.
• The Indictment jury was rigged
• Have we gotten the second opinion on the autopsy yet?
• The man said he feared for his life but his wounds clearly do not reflect that. He says he thought another hit from Brown could potentially put him down, but he suffered 3+ to the face with no barely any bruising at all, if any. At least Zimmerman got his ass kicked.
• Officers need better training; the gun shouldn't be their go-to choice
• Pansys shouldn't be Officers

@wolverine08:

Thanks.

Who?

I really wish the polls were fixed :/

I definitely agree that the literacy rate is among some people is very low since people don't understand the meaning of what they typed or its implications.

You claimed that you would rather be a white supremacist than a hoodlum that destroys his neighborhood, so for anyone with a ounce of common sense the point of contention would be with the white supremacist assertion. The reason being is because being a white supremacist doesn't guarantee that you wouldn't be a hoodlum destroying his or her own neighborhood when probabilistic whites commit vandalism and arson at a rate of almost 3 times that of black people. That is why the statistics were pertinent to the discussion, you were just to simple-minded to actually understand why they would be important to what you said. In addition to that the reason I worded it as "being better off" was because your claim gave off the impression that if you have white supremacist leanings your community would be devoid of arson and vandalism since the way that you worded your response implied that vandalism and arson are typical of black communities which was shown false with FBI data, so you weren't misquoted or misread. If was the case that I did misquote then ask yourself why would prefer to be a white supremacist rather than a hoodlum, obviously being a white supremacist confers some time of advantage versus a hoodlum in your mind; so it necessarily follows that in your perceptions of things that you would be better off as being white supremacist in this comparison.

The same thing can be said of the system in place, so the question being who has the more of an obligation to change? The citizens who productively contribute to this country or the institutions in place that abuse minorities due to foundational bias. I would say that the institution have the moral obligation to treat the citizens that it is suppose to represent fairly because the end that is why we as humans have decided to form organization social groups that give rise to these institutions that are suppose to promote the common good, so we as citizens have a right to demand that these institutions fulfill their end of the deal since we have given them the authority to do what is necessary to preserve our self-interest.

These stereotypes come from white people! You don't see any generalizations and stereotypes being thrown around when a white perpetrator makes national news, so why is it acceptable for white people to use caricatures to describe black people and "black" culture when it makes national headline?

Him robbing a liquor store doesn't warrant his death, especially when he was unarmed. Again, stop with the racist caricatures of Michael Brown's character just because a black person does something wrong doesn't mean they are a thug or idealize the thug lifestyle. The video of him robbing the liquor in no way validates Darren Wilson's account of the story or his murder.

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

So its still OK to kill unarmed black men in America.

Lol at whoever supports their decision

Brown assaulted the guy, tried to wrestle the gun away from him and then charged at him. The assault and charge clearly indicate malicious intent. The wrestling for the gun indicates lethal intent. I believe everyone should have the right to shoot an attacker who threatens their life without just cause.

It has nothing to do with race.

Lmfao. Sure thing bro... Your ignorance is showing.

Your transcription of the whole incident isn't as straight forward and unambiguous as you're making it out to be. There are witnesses(Dorian Johnson, etc.) that assert that Wilson initiated the altercation by pulling Brown forward from the window, if believe to be true, Brown wrestling for the gun could be him fearing Wilson was going to cause him harm, and there are witness who refute the idea of there being a go for broke like charge, and the position of Brown's body after he got killed doesn't even work with the idea of a charge occurring. I agree with this not being about race(It's more of the media that has perpetrated racially based stereotyping of Brown), but this isn't a clear cut self defense of an attacker.

The Officer shouldn't have killed Brown. But he did have the right to defend himself.

@wolverine08:

When your brain goes into fight or flight mode, it literally moves blood away from the part of the brain that records memories, and thus, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Even going off eye witness accounts in this instance, accounts run the gamut, and some back up Wilson's story. As for the position of the body, forensics can and as far as I can tell have confirmed that Brown's injuries match Wilson's description of events. I've not heard anything forensically that contradicts the police version of events.

I'm glad we are on the same page about the shooting having nothing to do with race, but I don't see how Brown has been cast by the media as a stereotype. I see Brown as a thief and a thug, and I formed that opinion by watching his actions in the convenience store. All the media did was report the truth. My opinion of him being a thug has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his actions.

@nick_hero22: I implied nothing. Your posting of arson stats had nothing to do with my comments. I didn't even mention arson or fire in my post. You incorrectly assumed that is what I meant. They are looting, destroying property, shooting, flipping over cars etc. And in this specific case you can't say the majority is white. I know your butt hurt that the grand jury decided not to indict, but there's nothing you can do about. If anything, learn from Browns mistakes and don't repeat them.

@lone_wolf_and_cub: Do you understand what I meant by that? If not, its better to not comment if it means being ignorant enough to label something you don't understand.

@batwatch:

When your brain goes into fight or flight mode, it literally moves blood away from the part of the brain that records memories, and thus, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

Well, I doubt witnesses would be in fight or flight mode because they aren't in involved in the confrontation(If anything this information would serve to work better for trying to discredit Wilson's testimony since he would be heavy with fight or flight), but even if we abide by this, Wilson's supporters eye witness accounts aren't squeaky clean themselves.

As for the position of the body, forensics can and as far as I can tell have confirmed that Brown's injuries match Wilson's description of events. I've not heard anything forensically that contradicts the police version of events.

Normally, forensic evidence is concrete, veracious, and something that can be trusted over eye witness accounts, but in the case of Micheal Brown, forensic was polluted and adulterated in several key places. Wilson washed blood off of his body after he returned to headquarters(Blood that he suspected was Michael Brown's), Wilson's gun wasn't tested for Brown's finger prints(Which could have proven whether the hand wound to Brown's hand was him grabbing the gun or his hand just being within in the vicinity), the distance of Brown's body and other distances of length were admittedly not measured by the medical legal examiner who reported to the scene(Even though looking at pictures taken by witnesses Brown's back is facing away from the vehicle, which doesn't make any sense if we abide by the idea that Brown charged Wilson), Wilson's weapon wasn't immediately returned to investigators but instead mailed over by Wilson(Which brings up questions of tampering), etc. There's a lot of questionable procedure and execution of gathering forensic evidence throughout this whole case.

but I don't see how Brown has been cast by the media as a stereotype.

Simply, initial media reports misidentifying Michael Brown with another African American whom was holding guns and money up, the media constantly showing the robbery video even though it doesn't relate to the confrontation that lead to Brown's death(Wilson's initial testimony to investigators didn't have him claim to have knowledge of the fact that Brown was the theft suspect, and he referred to the cigarillos Brown just as "something") etc. How come only when we are dealing with black citizens fake photos of stereotypical photos of "thuggish" things like making hand signs, holding guns, etc.?

A thug is a career/habitual criminal, Michael Brown prior to the store incident had no adult nor juvenile record. People who knew him thoroughly described as a courteous and cordial, and really, based on his crime record, the store incident was a one time thing more than anything. Not something to use to label him a thug IMO.

I don't think people know what the grand jury job was. It was NOT to decide whether the Officer was innocent or guilty. It was to determine if the state had enough evidence to convict him in court. Due to all the varying and contradicting evidence AND since the officer is innocent until PROVEN guilty, the jury saw that it would be unlikely that they could get a conviction in court. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

@wolverine08:

If a violent shooting goes on around you, I'm pretty sure fight or flight is kicking in even if you aren't the one being shot, but you are correct in that the officer's testimony is polluted by the same effect. That's why forensics are the more important part of this equation though even on the eye witness testimony, the stories are mixed.

The most important forensic evidence is the bullet wounds. These wounds should show whether he had his back turned, was standing idle or was charging. This is the key component, and I've heard no evidence to contradict the officer's story.

It sounds like you read the same Huff Po article as I did on problems with the investigation. Washing blood off the hands is insignificant. Anybody would wash their hands in that situation and it's clear the blood belonged to Brown, so I don't see how that information could be useful.

The gun should have been tested for firngerprints though it seems highly unlikely that Brown would have had his hand anywhere near the officer's gun if he were cooperating.

Pictures were taken of the scene so approximate distances could be made. There is no need for the exact inches to be known, and as far as I know, the exact location of the officer while shooting was never known, so it would be a guess at a general location anyway.

The way Brian's body fell could vary wildly. If he dropped like a sack of potatoes dead, then I would agree with you that he should have dropped head first and face down, but it could have been a more gradual fall and he could have moved or others could have moved him after the initial fall.

In the HuffPo article, they made it clear that they (huffpo) did not know the proper chain of custody for a weapon used in a shooting. As far as huff po knew, procedure had been followed. Furthermore, what gun tampering could have been done relevant to this case?

I pay pretty close attention to the news, and I never heard about the other thief being identified with Brown. Most likely, that means that this was an early report which was later corrected as better info was available. Breaking news is chaotic and often things get mixed up. It happens constantly. This isnt a racial thing.

Brown stealing and attacking a storekeeper is 100% relevant to the shooting. It shows that Brown had no problem breaking the law and did not have a problem using force to get his way.

"How come only when we are dealing with black citizens fake photos of stereotypical photos of 'thuggish' things like making hand signs, holding guns, etc.?" I don't know what you mean by this.

Thug - "a violent person, especially a criminal"

Brown used a light amount of violence with the store owner, but perhaps it's not enough to earn him the title thug. How about thief, robber, douche, bully and jerk? I think his actions all qualify him firmly for those titles.

Now, I don't know if Brown's douchery was a one time instance. It's perfectly possible that Brown had just finished up at the soup kitchen and stopped by to steal a few cigars and assault a store owner before moseying down to the hospital to spend some time bringing cheer to kids in a cancer ward, but I suspect that perhaps Brown was not a beacon of virtue. Regardless, he had assaulted and stolen a few minute before this incident, amd regardless of his friends saying he was a good guy, (what else would they possibly say about their dead friend?) the theft and assault lend a lot of credibility to the idea that Brown might continue to break the law and use violence to solve his problems in the minutes following the convenience store incident.

@batwatch: Excellent points and articulated very well

@chillxpill: Your comment was ignorant so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

This sucks, i don't understand why cops go to weapon is their gun...don't they have a fricking taser

@spideysense44:

The firearm is the go to weapon because of it's effectiveness, reliability and deterrence. No matter what the threat, the pistol is the most effective in ending the threat. A pistol is reliable. If you miss one shot, you can rely on it to give you another whereas tazers have to be reloaded after every shot and have limited range. The deterrence comes into play when a predator has to choose between risking getting shocked or getting shot. Clearly one is more of a threat.

also depending on the size of the "criminal" and his mental state(high on drugs for example) tasers and pepper spray won't affect them.

@lone_wolf_and_cub: You don't even know what I meant by that. You can't call somethin ignorant if you don't even understand what I'm saying.

Am I the only one who noticed Officer Wilsons hairline grew back since before the shooting?

@chillxpill: what else could you possibly mean by that? It's not like it isn't straightforward. This is the internet nobody can understand a hidden meaning in a basically straightforward remark. Unless you were being sarcastic.

@lone_wolf_and_cub: It had to do with what sog7dc said that Wolverine8 disagreed with.

According to the law, the decision to not indict Officer Wilson was reasonable.

Credible and valid criticisms of this decision should be directed at the laws which made it possible. Change laws which make it easy for those in authority to abuse their power, whether it be racially motivated or not. This is how you fight perceived injustices on an equal playing field. Aim directly at what protects and absolves those who do the wrong doing, and they can and will be held accountable.

No it's not, but there are black men killing unarmed black men all over America for "rep" and barely see any media about that. Children have been killed in drive by's no word on that. I wish people faught so hard to make those deaths public, but nah, they weren't important I guess, because it was a black on black crime.

Killing unarmed PEOPLE in general is unacceptable. It's even less acceptable when a person who isn't involved in criminal activity has been killed but remains unknown because the media, or people didn't think the story was worth it.

Wtf is rioting going to do? hurt their community even more? Prove we don't deserve to be treated like criminals...by engaging in criminal activities? Lie about your witness statement which now makes us look like a bunch of self harming liars? The whole thing is just making us look barbaric in the public eye.

@w0nd: all that doesn't change what happened in this case.

and apparently what happened in this case is a criminal who didn't listen, tried to wrestle a gun away, and then still continued to not listen.

I think both parties could have done things a little differently. Leg shot perhaps? anything really, but if some crazy SOB is insane enough to try and grab the gun the result probably won't end well..

*EDIT* I am actually sugar coating what I said because it sounded harsh. I know people who do bad things that have gotten away with it. I know people who would gladly kill to get ahead and then play the victim with shit hits the fan for them. I know of people who rob and steal and laugh about it, but if excessive force is used against them they cry out that they were wronged, and they do it all over again because they simple get out of jail or have avoided getting caught this long.

Is it okay to kill an unarmed black male? Depends of how horrible they are , their effect on society...are they the ones whos criminal activities give it a bad name? Do they go out and hurt others? Are they bad people? Death is a bad thing, but it will catch up to you if you live a certain lifestyle. I know I will be cussed out for saying that and being unsympathetic.

@w0nd: I agree, but what my first post was saying is that the trend of minorities being abused and murdered by police officers with absolutely no consequences is still going on.

oh yeah that's going on for sure. Sorry I missed your original post I thought you replied to something else

Nope as I said I would view anyone stealing ciggs and roughing up a clerk as a low-life. You're adding labels that don't exist.

Except people do fight to make these issues known. In Chicago there was an ambitious 55 million dollar program that kept at risk children out of trouble by giving them jobs. Common jobs include spreading flyers promoting non-violence. There are many programs to curb 'black on black' crime. Steve Harvey has a mentoring program targeting fatherless African American boys in an attempt to provide father figures and helping kids to stay off the streets. Just last year Snoop Dogg covered funeral costs for a 6 year old slain girl who was a victim of "black on black" crime. People are putting in a lot of work and would love national coverage, but its not their decisions.

On the flip side there are many white cop black victim crimes that were not publicized. Darrien Hunt was shot and killed cosplaying. John Crawford III was killed in Walmart for simply holding a toy BB gun. Dymond Milburn was severily beaten by 3 plainclothes police officer because they thought she was a prostitute and after they caused injuries to her head, spine, throat and ear the cops charged her with assault.

While I don't condone violence and rioting I understand. The people of Ferguson fear that they are being ignored and the injustice surrounding the incident and the indictment will continue on. Just think about the aftermath of Trayvon Martin, there were silent peaceful protests happening nationwide for about a week yet no progress have been made. Hell the stand your ground law is still in place in Florida. The riots are a result of years of frustration with racial injustices in this "post-racial" society.

Also why should black people have to prove their humanity? For many years and today, white people have had conducted discriminatory and barbaric practices not only in America but in the middle east but yet it is up to the black community to prove that they are not barbaric. If I recall, white people rioted over taxation and were regarded heroes but yet black people rioting over the mass killings of their people are regarded as barbarians.

@tohoma: then the issue is the media, of course bad news is shown more than good news. But I have yet to see regular average people like you or me bring up crimes against each other, but when it is a white male, or a white cop, shit hits the fan.

So what are you saying? Black people shouldn't prove their humanity? I am sorry but it's embarrassing, even in black communities black and black crime exists, it's embarrassing. They shouldn't prove it to fit in with the "white man" they should do it because crimes against each other is embarrassing. DO you know how much more black people could get done in those communities if not for turf wars and crimes against each other.

When it comes to the riots, how many of those are rioting because they care and how many are rioting because they want to riot and loot? I honestly don't know, but where I grew up there were people with that mentality. They got excited for a riot, because they just wanted to riot, they didn't give a shit about the reason why.

What would happen if the cops just all went home and let them riot? They would tear the city to pieces, there would be deaths, and then what? The prove they should be treated civil by rioting?

Honestly what would happen if a wall was just put up around the area. and there was no police for a day I am curious. Would they stop their black on black crimes and make their community thrive? or will the same shit happen but to a higher extent because there is no law now...

Of course when I ask this question I am automatically a racist, so i keep it to myself

Oh hey my old thread XD