What's the big deal?

Triple K a day keep the niggerity away

IT'S LIGHTISH RED!!!

You're right, there are two sides to every story, and now we only get one side of it because a kid is fucking dead. There's no video of it happening, there's no audio of it happening.

We have a cop, the same cop who did the shooting, saying one thing. That's it. You really REALLY believe that he would admit he was hotheaded/racist/quick to fire, or that he'd lie about something that nobody else can definitely confirm?

Show me proof that that police officer was antagonized to the point that deadly force was the only viable option.

The officer had a spotless record after 7 years on the job working in a black neighborhood.

You think a hothead/racist/quick to fire cop would be able to maintain that for 7 years and then just decide to murder a black guy for shits and giggles?

No, and as I stated earlier in the thread I don't believe the victim was completely innocent, but, again as I had said earlier, the only fact we have now is that an unarmed 18-year old was fatally shot by a police officer.

The officer said the victim reached for his gun, the eyewitnesses(at least two) say otherwise. I'm just arguing that it's unconfirmed that a reach for a gun was made at all, that the officer was "antagonized in order to get a response", and that the other side to this story has been silenced with six bullets.

Innocent until proven guilty.

The cop was the one who proved the kid guilty before he shot him, then?

Funny how one-sided you're being.

The cop said that the guy went for his gun. He shot him. You are saying that because there is a lack of evidence in concurrence with his story, he is probably guilty. The burden of proof does not lie on the defendant, it lies on the plaintiff. And a lack of admissible evidence in favor said defendant does not mean a crime was committed.

You're right, the burden of proof doesn't lie on the defendant, that's fair. But you're talking about the due process with the officer.

Let's talk about the due process with the civilian. As you stated, the burden of proof lies on the defendant, not the plaintiff. Assuming in this situation the officer becomes the plaintiff and the civilian becomes the defendant, where is the admissible evidence that the officer held that allowed him to use deadly force as a response?

I'm not saying the civilian was completely innocent, all I'm saying is the only absolute fact we have right now is that an unarmed 18-year old was fatally shot by a police officer, everything else is speculation/eyewitness.

Okay, that's not true the though, because the man went for the officer's gun. So let's work out what happened after he had gone for the gun. If the man was desperate enough to reach for the officer's gun, he is not likely to just stop and become compliant immediately after the officer regains control.

It's not "true" that the man went for the officer's gun, that's what the officer claimed happened, but the eyewitness reports of the neighbors say the officer grabbed the man by the neck and pulled him into the window of the police car.

The man was with a friend, who also claims that the officer grabbed the man by the neck of the shirt and pulled him towards the car, and that the man responded by breaking free and retreating, when they (the two men) heard a gunshot, the man (Mike) turned around and raised his hands to surrender, and more shots rang out.

That's eyewitness statements of multiple people, the only one claiming there was a struggle for the gun is the officer in question.


People lie, end of story. The only FACT we have is that an unarmed man was fatally shot by a police officer.

That's hearsay, not official statements. You're just saying things now.

No, it's official statements given to FBI officers following the civil unrest. The local police didn't bother going door to door for statements, the FBI did.

Here you can see the just of his companion's statements and an individual who witnessed it (with pictures) from the inside of his house.

Source: hotair.com/archives/2014/08/18/two-eyewitness-accounts-of-the-michael-brown-shooting/

Christ, man, do some research.

That doesn't do anything to prove you're right, though. I know I said it as though if they were official it would prove you're right. But why wouldn't his friend take his side? Why wouldn't they take advantage of this like I've been seeing in the news? And who's to say they're not lying? The first "official statement" that you said was given to FBI was refuted in said article. The second one was a tweet stream from a passerby. This is hearsay.

You're "research" is just you grasping at thin air. None of those statements are admissible and talking down to me doesn't better your argument.

"Who's to say they're not lying?"

Thank you. Now you know exactly how I'm responding to you claiming it's "fact" that there was a reach for the gun, when in reality one individual said that, the same individual who is trying to defend his own actions of shooting.

Read my earlier statement:
The only FACT we have is an unarmed 18-year old was fatally shot by a police officer.


Eyewitness accounts are the definition of admissible, if you truly think a judge will look at this case and say "no, these eyewitnesses are irrelevant to this case" then you obviously don't know the definition of admissible evidence in the court of law.

Furthermore, again, read the FBI went door-to-door on the street where the shooting took place and took official statements. Assuming the individuals talking to the media are telling the detectives similar information (why wouldn't they), that makes it official eyewitness statements and, again, NOT hearsay. The one tweeting took a fucking picture, how exactly are you going to call his experience hearsay?

Just in case you weren't aware:
hear·say
ˈhi(ə)rˌsā
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

Witnessing something firsthand =/= hearsay

If the twitter user's statement is hearsay, then so is the police officer's statement.

Okay, I'll just say this, the cop is more credible than the others involved in this. In comment #67 LazierThanThou said he had clean record for seven years before all this. I'll be honest, I haven't researched this in particular but given that I haven't seen the officer attacked in the news for past indiscretions, I have to assume it's correct.

Now, eyewitness accounts are admissible when taken in an official capacity with official documentation. Agents going door to door for a lead in an investigation is not an example of an official statement. Eyewitnesses also have to be in good moral standing and outside of any bias to give a reliable and just account of whatever situation unfolded. Nothing in that article fit the definition of an official account.

To go just a little further into this, the police officer gave an official statement in an official capacity. 'TheePharoah' tweeted about seeing this and what he said was wrong, proven in the article YOU linked me to.

PS Here is one of those facts you said didn't exist, he had stolen cigars. He was a thief, now I'm not saying he deserved to be shot because of this per se, but he wasn't innocent when the cop stopped him. So stop trying to make it sound like he was a faultless teenager gunned down execution style in the street by Big Brother.

Are you seriously debunking the legitimacy of any other person's claim based on nothing but the fact that they AREN'T police officers? You honestly think the officer, who would be facing a homicide charge if this "evidence" didn't exist, is speaking COMPLETELY without bias?

Look at it this way, who here has the most to gain from lying? These neighbors won't get money from their statements, they won't get anything. The officer? He doesn't make a statement involving a reach for the gun, prison time. He does? Freedom.
He's the only one with something to lose or gain from a falsified statement.

I thought this would be a legitimate volley of ideas and evidence, turns out you're just stupid.

PS - that "fact" is entirely irrelevant to the case. Given, it did happen minutes before he was stopped by police, but the officer has already admitted he knew NOTHING about it, as there wasn't an officer dispatched at all, plus there's still speculation on whether or not there was even a 911 call in response to the theft.

I would've included this "fact" if it was at all relevant to the shooting, which it wasn't.

And really? He's a thief? Where was the charge?

Did you not earlier say yourself; "Innocent until proven guilty"?


Now you're claiming that he is guilty of a crime he may or may not have committed, but the officer deserves the right of innocent until proven guilty?

Fuck you.

I'm done arguing with a hypocritical, arrogant, uninformed anon from the internet.

PS I wouldn't talk down to you if you proved that you were worthy of respect of any kind. Do some research, find stuff that isn't on CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or FOX.

Thumb me down, don't bother replying, you won't get one from me again.

He also had weed in his system, which may have caused some level of paranoia.

Intoxicated people are not well known for their quality judgements.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/county-investigation-michael-brown-was-shot-from-the-front-had-marijuana-in-his-system/

Darren Wilson received an award earlier this year.

news.yahoo.com/photos-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-received-police-award-earlier-this-year-021255893.html

Yeah, you guys are right, some high teenager reached for a cops gun, then retreated (to a point far enough away that blood didn't splatter on the cops uniform, so it had to have been well out of reach of the gun, at this point) and was shot, the officer had every single right to use deadly force, given if Michael had gotten away he was an immediate threat to the public with, ya know, his hands.

His hands that were up in surrender.
While he got shot six times, twice in the head, until he was dead.

Yeah, definitely the cop was fully within his rights and did nothing wrong. That teen was aggressive and deserves to be dead.

Y'all win.

You have no admissible evidence to the contrary. None of the evidence you presented to us would stand in a court of law. You just kept telling me I was wrong.

conservativetribune.com/autopsy-browns-hands-down/

Brown was not surrendering.

Of course Webeballin liked that link, even though it's the definition of speculation, as well as incredibly inadmissible in court, as long as it's in support of what he thinks happens.

Cute.

Keep doing research, but try googling something other than "proof that Mike Brown was charging police"

I mean that sincerely, keep gaining evidence, keep thinking, don't let others do it for you.

But I'll tell you the same thing I told webe, I'm done arguing, he doesn't even stick with his own claims of "admissible evidence only" so y'all have fun thinking up more reasons why the cop was in the right and a kid had to die for it.

Don't bother replying.

I'll bother replying if I damn well please.

It appears that Brown WAS surrendering.

www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322540/-Autopsy-suggests-Mike-Brown-had-his-arms-in-surrender-position-when-Darren-Wilson-killed-him

Frankly, things are too early to get a good read on what's going on. I'm sitting this one out until all the facts are in.

Thank you, honestly, I'm trying to do the same, but it's hard when it looks like everyone is just agreeing with one side at this point.

Sorry if I sounded like a dick just now, it wasn't my intention.

"Convserativetribune" can you not find a non-biased source that has real evidence his hands weren't up, rather than speculation?

Look at the spots hit on the autopsy, now raise your hands, which of those parts are hidden when your hands are above your head? These "reporters" literally just say:

"The location of the shots, especially the fatal one to the head, prove that Brown was not in the act of surrendering with his hands up, indicating that he was shot in the front of his body, approaching officers rather than running away from them."

but they don't say how it proves anything? They literally just say it "proves he wasn't surrendering" but give no reason why it proves that? Why can an individual not be stationary when looking at someone, why, based on the fact he was shot in the front of his body, does that mean, absolutely that he was approaching? Can you physically not stand still and face something?

The story brought to you solely by the man who would be charged with homicide if any part of it were untrue.

Meanwhile, multiple eyewitnesses tell a different story.

Also, serious question, are the police in Ferguson not outfitted with tasers or stunguns? If Brown had began retreating, why would Wilson feel the need to pull his gun? Why would Brown turn around to charge the officer if he KNEW the officer had a drawn gun? Why the fuck would ANYONE bullrush an individual with a drawn gun?

It's not all black and white, and it seems as though nobody is willing to admit that.

here's some 2d feels for you, may murdoc never walk around naked again

That sucks man, do you do stretching exercises before, after, and during work? They really can help when doing constant heavy laber. I would also suggest drinking plenty of milk and taking magnesium supplements if you can tolerate dairy as those will help with recovering ligament and joint injuries more quickly.

Okay "Weegie" you get the fucking point

What are the odds?

Nailed it.

What are the odds?

wow. in high school they called me jerry too. but that was just because that's my name.

yeah, but recently I've learned that being idealistic isn't always the best.. sometimes you just have to conform not because you feel pressured to, but it just feels good... I guess it's in human nature... Not talking about all out - just in the sense that one is aware of what people are thinking of him/her

RIGHT

Yes, because I'm the only person to have ever posted spoilers about anything, including One Piece.

No worries!
You can WWOOF anywhere in the world.

I'm sure they can answer better, but if you haven't found yet look at this: www.wwoof.net/

It varies really. In AUS you get a booklet that lists all the properties and what the jobs will be. It's mostly farm work, but there are some odd jobs like bee farms, tree farms, orchards and vineyards.

youre a god send dude, thanks x 40

No worries!
You can WWOOF anywhere in the world.