General News Ferguson grand jury results

I don't get the whole unarmed argument. The problem to me is that we only know he is unarmed after the fact. For all the officer knew he could have had a concealed weapon. The officer is not psychic. If he acted threatening the officer should try to protect himself. I think if someone is acting threatening or breaking the law we should assume they could be armed and dangerous. I think it's worse to assume they are unarmed and act careless. Ideally not killing the person to neutralize them, though. However one story is that he was trying to get the officer's gun, and so him being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean he cannot hurt or even kill the police officer. The argument just holds little substance for those reasons. It's dangerous to assume he is defenseless.

 

I can recall being in the city, and hanging around the famed steps of Flinders Street Station. There were lots of people just hanging around, sitting etc, as it was a nice sunny day. I noticed about six police officers standing around a seated aboriginal man. The guy was just sitting, out of everyone's way, keeping to himself. I asked one of the other cops there (there were quite a few around that day) what the aboriginal man had done wrong, why were there so many officers standing around him? The officer said, "he used offensive language". I said, "maybe he did so due to being intimidated by so many police standing around him in the first place". I really could not see why the black guy was targeted for special attention, and not me, or anyone else just 'hanging around' there that day. Wait a minute...he was black. And all the cops were...guess?

 

The problem is that nobody really knows exactly what happened so everyone is basing their opinions on the evidence they choose to further their agenda. If you think he was surrendering and running away, of course it makes sense to think the officer should be punished. If you think Brown attacked the officer and tried to get his gun, of course you'd side with the officer to defend himself (but I'm sure there's some people who will still act like they have experience as a police officer and know exactly what runs through a policeman's mind at those critical moments, an assume he has more than a split second to make an important decision). But anyways, I tend to sympathize with a police officer more than a criminal, so I'm biased too!

 

And it therefore also goes that Wilson should not have made an assumption, either.

"He might have been dangerous" isn't quite the same thing as "my life was unequivocally in danger". And the latter should be the only valid response in a case of self defence.

 

Regardless after he started running he shouldn't have shot again. AND if the policeman legitimately thought he was in danger he shouldn't have shot to kill because the boy had his hands up and was not confirmed to be armed. The policeman also has said that he would shot mike brown again. He is not guilty at all that he shot a boy that he now knows is unarmed.

 

Honestly didn't even follow that case at all so I have no information. I will say that victims are not always completely pure and blameless. In this case, if he had not been breaking the law and had been respectful he would likely be alive. While you may think that most of the blame ultimately rests on the officer, you have to agree that Brown does deserve some blame. People do stupid things and increase their odds of bad thing happening to them. Any mentally competent human being knows the world is a shitty place.

 

I think Wilson should have assumed he was armed and dangerous if he did start attacking him (it sounds like this part of the story is fuzzy, so I'm not sure). I think its an easy way to get killed if you assume someone is unarmed (that's why police have you keep your hands on the steering wheel, put them on your head, etc). I'm mostly saying "unarmed" implies he was not a threat or dangerous. It also sounds like people imply this is something the officer should have known. If Brown was not cooperating, the officer cannot know this.

With your second paragraph, I agree and disagree. I feel it would be difficult to assess exactly how much danger you are in, in that situation, so I can sympathize with the police man. It is not an easy job and not an easy decision. I'm certainly not saying to kill people who may be a danger, since technically everyone could be a threat, but I think it's reasonable to protect yourself. Again, this goes on the assumption that Brown attacked him. If he was running away obviously it's wrong to kill him. It sounds like the events are really too uncertain. Not sure why I bother arguing. In that regard, due to all the uncertainty, not sure how courts could even prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he "murdered" Brown due to racial motivation.

 

for fucks sake we know that Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown. The burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that it was in self defense and his life was in danger, it is NOT on the court system to prove that he killed Michael Brown, because we already know he did.

 

There's still the option of pressing charges for manslaughter and police misconduct, but the grand jury sabotaged that option by looking at an entirely different angle, serving as a final resort instead of a preliminary investigation.

 

No one is saying no black people are criminals, but I very highly doubt that black people are committing 285% more crimes than the general population.

---------- Post added 27th Nov 2014 at 10:43 PM ----------

Also the bickering and name calling in this thread is not helping the discussion at all

 

Come on folks, let's keep it civil. We can disagree, but let's make sure we can still be friends. Enough of the name calling already.