Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

FU Ferguson!

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.
Regardless of whether this can be proven or not (and all the eyewitnesses saying otherwise turned out to be unreliable), Brown did violently rob a store earlier, showing that he was likely in an aggressive state of mind at the time of the incident,
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
David.Cameron
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:17:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

If someone got in the way of me and my f ags, there be a 'ell of a lot more than 6 bullet 'oles in 'im!
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.
Regardless of whether this can be proven or not (and all the eyewitnesses saying otherwise turned out to be unreliable), Brown did violently rob a store earlier, showing that he was likely in an aggressive state of mind at the time of the incident,
He did not have the right to shoot him 6 times. Michael Brown had the right to live. If he really was a threats, the officer could have used nonlethal ways of subduing him
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:19:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:17:43 PM, David.Cameron wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

If someone got in the way of me and my f ags, there be a 'ell of a lot more than 6 bullet 'oles in 'im!

I know the feeling. I used to smoke.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:41:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
With no video or correlating testimonies, to convict the officer would be a crime against all a fair trial is. They have no full evidence to support in given side enough to find guilt. And if they can't 100% find guilt, they must grant an assumption of innocence.

It's not guilty until proven innocent.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.
Regardless of whether this can be proven or not (and all the eyewitnesses saying otherwise turned out to be unreliable), Brown did violently rob a store earlier, showing that he was likely in an aggressive state of mind at the time of the incident,

The guy who gave the grand jury's verdict also touched upon evidence that Micheal Brown did attack him.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:13:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:41:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
With no video or correlating testimonies, to convict the officer would be a crime against all a fair trial is. They have no full evidence to support in given side enough to find guilt. And if they can't 100% find guilt, they must grant an assumption of innocence.

It's not guilty until proven innocent.

What does guilt have to do with anything? That's what a trial is for. From my understanding, this decision was about not going to trial.
yang.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:14:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:13:34 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:41:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
With no video or correlating testimonies, to convict the officer would be a crime against all a fair trial is. They have no full evidence to support in given side enough to find guilt. And if they can't 100% find guilt, they must grant an assumption of innocence.

It's not guilty until proven innocent.

What does guilt have to do with anything? That's what a trial is for. From my understanding, this decision was about not going to trial.

You're right.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:20:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:13:34 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:41:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
With no video or correlating testimonies, to convict the officer would be a crime against all a fair trial is. They have no full evidence to support in given side enough to find guilt. And if they can't 100% find guilt, they must grant an assumption of innocence.

It's not guilty until proven innocent.

What does guilt have to do with anything? That's what a trial is for. From my understanding, this decision was about not going to trial.

All cases are, ultimately, about if they are guilty. If they aren't pressing charges, that's because they couldn't find grounds to convict him (aka, couldn't find him guilty.)
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 10:27:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
FU Ferguson? That is the exact attitude of the Michael Brown supporters. When you don't get what you want, you go about attacking innocent people. Businesses which employed local people and served local people are being destroyed. I wouldn't be surprised if they started attack police officers or "white" people.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 10:55:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:13:34 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:41:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
With no video or correlating testimonies, to convict the officer would be a crime against all a fair trial is. They have no full evidence to support in given side enough to find guilt. And if they can't 100% find guilt, they must grant an assumption of innocence.

It's not guilty until proven innocent.

What does guilt have to do with anything? That's what a trial is for. From my understanding, this decision was about not going to trial.

In case you are unaware, the grand jury refused to indict, which means they do not believe there is sufficient evidence from the prosecution to warrant a trial.
The defense has very limited involvement, if any, in a grand jury hearing, since it is just the prosecutor saying "here is the evidence, now let us charge the man".

Without an indictment, there can be no trial.
So, it wasn't the prosecution saying "I don't want to proceed" it is the citizens of Ferguson in that grand jury who said they cannot.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 11:23:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:13:34 PM, tulle wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:41:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
With no video or correlating testimonies, to convict the officer would be a crime against all a fair trial is. They have no full evidence to support in given side enough to find guilt. And if they can't 100% find guilt, they must grant an assumption of innocence.

It's not guilty until proven innocent.

What does guilt have to do with anything? That's what a trial is for. From my understanding, this decision was about not going to trial.

The jury decision was about not enough evidence.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:48:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

Darren Wilson the cop is 6'4" and 210 lbs... pretty big guy

Michael brown, the kid you describe, was 6'4" 290 lbs.... he was a Really big guy.

I wasn't there, I haven't seen the evidence...

but if Brown was being physically aggressive, it's definitely plausible that wilson was worried about a Close physical confrontation...
and definitely plausible that he was worried that if it came to that that he might very quickly lose such a confrontation.

Brown's being only 18 doesn't mean this wasn't possible...
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:56:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:48:29 AM, mortsdor wrote:
but if Brown was being physically aggressive, it's definitely plausible that wilson was worried about a Close physical confrontation...

and again, I've not seen/heard the evidence....

and I'm not certain if the video from shortly before the incident of Brown physically menacing the store clerk is admissable..
but it shows that brown seemed rather comfortable pushing people around, and menacing people with his size.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 8:29:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 1:00:37 AM, tulle wrote:
http://ca.complex.com...

Every time I try to give DDO a chance again I'm reminded of the reason I left. Anyway, enjoy your circle jerk everyone.

How is that article any different from any of the other "No Justice, No peace" supporters?

As if a blank statement from "the bar association" (not even a person's opinion just a faceless prop like "the NAACP says....") means any different when they disagree with the grand jury's decision with absolutely no solid evidence exactly why it was wrong other than "no justice no peace"

And the whole "well most cases prosecutors bring forward get an indictment" is an emotional and dumb argument. Absent of the uncontrolled Furgie riots, no prosecutor in his right mind would waste the time to bring this specific case to a grand jury based solely on the shabby (and now proven false) testimony from Brown's thug accomplice who orchestrated the "Hands up Don't shoot" perjury.

So yah, you want to apologize for the Black rioting and perjury, I get it. You don't need to pull blanket statements from faceless organizations to do that. Especially organizations that profit from riots such as the bar association and NAACP.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 8:53:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

While this is true, and should be explored, what is the actual grander issue here: abuse of police power or racism?
I vote the former, and the discussion should be viewed from this frame, not of racial injustice.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:02:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 8:53:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

While this is true, and should be explored, what is the actual grander issue here: abuse of police power or racism?
I vote the former, and the discussion should be viewed from this frame, not of racial injustice.

Why is an officer obligated to wait until the risk to his life is out of control such as a knife to the throat? Are you actually suggesting Wilson should have "allowed" Brown a second chance to fight for his police gun? Would that then be an "acceptable level" of risk for justifying another trigger pull?

You guys are totally unreasonable.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:13:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 8:53:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

While this is true, and should be explored, what is the actual grander issue here: abuse of police power or racism?

Both.

I vote the former, and the discussion should be viewed from this frame, not of racial injustice.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:14:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:41:25 PM, donald.keller wrote:
With no video or correlating testimonies, to convict the officer would be a crime against all a fair trial is. They have no full evidence to support in given side enough to find guilt. And if they can't 100% find guilt, they must grant an assumption of innocence.

It's not guilty until proven innocent.

And none of that is what's at issue. Grand juries decide whether to hold a trial, not what the outcome of a trial would be.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:23:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 10:02:47 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:53:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

While this is true, and should be explored, what is the actual grander issue here: abuse of police power or racism?
I vote the former, and the discussion should be viewed from this frame, not of racial injustice.

Why is an officer obligated to wait until the risk to his life is out of control such as a knife to the throat? Are you actually suggesting Wilson should have "allowed" Brown a second chance to fight for his police gun? Would that then be an "acceptable level" of risk for justifying another trigger pull?

You guys are totally unreasonable.

This is what I know happened:
The kids were jaywalking.
Wilson stopped.
Something happened through the window.
Gun went off.
Chase pursued.
Close proximity.
Hands were up.
Shots fired due to forward movement.

I don't know what or why or how things happened, and I'll never truly know.
However, 2 head shots looks bad and seems way to aggressive.
This situation begs questions to be answered, and it seems aggressive. How you can not admit that is beyond me.

If things happened as you say Wilson said they did, it makes a lot of sense, but I'd still say it was aggressive. Further, a trial still should have happened, because weighing witness testimony is a matter of fact left to the jury, not grand jury.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:27:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 10:13:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:53:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

While this is true, and should be explored, what is the actual grander issue here: abuse of police power or racism?

Both.

Where is the racism so explicit that it should splash the newspapers?
Brown and Darius were breaking the law. Wilson stopping to engage them while in the car was not overt racism in the least.

Everything beyond that is speculation, and an angry young Brown tired of being "oppressed" (while in the wrong, so it doesn't make sense), could just have easily of overreacted to the situation being racist (or career-ist), but that narrative isn't being explored, even by those who defend Wilson.
My work here is, finally, done.
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:53:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 8:53:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

While this is true, and should be explored, what is the actual grander issue here: abuse of police power or racism?
I vote the former, and the discussion should be viewed from this frame, not of racial injustice.

Yeah, I really don't give a shiz about the racial part. That is a faulty assumption being made by the public. However, nothing about the situation suggested a need for lethal force, which is why the officer should be put on public trial. The grand jury is making absolutely no sense. If for no other reason, it would probably get the rioters to shut up.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 10:56:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

The great distortion that thug apologists like yourself (no offense but it is the proper terminology) use is pretty far from the truth. Just because he was unarmed doesn't mean he wasn't deadly, he went for the officers weapon, he had lethal intent, both intent and ability are factors, not just ability. Police officers shouldn't have to wait until someone has the ability to kill them to fight back, if the intent is there that is enough.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 4:45:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most of this issue goes to the heart of how we train cops. I don't think we give any officer proper gun training. With a longer training time we could train cops to shot to disable a threat. At beat cop is not trained how to hit a kneecap or example.

Also cops are not properly trained on how to properly identify suspects. How a person dresses is not a good way. In fact many criminals use how cops identify suspects against them. I will give you an example.

A black teen walk is to a store. He is all dressed in hip hop gear and looks like the poster child for "Thug for Life." He is acting rude, talking about weed, and talking in a way that would make a sailor blush. He stops at looks at many thing in the store but only ends up with a pack of gum and a soda. After he walks in the store 3 well dressed teens walk in the store. They stop to help an old woman who dropped her bag. They are the poster of the all American, Boy Scout loving, teens. They buy several cds and on there way out the help an older couple bring their bags to the car.

Who is more likely to be the thief? The All American boys are. The thug knows that everyone is watching him. He knows that security is following him and that is likely to be stopped on the way out. The other boys know this to. They know that no one is watching them. That even if security was bored and would have watched them they are not now. While the Thug would have hard a hard time getting anything out of the store the other boys can steal $100's of dollars worth of stuff easy.

A criminal will mostly stick with an easy crime. That's way your more likely to get something stolen from a open garage than have someone break in your home. Cops spend there time in the bad area of town busting drug dealers that sell $20 of drugs at a time. The whole time the person that supplies them and sells $1000s at a time lives in the good part of town, has polite kids, goes to every PTA meeting and looks like a model citizen. They mess up part is when some one from the bad part of town gets arrested they, on average, serve longer. Even when there crimes are less. In the good part of town people get the same for a kilogram of pot as people in the bad part of town get for an ounce. (35.274 ounces are in a kilogram.)

Here is a case in point:

Jeffrey Skilling was boss of Enron and he was the mastermind of fraud and theft of $90 Billion. Sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Rapper DeWarren "Fella" Lewis robbed a bank for $9,000. Sentenced to 25 years in prison. (Total sentences was 25 years for bank robbery and 32 years prison on firearms convictions. I didn't include the time for the firearms.)
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 5:27:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

LOL, look at the surveillance video. It may serve you well. Another overblown "White on black crime" brought to you by your media fools.
Ashton
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 5:31:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 10:09:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:12:17 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:00:47 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
Shooting someone 6 times over a pack of smokes is not a valid reason!

Uh, no...

According to the shooter, police officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown attacked him, and he shot Brown in self-defense.

Unarmed kid with cigarettes requires lethal force? No. Unless Brown had a gun or a knife in his hand and had taken aim or had the knife on an officer's throat or placed an innocent person in mortal danger, lethal force was not necessary.

He lunged for Wilson's gun, so he was on the offensive. Wilson has no choice but to shoot him.

But... it doesn't matter, because cops get to do all kinds of crazy sh1t that normal people can't and get away with it.

And how many officer-involved shootings have you heard about recently?
Ashton
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 5:38:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Its worrisome hearing of these shootings on blacks but honestly I don't know too much of the case and I'm well aware that the facts can be twisted for political purposes or due to raw rage. What I can say is the police really needs to explore nonviolent ways of resolving issues such as this.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.