Its not simple, its actually quite complex. Let's start with the fact that you have no basis to declare him a thug, other than that "thug" has become a euphemism for black man. The question is whether Wilson could have acted differently such that Micheal Brown would be alive today.... alive not only to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family, but alive to tell his story, which has not been told.
Its simple, because to far too many, all inner city black kids are thugs and all white cops are peacekeeping heros. The world has one less thug; must be a good day. Sorry, but life ain't that simple.
Wilson left lawn half mowed, went into hiding
Darren Wilson: Attorneys discuss his time in hiding - CNN.com
This is a joke. The guy cannot live a normal life because he did the RIGHT thing. What a joke. I wish we could prosecute those who posted his address. Even if it was redacted.
Its not simple, its actually quite complex. Let's start with the fact that you have no basis to declare him a thug,
The question is whether Wilson could have acted differently such that Micheal Brown would be alive today.... alive not only to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family, but alive to tell his story, which has not been told.
Its simple, because to far too many, all inner city black kids are thugs and all white cops are peacekeeping heros.
He didn't rob the convenience store? That's what I'm talking aboit. Lying to cover up for Brown doesn't help anyone, especially the black community.
So you would prefer Sweet Little Angel instead?
Brown wasn't shot because of his 'alleged' shoplifting. He was shot because he assaulted a cop and tried to grab his gun. If you pull that kind of stunt on a cop, chances are you are going to get shot.there was no robbery.... there may have been a shoplift, but since there was no charge nor trial and since he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, then he is entitled to the same conclusion of status as Wilson. The GJ decided there was no basis to charge Wilson, so he is presumed innocent; there were no charges filed against Brown, so he too is presumed innocent.....
I do know about you, buy surely our reading audience sees the double standard you are hiding behind.
Even if you wish to run with the notion that he was a suspect in a shoplift, that crime does not make him any more eligible to be shot than he if were coming from church. It is completely irrelevant.
Brown wasn't shot because of his 'alleged' shoplifting. He was shot because he assaulted a cop and tried to grab his gun. If you pull that kind of stunt on a cop, chances are you are going to get shot.
Maybe you should speak for yourself. I am not evil. But if you think you are, maybe you should do some self-evaluation and change who and what you are, rather than smear everyone with your twisted thinking.Actually, I go with the notion that we are all inherently evil.... I think this whole matter is much more a product of evil meets evil than good meets evil or good meets good.
there was no robbery.... there may have been a shoplift, but since there was no charge nor trial and since he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, then he is entitled to the same conclusion of status as Wilson. The GJ decided there was no basis to charge Wilson, so he is presumed innocent; there were no charges filed against Brown, so he too is presumed innocent.....
I do know about you, buy surely our reading audience sees the double standard you are hiding behind.
Even if you wish to run with the notion that he was a suspect in a shoplift, that crime does not make him any more eligible to be shot than he if were coming from church. It is completely irrelevant.
Wilson will never return to cut the other half of the lawn. He may not choose to leave Ferguson, but the city and the PD will choose to relieve him of duty.
Wilson has become a liability. One the city can no longer afford. If he stayed he would be part to lawsuit after lawsuit and the city wants no part. Wilson has cost the city millions and they can not afford anymore.
No municipality or PD will touch wilson with a 10' pole. He is a walking lawsuit.
He doesn't have to leave Ferguson, but he will have to leave.
Wilson hasn't cost them anything. Brown has. Wilson was just defending his life, and it's a shame that that thug has now ruined the officer's career.
Do you think there should be some sort of "five-second rule" wherein any course of actions made entirely within that time frame should be immune from legal scrutiny?
Wilson left lawn half mowed, went into hiding
Darren Wilson: Attorneys discuss his time in hiding - CNN.com
This is a joke. The guy cannot live a normal life because he did the RIGHT thing. What a joke. I wish we could prosecute those who posted his address. Even if it was redacted.
Do you think there should be some sort of "five-second rule" wherein any course of actions made entirely within that time frame should be immune from legal scrutiny?
Wilson left lawn half mowed, went into hiding
Darren Wilson: Attorneys discuss his time in hiding - CNN.com
This is a joke. The guy cannot live a normal life because he did the RIGHT thing. What a joke. I wish we could prosecute those who posted his address. Even if it was redacted.
Ruined his life is more like it - where's the guy going to get a job? He'll have to move to some remote island or live in seclusion in Alaska for the next few years as well as change his name and appearance. His family will have to follow suit as well.
The big joke here is not what is happening to Darren Wilson. The big joke is that a man can shoot an unarmed man from a distance and people still argue he was doing the "right" thing.
He was not shot from a distance. He was coming at Wilson and about 8 to 10 feet away when he was killed. Wilson did not know Brown was unarmed. He had one hand up his shirt and in the waistband of his pants, so for all Wilson knew, he could have hand that hand on a gun, ready to pull it out. He had ignored repeated requests for him to get on the ground. You do NOT run toward a cop acting like you are going to assault him or worse, ignore repeated requests to stop and expect not to get shot.
First off, your assumption that he was coming at Wilson and about 8 to 10 feet away is based off of Wilson's own testimony (not exactly objective), and one eyewitness whom was 50 - 100 yards away from the incident. The eyewitnesses that were close to the event state he was not moving toward Wilson and he was not reaching for anything.
Second, the kid had basketball shorts on. This is indisputable fact. There is no way he could have anything heavier than a wallet in his shorts without them falling down. Much less a weapon of any kind.
Third, the kid was already shot at least twice and probably 4 times when the fatal shots were fired in the second part of the shooting. This means that Wilson not only shot an unarmed man but a wounded bleeding unarmed man.
Fourth, even if the wounded kid was "charging" Wilson and was 8 - 10 feet away from him the idea that killing him was right thing to do in that situation is still a joke.
On this occasion there infinite number of possible points when Wilson could have de-escalated the situation and prevented the death of an unarmed kid. Whether or not his actions were criminal or not I am not sure but to say they were the "right" thing to do. That is is joke given the evidence in this case.
Bwaahaahaahaa!
You might want to re-read the evidence again to correct those distances.
Wilson will never return to cut the other half of the lawn. He may not choose to leave Ferguson, but the city and the PD will choose to relieve him of duty.
Wilson has become a liability. One the city can no longer afford. If he stayed he would be part to lawsuit after lawsuit and the city wants no part. Wilson has cost the city millions and they can not afford anymore.
No municipality or PD will touch wilson with a 10' pole. He is a walking lawsuit.
He doesn't have to leave Ferguson, but he will have to leave.
First off, your assumption that he was coming at Wilson and about 8 to 10 feet away is based off of Wilson's own testimony (not exactly objective), and one eyewitness whom was 50 - 100 yards away from the incident. The eyewitnesses that were close to the event state he was not moving toward Wilson and he was not reaching for anything.
Second, the kid had basketball shorts on. This is indisputable fact. There is no way he could have anything heavier than a wallet in his shorts without them falling down. Much less a weapon of any kind.
Fourth, even if the wounded kid was "charging" Wilson and was 8 - 10 feet away from him the idea that killing him was right thing to do in that situation is still a joke.
On this occasion there infinite number of possible points when Wilson could have de-escalated the situation and prevented the death of an unarmed kid. Whether or not his actions were criminal or not I am not sure but to say they were the "right" thing to do. That is is joke given the evidence in this case.
Eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable. You're also talking about the eyewitness testimonies that were either altered by the "witnesses" to match the physical reports, or recanted completely - in short: meaningless. What gives you reason to believe their entire testimony when important parts of it have been contradicted by the physical evidence?
It doesn't matter; you're grasping at straws. Unarmed =/= not dangerous. He was enormous. If you've ever been in a fight or played a physical sport you would know just how dangerous someone of that size can be.
No. 8 to 10ft is not a safe distance by any stretch of the reasonable imagination. Remember, this all happened very quickly - Wilson would not have had the same liberty to evaluate and assess every single second carefully as you have now. It's so easy to speculate when you've never been in any similar situation.
Of course there are many points in any kind of situation that could de-escalate the situation. It doesn't mean they are realistic, or feasible. Wilson did what was necessary to prevent himself from being killed or seriously injured. That makes his actions "right."
You are saying to don't need to support any of your statements below? You're just assuming them to be true? How ignorant.
I don't get why it is so difficult for people to admit that Brown was a thug. You have VIDEO evidence of him exhibiting violent, thug-like behavior, and yet you are so quick to give him a pass. But when you have no evidence, in fact large evidence to the contrary, of Wilson being a murderer, you are so quick to accuse him as an evil, racist, wanton slaughterer of other races. Why? Can you not be objective?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?