Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
StevieWolfe

Mo. Teenager Shot by Police, Riots Ensue

Recommended Posts

geekmarine said:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/

Also, I don't see what your point has to do with anything, miano. None of that has to do with the cop thinking he was a robbery suspect.


Brown along with his friend were both stopped for walking in the street. It doesn't matter if the cop had known if he was a robbery suspect or not. The fact of the matter is that Brown hit the officer in the face and then attempted to reach for his gun which resulted in him getting shot multiple times. My point is that people are either rejecting or completely disregarding these particular facts.


Here is the aftermath of the warzone in Ferguson

Share this post


Link to post
geekmarine said:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/

I'm sorry, the chief of police specifically said he wasn't stopped because of the robbery. If the chief of police was lying, well that's another matter, but I've got my facts as straight as I can get them. Just saying - got the chief of police on record saying the robbery was unrelated, so even if they changed the story, they still said it.

That piece of information is certainly not true because the official ruling was that Brown was stopped by Officer Wilson because:
A.) He fit the description of the suspect who just robbed the store
B.) The store's video cameras captured Brown robbing and taking the stolen item
C.) Brown had the stolen item in his hand when Officer Wilson stopped him in the street

The chief might have said that for some unknown reason, but it's 100% not true.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone have the video of Brown's stepdad wanting to start a fire? Really step dad isn't a word according to Firefox.

So this whole cop shooting an unarmed MAN thing is interesting. If he's found guilty that's just a reason to sue the city. They pay the police and judicial system.

Share this post


Link to post
jdagenet said:

A.) He fit the description of the suspect who just robbed the store
B.) The store's video cameras captured Brown robbing and taking the stolen item
C.) Brown had the stolen item in his hand when Officer Wilson stopped him in the street


Share this post


Link to post

How does that video suggest he paid for any of that stuff? You see how he yanks the container of cigarillos off the counter at about 0:19, and some of them fall to the floor? And then how he bends over to pick them up and strolls out, with the clerk coming around to confront him?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm more pissed off that once again the mainstream media was race-baiting from the start and so many people on both sides of the issue STILL have not caught on.

Share this post


Link to post
Satyr000 said:

I'm more pissed off that once again the mainstream media was race-baiting from the start and so many people on both sides of the issue STILL have not caught on.


I 100% agree. That is what the media does. Whenever they hear a story about any police officer doing anything to a person, the first thing they will mention is who was white and who was black. This is what incited the riots. I highly doubt anybody would cry out "racism" if Darren Wilson was black and Michael Brown was white. Race related topics is like hitting the fucking jackpot for the news media.

Share this post


Link to post
Satyr000 said:

I'm more pissed off that once again the mainstream media was race-baiting from the start and so many people on both sides of the issue STILL have not caught on.





TBH this whole thing is shitty. But it got shittier than it had to.

Share this post


Link to post

So let me get this straight... The final conclusions blatantly contradict what the chief of police had already told us, and you find absolutely nothing suspicious about any of that? That doesn't raise any red flags? Because that's a pretty friggin' big detail to change your story about.

Share this post


Link to post
DeathevokatioN said:


The information was removed a few hours after the article was posted. The address currently online is not where the officers are living.

Also, I'm massively creeped out by the number of cops in the comments on that site that were abusing their positions to dox the reporters, not to mention the rape and death threats against them and several other posters.

You do a great job supporting one side of the case, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Hellbent said:

Darren Wilson video


I believe this way more than Dorian Johnson bullshit stories.

Share this post


Link to post
the_miano said:

This shit needs to end now.


Seriously, no matter what people feel about the court decision, this senseless violence only hurts everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

Seriously, no matter what people feel about the court decision, this senseless violence only hurts everyone involved.


Exactly, it's not solving anything. This is nothing more than an irrational lynch mob mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Membrain said:

The information was removed a few hours after the article was posted.

So the fact that it was taken down allegedly a few hours later means fucking what? Does that redeem them? Apparently you're new to the internet because unfortunately they're both followed by thousands of people (and combined it's over ten thousand followers) and a lot of whom want retribution, and during that time anyone could have seen the addresses and redistributed / retweeted them! Considering the cop lives 30 minutes drive from where violent protests are taking place (and reporters themselves mentioned this) it makes this even more dangerous. It's like you're deliberately trying to act stupid. How old are you? Are you even human?

Membrain said:

Also, I'm massively creeped out by the number of cops in the comments on that site that were abusing their positions to dox the reporters, not to mention the rape and death threats against them and several other posters.

Poor poor reporters getting a taste of their own intimidation tactics :'(, I didn't see any death threats (as in anyone saying they were going to kill the reporters), just internet tough guys blowing off steam, nothing new, but then again I just skim comment sections because with cases like this it's all just repetitive angry white noise by both sides and it's too easy to cherry pick a comment and go "aha! I'm massively creeped out!". I can understand why people would be outraged and lash out at the reporters and stoop down to their level, because the reporters have just put someone's whole family in danger. If anyone issued serious threats then they're guilty of the same crime the reporters are in terms of encouraging violence and vigilantism, and please, if we're being realistic the most those reporters will get is an angry phone call... on the other hand there's a lot more on the line for the cop and his family. I really feel I shouldn't be explaining this because it's really just common sense, seriously.

Membrain said:

You do a great job supporting one side of the case, though.

rofl I take it your first two paragraphs were a nice excuse to vomit this masterpiece out?
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/post/1296649
http://www.doomworld.com/vb/post/1297092

The comment you replied to here is actually my fourth post in this thread... and my first response was in response to general social semantics and wasn't for or against protests, nor did it have much to do with the case, so I think I'm doing pretty well, actually. You can let go of your 2012 (or 2011? can't remember) vendetta anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Martin Luther King said:

I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.


Rioting certainly isn't the right answer, but I feel that their occurrence should be moving the conversation toward "how can we fix the system?" instead of "they don't have a legitimate message and are just looking for an excuse to be animals". Honestly, wouldn't you be a bit angry when being oppressed and then any opportunity to improve things get shot down by those in power?

Robert McCulloch is extremely biased. His entire family were in the police, and he wanted to become one as well until he lost his leg to cancer. He chose to become a prosecutor as "the next best thing". He has a history of letting cops off the hook no matter what happens. He was the wrong man for the job and justice has suffered for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Sodaholic said:

Robert McCulloch is extremely biased. His entire family were in the police, and he wanted to become one as well until he lost his leg to cancer. He chose to become a prosecutor as "the next best thing". He has a history of letting cops off the hook no matter what happens. He was the wrong man for the job and justice has suffered for it.

You're literally blaming the man for doing his job well.(*) A job that requires him to act out the people's decision. You could blame the man if he chose to make the decision to bring this to trial, himself, rather than bringing it to a jury of your peers. Mr. McCulloch was fucked either way, apparently. He obviously tried to cover his ass by bringing this case to the grand jury, hoping that the consequences of a no trial verdict would hang over the jurors heads, but he's still getting blamed for other people's decisions. It sounds like your more mad that he didn't demand this case be brought to trial than allowing the public to choose.

Also, I can't help but laugh that your throwing a fellow democrat under the bus becasue he didn't aid in your desired outcome.

EDIT: (*)What were the charges brought, anyway? I want to know what he had the jurors decide on. That may change my opinion on his bias.

Share this post


Link to post
geekmarine said:

So let me get this straight... The final conclusions blatantly contradict what the chief of police had already told us, and you find absolutely nothing suspicious about any of that? That doesn't raise any red flags? Because that's a pretty friggin' big detail to change your story about.


No, not really. Because it comes down to forensic science. A chief of police does not have the scientific knowledge or tools needed to process a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Satyr000 said:

No, not really. Because it comes down to forensic science. A chief of police does not have the scientific knowledge or tools needed to process a crime.

What kind of forensic science can you get from this incident? Whether the victim/suspect was close enough to get blood his on the cop?

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

EDIT: (*)What were the charges brought, anyway? I want to know what he had the jurors decide on. That may change my opinion on his bias.

There were no charges brought. It was a hearing to determine if there was probable cause to bring charges and a trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Satyr000 said:

No, not really. Because it comes down to forensic science. A chief of police does not have the scientific knowledge or tools needed to process a crime.

What forensic science is needed to know whether the cop was responding to the convenience store robbery? Surely that's simply a matter of asking him why he stopped the kid.

"The officer didn't know about the robbery."
"Wait never mind, the officer did know about the robbery."

What forensic science, exactly, is involved in determining whether the officer knew about the robbery? Everything else, I can understand - yeah, maybe new evidence came to light after a thorough investigation, but what's going on where you can't even establish the most basic of facts about the case?

I mean look at it this way - either the information was available or it wasn't. If it wasn't available, he should have said "We cannot make a determination about that at this time." And if it was available, why change the story? And either way, that was incredibly unprofessional of him to state something as fact if the facts weren't available.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

What kind of forensic science can you get from this incident? Whether the victim/suspect was close enough to get blood his on the cop?



Some of the basic things blood splatter can tell you are:

Type and velocity of weapon used.
The number of blows.
What the assailants dominant hand is.
Position and movements of the victim and assailant during and after the attack.
Which wounds were inflicted first.
Type of injuries.
How long ago the crime was committed.
Whether death was immediate or delayed.

geekmarine said:

What forensic science is needed to know whether the cop was responding to the convenience store robbery? Surely that's simply a matter of asking him why he stopped the kid.


As so many have a said over and over the gas station robbery has little to do with the issue. But, you are also right, it was incredibly unprofessional for the chief to make any comments during an on going investigation.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×