"Poll: Should officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown, be arrested?"

[Skig²]

credible witnesses, the autopsy, and what the people have said about their relationship with ferguson police in the past

plus, the police there were extremely aggressive. (mike brown being shot multiple times after already being incapacitated, police shooting rubber bullets at a peaceful protest, throwing tear gas at a peaceful protest, calling in the national guard, etc.)

Since when is calling in the National Guard being aggressive? It's a defensive act against violence after the public hears the jury's decision.

[Ad Bot]

[Jubel]

credible witnesses

Witness reports were skewed across the board, and were incredibly varied. They're not an incredibly reliable source of information.

the autopsy

The autopsy also listed the fact that he could've been running towards the officer as well. It doesn't exclude both possibilities.

what the people have said about their relationship with ferguson police in the past

If anything that should be something against the people. They really shouldn't have issues with the police force if they're doing nothing wrong.
However, the opinion of an entire police force doesn't represent the actions of a single man.

plus, the police there were extremely aggressive. (police shooting rubber bullets at a peaceful protest, throwing tear gas at a peaceful protest, calling in the national guard, etc.)

I actually agree with you on these listed points. I won't deny that there was certainly people trying to peacefully protest against the shooting which is respectful, however it only took the 1% of people who decided to use it as a cover to cause trouble which misrepresented the entire protest to begin with, causing the whole rioting problem.

Shooting rubber bullets isn't really a good thing to do, nor is calling in the national guard (which seems to be overkill, what can a couple of mothers wanting justice do to a guy toting an assault rifle?), however Tear Gas is a tool used to break up crowds, which can happen if protests become violent, or appear to be due to the 1% of people who are there only to cause trouble. It isn't really pleasant to be in a cloud of tear gas, and I certainly wouldn't want it shooting at me, but if the protests/riots/whathaveyou are causing problems, tear gas is one of the least damaging things you can do to break up a crowd.

[Qwepir]

yes?

So you want him to be arrested, even though you know it would be unjust. k.

credible witnesses

Sorry, you don't get to redefine "credible" as "agreeing with me". Do you even realize that you're being just as irrational here as the people you're constantly mocking in the gamergate thread, or has that irony just sailed right over your head.

[SeventhSandwich]

They already showed in the court from the trajectories of the bullet wounds that Michael Brown attempted to rush the officer and attack him. The officer acted in self defense. It was not a murder. A murder is something done in cold blood. This officer was defending himself from a dangerous man who was threatening his life.

That's BS. You can't discern a person's running speed or exact stance by where the bullets hit them. What I think you meant to say is that the court showed that he wasn't assuming a standard 'surrender' position with his hands above his head. But what does that even mean anyway? You can't just tell someone to 'freeze' and then shoot them for not holding their hands up when they haven't even done anything wrong to begin with.

[Planr]

That's BS. You can't discern a person's running speed or exact stance by where the bullets hit them. What I think you meant to say is that the court showed that he wasn't assuming a standard 'surrender' position with his hands above his head.

you're darn right he wasn't showing a "standard surrender position". the bullet impacts show it was nothing close to that:


this is an image using the court evidence showing the most likely stature that brown was in; he was rushing at the officer, attempting to attack him.

That's BS. You can't discern a person's running speed or exact stance by where the bullets hit them. What I think you meant to say is that the court showed that he wasn't assuming a standard 'surrender' position with his hands above his head. But what does that even mean anyway? You can't just tell someone to 'freeze' and then shoot them for not holding their hands up when they haven't even done anything wrong to begin with.

dude, are you freaking serious? "hadn't done anything wrong to begin with"? brown had committed other crimes earlier that day, robbing stores, and of course there's that lovely photo someone posted earlier in the thread of him pointing a gun at the camera with dollars in his mouth, and his gang buddy smoking what's probably weed over in the corner. he was a total thug, and does not deserve anyone defending him at all.

[SeventhSandwich]

dude, are you freaking serious? "hadn't done anything wrong to begin with"? brown had committed other crimes earlier that day, robbing stores(shoplifting actually), and of course there's that lovely photo someone posted earlier in the thread of him pointing a gun at the camera with dollars in his mouth, and his gang buddy smoking what's probably weed over in the corner. he was a total thug, and does not deserve anyone defending him at all.

None of which the police officer necessarily knew he did, and none of which posed a mortal threat to the officer's life. I don't find that image convincing either. Like I said, the angle that a bullet enters you has nothing to do with how fast you're moving. There is no math where you can plug in the angle of a bullet hole in someone's body and get their velocity. Sure, his upper body most likely matches the position in that drawing. But if we speculate a little bit about what his lower body could look like, it's entirely possible he wasn't posing any real threat.

The way I drew it, witnesses would probably describe Brown as 'surrendering', which matches the testimonies they gave. Sure, he wasn't raising his hands up to the sky, but you can't shoot someone for just kneeling down on the ground.

he was a total thug, and does not deserve anyone defending him at all.

Okay holy stuff, we do not live in a society where drug use permits law enforcement to shoot someone for no reason. We live in a society where if you commit a crime, you are arrested and prosecuted for it. Based on the pictures I've seen of Brown, if I knew him in real life I probably would think he's a douche and wouldn't associate with him. That doesn't give anyone the right to kill him though, and the fact that an officer shot him for a reason that wasn't immediately obvious self defense means that he should be prosecuted and tried for murder.

[Evan5626]

The fact that people think that race plays no part in cases like this is ignorant in itself.

Just because someone brings up race does not mean that they are implying that the officer was, in any way, tribal. And you guys know this.

Take a white man and a black man, 40 years old each. You are saying that you would believe that the white man is less trustworthy than the black man, more of a possible criminal than the black man, more intimidating than the black man, etc.? No, it would be the opposite. And it isn't because YOU are tribal, is it? A lot of it has to do with media and upbringing.

I am not, for one second, saying that Michael Brown was shot FOR being black, before one of you fools try to twist my words to make me seem like an idiot, but you cannot simply say, "Race had no part in this!!!!!"
Maybe not directly, but subconsciously? Yes.

[Yosher]

he was a total thug, and does not deserve anyone defending him at all.

classic

[Kimon²]

we've been over the fact that either mike brown charged, head and arm first, at an armed police office who was forced to shoot him 6 times to stop him (apparently he's a slow-running superhuman), or maybe he was on the ground with his hands up and the police officer shot him 6 times, including when he was already on the ground bleeding. maybe the police officer really did think he was reaching for his gun, but shooting the kid 6 times while he was already on the ground seems just a little bit excessive for there to not be something else influencing him. a.k.a. he's a tribal.

[XR-7]

By all means, I find him very likely (99%) innocent, but I'd suggest transferring him to a different department for his own safety.

[Harm94]

The National Guard can be called in to calm crowds in a state of Emergency. I'd say was good idea considering how thinned out local agencies are.

[Doomonkey]

The way I drew it, witnesses would probably describe Brown as 'surrendering', which matches the testimonies they gave. Sure, he wasn't raising his hands up to the sky, but you can't shoot someone for just kneeling down on the ground.

Okay, since when do people cower in fear with their arms out?

[Rally]

we've been over the fact that either mike brown charged, head and arm first, at an armed police office who was forced to shoot him 6 times to stop him (apparently he's a slow-running superhuman)

You realize that one 9x19mm bullet, a bullet that doesn't have much stopping power in the first place, probably wont stop a 292lbs 6'4" man running at full tilt sprint? Do you know how momentum works? I'm not surprised it would've taken 6 bullets to down him (especially considering most of the hits were grazes on lesser massive parts of the body, and probably provided little to no stopping power). You act like 6 shots is a massive amount of shots. When you're panicking, 6 shots is almost expected. Some rifles issued to soldiers during the Vietnam war had no automatic function, and were limited to 3 shot bursts because of how much ammo was wasted during a panic. If he did this out of some sort of tribal flare (jfc you people actually believe this stuff) he probably would've done it in one shot to the head. If he was some sadistic killer, he probably would've emptied the magazine on him. More than half of the shots on the body were grazes. If he did this while Michael brown was stationary and kneeling, he must have some seriously stuffty aim.

Again. It's amazing how all these bleeding heart tumblerites with their pet theories think they're smart enough to draw conclusions on this case.

[Harm94]

@Kimon:
Guns do not function like their video game counter parts, everyone has a certain level of pain tolerance. As long as your body is producing adrenaline and various chemicals, you might not even feel the pain of getting hit while your body is in fight or flight mode.

Now I have heard several versions of the story.

First version:
Brown and friend were off making noise and doing nothing. Officer shows up after noticing Brown fit the description of a store robber, officer then kicks brown's ass. Brown is on the ground in pain and begging and screaming. Officer executes him.
Thoughts: If that is true, why does he have wounds in his hand, arm, corner of his torso, etc when the officer could have shot brown in the head a few times.

Second Version.
Store robbed, brown was out walking around, brown fit the description, officer came by in his SUV, brown grabs the officer through the window of his suv, brown reaches for his gun to defend himself. Brown was six times hit in the places as marked in the autopsy picture.
Thoughts: Possible. People claim he was gentle giant, but his face book says otherwise. Maybe brown made a mistake when chose to grab the officer, maybe the officer said something to provoke him. I don't know which side the officer had this taser on or if he had a taser at all(they aren't standard issue in all departments, some require that you pay out of your own pocket for one). It sounds like the officer made a split second decision while being thrashed around. Maybe brown wished to continue to fighting as the officer brought out his pistol, maybe the officer called brown over and pointed a gun a brown which caused him to react by trying to get the officer to lower his gun.

Third Version: Same the first. Officer gets out to confront brown. At some point brown charges the officer and the officers decides to shoot him which could better explain as that up and down bullet grouping.
Thoughts: Plausible. Did Brown charge out the game? maybe. Could the officer provoke brown into a fight? maybe.

My thoughts on all three. Rashomon effect.

[dudeman162]

I would really like to believe that the cop did not shoot him because of race, or that the cop was being unreasonably belligerent, but the amnesty report leads me to believe the opposite.