MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #15

[Irish_Eyes]

If Brown committed some offense when he was 16, how does that justify a police officer shooting him two years later?

Not one person in 15 threads has said that it does. MB's history is relevant, as is ODW's because they were the two people who's actions on this particular day are relevant. You don't seriously expect me to believe that if the news came out tomorrow that ODW had shot another armed black kid two years ago it wouldn't be relevant? Similarly then, this is why MB's prior history is relevant too. I don't think if MB had some piddly citation for underage drinking or curfew or anything a lot of other teens probably also have, it is relevant in any way. I similarly don't care if it turns out ODW got reprimanded for too many call-offs one year or being habitually late on paperwork. But yes, more serious actions on either of their parts in the past may be informative if such things exist. Remember too that these calls for MB's history didn't come out until after the media was reporting on videos made by officers in totally separate departments, as if that said something about ODW or his actions that day. These calls came after the media reporting on ODW's mother's history as if that was somehow relevant. Some of the outrage here seems pretty hypocritical under this specific set of circumstances.

(And by here, I mean "here in this case" or "here in these times", not "here at WS"

 

[TexanMom]

Because of the legal consequences. I don't think the SHOOTING itself had to do with race however the rest of it? The rest of it is obviously all about race.

If White people talk about race on forums such as this they get banned unless their comments are completely rose colored, if White journalists or commentators make an honest observation about race they get fired etc...

It is not that White folks "don't want to acknowledge" the race problem or that many don't talk about it, we are just selective in where and to whom we talk about it with so it doesn't end up getting us fired and such.

And believe me there is far more White folk "discussion" on the topic than anyone wants to acknowledge.

More and more discussion and honest opinions regarding the situation all the time.

Yep, can't talk about the racial double standards.

 

[Sonya610]

I'm not sure how any information gleaned from MB's juvenile records would "help to exonerate an innocent man."

Wow....we finally agree. I don't think it would make a difference either. I believe the shooting was absolutely justified and the juvenile records won't change that reality. I fully believe the forensic evidence will show this shooting was completely legal and just.

But hey, the news media has to keep to keep the drama going during the slow times (as do the folks on this thread, including me).

 

[perico]

None whatsoever. My complaint is all this 2nd degree murder stuff. It's only source is coming from Charles C. Johnson, who has a history of inserting himself into stories and is a POLITICAL writer. Everything he does is with a political payoff, much like Sharpton on the left. It saddens me that both sides seem to be making opinions based on a racial divide or trusting right/left leaning news sources. It's an indictment of both political spheres in the United States. No one can report anything without injecting a political slant into it. Even fact checkers do it. I strongly feel in this instance both sides are using a possible murder indictment to score political points. The minute Al Sharpton showed up to make a political mess of the situation, conservative news affiliates made up their minds to stop Al and spread their own falsehoods, such as the case with the debunked images of Wilson's injuries.

These people don't seem to care about finding the truth regarding the death of a teenager and whether the use of force was justified; both sides just want political capital or prevent the other side from gaining any. It's kind of sickening.

 

[Footwarrior]

In the case of Johnson, Mitchell, and Crenshaw, it's because they tell the exact same story about the tussle even though they have three unique sets of circumstances that would seem to prevent them from giving even a similar sounding portrayal. Their verbiage and their accounts are illogical, error-filled, and at times, unbelievable. And, considering all three were filmed in the immediately aftermath in the same group of ten or so people that included Anthony Shahid, the chief instigator, it causes one to wonder.

I took all three at their word in the first couple days, thought Wilson used excessive force. Still consider that possibility. But their words, their actions, caught on tape, gives the impression that they are telling a story that their eyes did not see (Mitchell and Crenshaw) or that they saw in a different way than they told it (Johnson). Ask yourself this...IF they did not see this as they told it, do you think they arrive at telling the same story on their own or as a group of three, or would you think someone would have to orchestrate such?

If someone was shot on a middle class suburban street, would we find it suspicious that the people who witnessed the shooting discussed the event among themselves while observing the police investigation?

 

[LambChop]

I want to say that I'm not opposed to releasing his records, but just saying for people not to take this writer at face value.

Perico, what we have done is allow the information in the tweets of C. Johnson to be posted here because they would be no different than any other tweet by a court watcher. That said, his blog is political so that is not allowed. Anything related to what he tweets about this case can be considered. This is an isolated case and some of his information can be discussed, otherwise we miss out on a valuable resource. If he starts to get too political we just will not discuss his tweets.

Hope that was helpful.

 

[TheDuchess]

If someone was shot on a middle class suburban street, would we find it suspicious that the people who witnessed the shooting discussed the event among themselves while observing the police investigation?

To me....yep!

 

[Frydaddy]

Two things folks...

First, the reason discussion of race doesn't work on message boards is because it it filled with too much animosity and anger. Solve that on both sides and maybe one day we cn finally have a meaningful debate on the subject. I personally, am looking forward to that day, though I doubt I will see it in my lifetime.

Second, Michael Brown's criminal record as a juvenile isn't going to change the outcome of the shooting, nor will anything negative be used to convict or exonerate Wilson. Those who want the records kept hidden do so most likely because they don't want to admit that Brown was less gentle than portrayed. And those who do are looking for evidence not that Mike deserved to get shot, but did he have anything in his history that might explain if he had the propensity to attack Wilson. For example - if he had charges for possession of drugs that cause abnormally aggressive behavior, charges for assault that are similar to what is alleged by Wilson's crowd, gang activity where violence was perpetrated - those things, like a polygraph, are not to be used as evidence, they are to be used to recreate the event. I'd love to know the information in his juvie record and I'd love to see the polygraph of every person involved on both sides of this. What is the worst that could happen, that we arrive at a factual conclusion where Wilson's fate is determined by the truth? Or is it that one side of the debate ends up eating crow because they've been wrong the whole time? If Wilson executed this kid, I'm happy to admit I have been wrong all along and I'd support the maximum sentence. I just hope that result is proven by more than lousy witnesses, public pressure, and an activist AG.

 

[Frydaddy]

If someone was shot on a middle class suburban street, would we find it suspicious that the people who witnessed the shooting discussed the event among themselves while observing the police investigation?

If the discussion involved two people who didn't see the shooting and yet gave multiple interviews saying they did? Absolutely.

 

[popsicle]

Retweeted by FOX2now
​

​

​

ANTHONY KIEKOW ‏@KiekowLive 4m
Just met one of the new cops in Fordell Hills, MO. Dreams of "connecting" with communities. @FOX2now
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwsxdIgIAAAEjWe.jpg

​

​

​

 

[LambChop]

None whatsoever. My complaint is all this 2nd degree murder stuff. It's only source is coming from Charles C. Johnson, who has a history of inserting himself into stories and is a POLITICAL writer. Everything he does is with a political payoff, much like Sharpton on the left. It saddens me that both sides seem to be making opinions based on a racial divide or trusting right/left leaning news sources. It's an indictment of both political spheres in the United States. No one can report anything without injecting a political slant into it. Even fact checkers do it. I strongly feel in this instance both sides are using a possible murder indictment to score political points. The minute Al Sharpton showed up to make a political mess of the situation, conservative news affiliates made up their minds to stop Al and spread their own falsehoods, such as the case with the debunked images of Wilson's injuries.

These people don't seem to care about finding the truth regarding the death of a teenager and whether the use of force was justified; both sides just want political capital or prevent the other side from gaining any. It's kind of sickening.

To address your complaint. The goal always at WSs is to "separate the wheat from the chaff" in terms of getting to the truth. That often involves discussing different reports from different points of view. We do not allow political discussions for the sake of politics. However, this is a very political case involving the death of a young man, who for whatever reason decided to attack a police officer (that has been confirmed). We only have one side. The important side is that of the police officer who makes a split second decision based on eye contact, experience and body language.

So discussions with all views are welcome and are often opinions because we do not have the most valuable information available to us, mainly because there is a GJ investigating in process about this shooting.

Generally no political discussions are permitted on these threads because there is one available in the private sector but because there seem to be a lot of politics in this case, as long as a poster reports something that is directly related to the shooting it will be permitted on a post-by-post basis. So if anyone feels it is too political please alert.

Thanks, Lamy

 

[JLSChook]

I want to say that I'm not opposed to releasing his records, but just saying for people not to take this writer at face value.

Should we take CNN and MSNBC at face value? Lol

 

[LambChop]

As you can all see by the amount of posts that disappeared last night that the second shift did some clean up on isle 9. There was a lot of off-topic discussion last night so let's try to keep on-topic. Good job at sleuthing, though. :cheer:

 

[SStarr33]

As you can all see by the amount of posts that disappeared last night that the second shift did some clean up on isle 9. There was a lot of off-topic discussion last night so let's try to keep on-topic. Good job at sleuthing, though. :cheer:

Oh no! I missed the stuff that was sleuthed.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Should we take CNN and MSNBC at face value? Lol

IMO heck no!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[popsicle]

Retweeted by STL Public Radio
​

​

​

Jessica Lussenhop ‏@Lussenpop 4m
City of #Ferguson response to DOJ investigation: pic.twitter.com/N3m8E12x8A

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bws5B7hCQAAqmzt.jpg




​

​

​

 

[tlcya]

IMO they shouldn't have to.

Seriously, I get where Brown supporters are coming from on this one. Unless he has violent felonies, it's irrelevant.
Seems people want to paint him as someone that was so awful he deserved to die regardless of the circumstances of Aug 9th.
If Brown had any history of assaulting police...that would be relevant.
Nothing else is. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yep, my exact sentiment.

 

[popsicle]

Retweeted by STL Public Radio
​

​

​

Jason Rosenbaum ‏@jrosenbaum 49s
Here's @attorneycrump's statement on the Dept. of Justice investigation into the #Ferguson PD: pic.twitter.com/yewRXP7q0F
​

​

​

 

[Linda7NJ]

Retweeted by STL Public Radio
​

​

​

Jason Rosenbaum ‏@jrosenbaum 49s
Here's @attorneycrump's statement on the Dept. of Justice investigation into the #Ferguson PD: pic.twitter.com/yewRXP7q0F
​

​

​

Hmmmm truth & justice

Isn't that special.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amber29]

If someone was shot on a middle class suburban street, would we find it suspicious that the people who witnessed the shooting discussed the event among themselves while observing the police investigation?

Yes of course. It would bring into question their account, what's theirs and what's someone else's they heard and have brought into theirs. It's why they don't want witnesses in the courtroom before they testify...

ETA I think suspicious is the wrong word to describe it. Questionable is better IMO