patrick.net

Strategist says

But how will Patnet survive if we all start being nice and fair?

We can have a picnic! With shrimp salad! :-)

Peter P says

Strategist says

But how will Patnet survive if we all start being nice and fair?

We can have a picnic! With shrimp salad! :-)

I hear Ferguson is popular for picnics these days. They even have a fireworks display every evening when the sun goes down.

For sure, businesses in Ferguson are victims.

Some points:

1. the existence of a "strongarm" (meaning unarmed, NO WEAPON) theft in the vicinity does not warrant police escalating a jaywalking infraction into shooting and murder.

2. actually, I'm not even sure it was a strongarm robbery? Is that not when someone grabs something from your person by force. Not that officer Darren Wilson had seen the robbery anyway.

People who think that the shooting murder of a black man is retroactively justifiable homicide based on a previous act of theft (with no personal injury) by the murder victim should make a close examination of their own head.

justme says

Some points:

1. the existence of a "strongarm" (meaning unarmed, NO WEAPON) theft in the vicinity does not warrant police escalating a jaywalking infraction into shooting and murder.

2. actually, I'm not even sure it was a strongarm robbery? Is that not when someone grabs something from your person by force. Not that officer Darren Wilson had seen the robbery anyway.

People who think that the shooting murder of a black man is retroactively justifiable homicide based on a previous act of theft (with no personal injury) by the murder victim should make a close examination of their own head.

The robbery could be motive for Brown to resist the police officers orders. All he had to do was comply.

justme says

People who think that the shooting murder of a black man is retroactively justifiable homicide based on a previous act of theft (with no personal injury) by the murder victim should make a close examination of their own head.

Of course there is no such justification. However, an "unarmed" person with a strong arm can believably seize the police gun by force. We do not know the circumstances, so we should not jump to the conclusion just yet.

Peter P says

We can have a picnic! With shrimp salad! :-)

Not suprisingly, his food of choice would be a salad.

Peter P says

Again, this is an unfortunate event. My sympathies go to those who were robbed and looted. Such disrespect on private property is mind-boggling. I will withhold judgement on the shooting until more facts are made public.

Damage already is done, regardless of what facts show.

I'd bet at least 30% of Americas believe that George Zimmerman is a convicted murderer, Trayvon Martin was a nice kid, and he's President Obama's son.

mmmarvel says

mmmarvel says

I gotta get a drink, this is just too much to absorb in one day.

I hope you're going to share?

No he's gonna need a double with all the shit hitting the fan. Get your own. Alternatively, you guys can drop by for a drink. I'm thinking of Newcastle or Guiness.

mmmarvel says

You're kidding me? He's not? But Dan

With Dan it's easy. He always knows what happened before it even happened.
Wish he was that good at the track.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

This Ferguson guy in St Louis, he was kinda big.

Cop didn't have much choice, did he?

Hey you have exactly 10,000 comments.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Strategist says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

This Ferguson guy in St Louis, he was kinda big.

Cop didn't have much choice, did he?

Hey you have exactly 10,000 comments.

Wow, do I get a pizza or something.

Pubah Patg?

I'll buy you a beer. Call Crazy and Marvel are coming over too. You guys can ride share.

Strategist says

The robbery could be motive for Brown to resist the police officers orders. All he had to do was comply.

"All he had to do was comply" -- my ass.

Simply not "complying" with the police does not in any lawful way carry an instant death penalty without a jury trial and a defense. Do I really need to explain that? Brown was unarmed, Johnson was unarmed. The officer fired the first shot at Brown from inside the car, according to witness statements, then chased him down and kept shooting until Brown was dead.

Read the wikipedia article. It contains a good summary and several witness statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Witness_accounts

justme says

Strategist says

The robbery could be motive for Brown to resist the police officers orders. All he had to do was comply.

"All he had to do was comply" -- my ass.

Simply not "complying" with the police does not in any lawful way carry an instant death penalty without a jury trial and a defense. Do I really need to explain that? Brown was unarmed, Johnson was unarmed. The officer fired the first shot at Brown from inside the car, according to witness statements, then chased him down and kept shooting until Brown was dead.

Read the wikipedia article. It contains a good summary and several witness statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Witness_accounts

What motive did the cop have to simply shoot someone in cold blood?

justme says

Strategist says

The robbery could be motive for Brown to resist the police officers orders. All he had to do was comply.

"All he had to do was comply" -- my ass.

Simply not "complying" with the police does not in any lawful way carry an instant death penalty without a jury trial and a defense. Do I really need to explain that? Brown was unarmed, Johnson was unarmed. The officer fired the first shot at Brown from inside the car, according to witness statements, then chased him down and kept shooting until Brown was dead.

Read the wikipedia article. It contains a good summary and several witness statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Witness_accounts

"according to witness statements"

And there's your problem.

How do you know who witnessed what?
Did you hear the cops accounts yet?
Have you seen what the physical evidence shows?
Have you compared witness statements to physical evidence for inconsistencies?

No you have not, neither has the media, and neither have the police(not in entirety anyway).

So why are you being a dummy and passing judgement so soon?

dodgerfanjohn says

So why are you being a dummy and passing judgement so soon?

Uh, hello? I'm not "passing judgement too soon". I am speaking up against those who have already decided that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown to death. In particular, I am speaking up against Police officers shooting unarmed citizens to death, rather than using less violent means IF (and only if) needed. The facts and witness statements so far indicate that there was no danger to the life of officer Wilson when he KILLED Brown. This gives cause for concern.

Call it Crazy says

When you look at the photo of Brown laying on the street, you don't see any blood coming from Brown's back and he was wearing a white shirt...

I wonder how creditable Johnson's statement is, considering he was involved in the robbery with Brown?

Re: Was Brown shot in the back or not?

1a. wait for the autopsy report(s)

1b. really? You have a photo that shows ALL of Brown's back, so that you can tell that he was NOT hit in the back by a bullet? Please submit a link. The autopsy will tell the truth, but the photo will tell whether YOU are credible.

Re: Johnson's testimony credibility?

3. Johnson has specifically NOT been charged with robbery

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-5-things/index.html

4. Why even bother trying to tar Johnson's credibility when it is abundantly clear that the statement you are questioning will be determined by the autopsy.

I'm not going to speculate as to whether one or both of you might be a dummy, to use a phrase aimed at me. But I think time will tell, and in the meanwhile I think everyone can read the wikipedia article for a summary of what is currently public knowledge about the case.

revised News title

"BLACK MAN ROBS STORE GETS SHOT BY COP"

justme says

dodgerfanjohn says

So why are you being a dummy and passing judgement so soon?

Uh, hello? I'm not "passing judgement too soon". I am speaking up against those who have already decided that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown to death. In particular, I am speaking up against Police officers shooting unarmed citizens to death, rather than using less violent means IF (and only if) needed. The facts and witness statements so far indicate that there was no danger to the life of officer Wilson when he KILLED Brown. This gives cause for concern.

You just passed judgement too soon.
A 295lb 6'4" man who charges you is a clear and present danger.

Remember folks, it's only rushing to judgement when the cops/gov't are accused.

If it's a citizen, esp. a black one, feel free to assume the worst.

dodgerfanjohn says

Peter P says

Again, this is an unfortunate event. My sympathies go to those who were robbed and looted. Such disrespect on private property is mind-boggling. I will withhold judgement on the shooting until more facts are made public.

Damage already is done, regardless of what facts show.

I'd bet at least 30% of Americas believe that George Zimmerman is a convicted murderer, Trayvon Martin was a nice kid, and he's President Obama's son.

I agree with that, however I don't agree with cops killing people "charging" at them or "not complying". What happened to tasers? And if you have to use a gun (as a trained professional) you should be able to shoot someone in the leg or otherwise non-fatally, given that they are not visibly armed (with a gun/rifle) and (about to) open fire.

Policemen do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop. It is not feasible for them to aim for smaller targets like arms and/or legs.

That said, non-lethal weapons can be developed. Watched Minority Report?

I favor universal surveillance. Privacy in public space is an oxymoron. Every non-private locations should be monitored, possibly by computers or outsourced eyeballs.

Peter P says

Policemen do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop. It is not feasible for them to aim for smaller targets like arms and/or legs.

That said, non-lethal weapons can be developed. Watched Minority Report?

I beg to differ, trained policemen in most western countries can shoot to stop without killing the offender. Killings happen rarely and only as a last resort. I dislike the whole race-baiting thing around it and the character distortions created by the media, but one main reason for a trained police force vs an untrained militia is that they (should) have enough target practice.

mell says

Peter P says

Policemen do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop. It is not feasible for them to aim for smaller targets like arms and/or legs.

That said, non-lethal weapons can be developed. Watched Minority Report?

I beg to differ, trained policemen in most western countries can shoot to stop without killing the offender. Killings happen rarely and only as a last resort. I dislike the whole race-baiting thing around it and the character distortions created by the media, but one main reason for a trained police force vs an untrained militia is that they (should) have enough target practice.

But perpetrators in other western countries have less body mass to stop. ;-)

watch http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhc70Hx2d9sLLAb26k

Strategist says

A 295lb 6'4" man who charges you is a clear and present danger.

1. Where is your evidence that Brown "charged" Wilson? So far the only witness account available says that it was Wilson that charged or assaulted Brown using his police car/cardoor as a (deadly!) weapon. So one could argue that victim Brown had the right to defend himself against deadly assault. Instead, it was officer Wilson that killed citizen Brown. Do you understand that a citizen has the right not to be assaulted, and there is no exception that police officers may assault citizens at will?

2. Please tell me where in the laws of Missouri is the phrase "a clear and present danger" used in connection with self-defense?

Okay, I did the work for you. Search for

clear +present +danger +self-defense

in

http://www.moga.mo.gov/htmlpages/Statuteconstitutionsearch.aspx

There are no matches. So you are just parroting some catchphrase you have heard somewhere. And in any case it was citizen Brown that endangered, not officer Wilson.

Peter P says

Policemen do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop.

Not true. Police shoot for all kinds of illegal reasons. And they shoot to kill, because they know how bad it is to have their shooting victim testify against them.

are you kidding?

this person Brown is not a victim. He was robbing a convenience store not long before the incident happened. The fact that you believe all this is a subject of discussion shows you how deluded you really are.

Hey TOB, that was a lame troll. Go back to trolling school.

Call it Crazy says

Where is your evidence that Brown was shot in the back?

Don't give me this lame tit-for-tat. The evidence is at the coroner's office, and will be made public, I hope soon.

who cares if he was shot in the back?

the guy was ROBBING A STORE just prior to the incident.

what is wrong with you people?

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch is the resident court jester, not you TOB.

Take some lessons from him, and learn to be CONSISTENT. Consistency is key to that job.

its like their making it out as if these trivial factors are some sort of suspenseful verdict on the guilt of the police officer.

ITS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED. Brown is a common criminal. CASE CLOSED.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/5f0mVn0HH6U

Damn good rant...

We have toiled this mountain long enough...

When are we going to overcome.

You activist out there, came out of no where. We want justice!
Shut up!! Where you when Ray Ray killed little Lukie where were you?

It's time for us to change.
And I ain't talking about Obama that silly Joker, that's another rant...

Acting like Planet and Ape and Curious George on crack.

I wish he'd do one on the dumb ass White kids out there too.
In fact everybody needs this guy to tell them what they need to hear.
I wish People in Washington was like him.

CaptainShuddup says

I wish he'd do one on the dumb ass White kids out there too.

In fact everybody needs this guy to tell them what they need to hear.

I wish People in Washington was like him.

you know Cap, I thought this way once too. And yes there are exemplary Black people, but on the whole Blacks are comparatively stupid, immoral, primitive and violent. Just look at Africa. So this person will live his whole life trying to defend and/or change the black community- when in reality, they ain't gonna change.

you can be like marcus and pretend to be morally outraged in order to score points, but this tactic will only work so many times until the moral piggy bank is cashed out and were living like the africans. Eventually natural law takes over. We are at that point. I don't hate black people, Im a realist though. Actually my image of black people is closer to how blacks see other blacks than is the PC attitude.

justme says

Peter P says

Policemen do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop.

Not true. Police shoot for all kinds of illegal reasons. And they shoot to kill, because they know how bad it is to have their shooting victim testify against them.

At first it thought you are just naive and enjoyed being played by others. But the above statement by you just takes it to a whole new level of stupidity.

mell says

And if you have to use a gun (as a trained professional) you should be able to shoot someone in the leg or otherwise non-fatally, given that they are not visibly armed (with a gun/rifle) and (about to) open fire.

It's obvious you're not very familiar with firearms. As in "have 0 experience".

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9vQaVIoEjOM