Ferguson and Michael Brown

olivier renault said:
"Ferguson and Michael Brown"

Note : Subtle usage of the first name to empathize with the victim, while omitting the policeman's. At least you didn't put 'Officer'. :D Ah well, It's summer, it's riot season,...
Click to expand...

Furgeson is the town... and I am marginally on the side of the cops.

Fail on all levels.
 
wingman44115 said:
Its just like the London riots, Black man brakes the Law, gets themselves shot and then the community thinks it gives them the rights to kick off, instead of excepting the fact the guy was an a*****e who shouldn't have been doing what he did anyways.
Click to expand...

This, how about trying not to be a scumbag? it really isn't that hard.
 
IF A guys running at you and your have grown up in the USA subject to 'TOTING A GUN culture' surrounded by gun toting black maniacs are you gonna let him get to you or shoot him in the face ????

toting toting.
 
cheesyboy said:
Most pedos are men, but that doesn't mean it would be acceptable for police to stop random men on the street to swab their nob for evidence. Random searches are an overextension of police powers and an invasion of human rights.
Click to expand...

Wow. You are clueless. Part of the problem in this day and age to.

What is wrong with police randomly searching people, it takes 30 seconds. If it gets drugs / knifes / guns / etc. off the streets. The streets we pay the cops to keep safe? I have been randomly searched probably half a dozen times, it's a mild inconvenience at most.

The police aren't stupid, and have limited resources. You make it sound like they just pull people up anywhere for fun. These random searches most of the time are during big events or in busy high street environments in the evening on Friday/ Saturday nights. Romford on a Friday / Saturday night. Notting Hill Carnival. Normally around train stations to. High volume of people.

Do you get out much?
 
the_chicco said:
Some of the responses on here are just astounding. Taking the race thing out of the equation the police officer shot him 6 times, including twice in the head. A completely disproportionate use of force and the officer deserves to have the book thrown at him.
Click to expand...

In the UK it might well be but context is important... It's quite plausibly justified in the US, according to some accounts he'd already been involved in a struggle with the cop by/in the car where he'd tried to grab the gun. It's not clear if the cop also had non lethal options available... the cop had his gun drawn nd allegedly tells the suspect to freeze... he's then allegedly bum rushed by him... he's got a gun in his hand(s) and is being charged by a 300lb 6ft 4 aggressive male... he might at this point already know this is the guy from the violent robbery, he's already tried to grab his gun once, he might be high on drugs, he might be armed, cop has at best one hand free and a second or two to react...

Really if you don't want to be shot then don't try and grab a cop's gun and don't then rush a cop who's got his gun drawn... once the cop is in that situation the choices are limited.
 
balky12 said:
Wow. You are clueless. Part of the problem in this day and age to.

What is wrong with police randomly searching people, it takes 30 seconds. If it gets drugs / knifes / guns / etc. off the streets. The streets we pay the cops to keep safe? I have been randomly searched probably half a dozen times, it's a mild inconvenience at most.

The police aren't stupid, and have limited resources. You make it sound like they just pull people up anywhere for fun. These random searches most of the time are during big events or in busy high street environments in the evening on Friday/ Saturday nights. Romford on a Friday / Saturday night. Notting Hill Carnival. Normally around train stations to. High volume of people.

Do you get out much?
Click to expand...

We shouldn't accept that sort of treatment by those whose job it is to serve the public. You may be happy to bite down on the pillow and take it, but that's a sad reflection of your deference to authority. Seriously: what moral right do they have to randomly pick out innocent members of the public for such things?
 
the_chicco said:
Some of the responses on here are just astounding. Taking the race thing out of the equation the police officer shot him 6 times, including twice in the head. A completely disproportionate use of force and the officer deserves to have the book thrown at him.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I don't see why the skin colour matters. People of all skin colour are abused or killed by the police all the time.
 
cheesyboy said:
Because one of them was an eye-witness, the other is someone who phoned up a radio show claiming to be a friend of the cop.
Click to expand...

And yet ultimately neither of them are reliable.

There are conflicting stories from witnesses, so no-one, other than the cop and the dead guy really know what happened. You stating your opinions and "evidence" as fact is both disingenuous and quite frankly stinks of simply trying to push an agenda. You hate the cops and authority in general. We get it. :rolleyes:

cheesyboy said:
Seriously: what moral right do they have to randomly pick out innocent members of the public for such things?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'd argue that they have a moral obligation to do so.

I won't disagree that there are some who abuse their powers, but on the whole things like random searches of people who fit certain profiles is a good thing. I'd be perfectly happy to be occasionally subjected to 5 minutes of questioning and asked to show what's in my bag/pockets if it meant fewer people wandering around with knives and guns.

Do you also disagree with people being searched when getting on planes, or going into football stadiums, nightclubs etc.?

How about people driving home from a pub/club late at night - do you think it's reasonable for them to be stopped and questioned/potentially breathalised, or should we just do away with preventative police completely, and focus on cleaning up afterwards?
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
We shouldn't accept that sort of treatment by those whose job it is to serve the public. You may be happy to bite down on the pillow and take it, but that's a sad reflection of your deference to authority. Seriously: what moral right do they have to randomly pick out innocent members of the public for such things?
Click to expand...

We give them that right. If it makes our streets safer why not? If you are innocent it's a mild inconvenience. How many times have you been randomly searched?

We live in a day and age where people take weapons out, conceal them. Rather the police do their best to stop these people before they do something serious, than dealing with the murder investigation after.

If you think it's a sad view, then you need to wake up to the world we live in. People do not have respect for each other anymore.

Again, you need to apply context. The random searches I have had have been in high density, alcohol fuelled, known-violent hotspots. The 'random' searches are in fact, not that random, believe it or not. Maybe at an individual level, but they pick these spots for a reason.
 
I've only read some parts of what's been reported, and so far there seems to have been a lot of contradictory statements made. The bigger one seems to have been this witness that claims he was shot in the back, which the autopsy performed by a medical examiner hired by the family confirms this was not the case. Any decent lawyer will use this to blow the case out the water.

However 6 shots to me (2 head shots) seems more of an intent of shoot to kill rather than shoot to injure. If the lad really was able to turn around, being unarmed with his hands in the air, i don't see why the officer saw the need to shoot.

Also i agree with one of the comments made earlier about the media hyping the story labelling it white officer shoots black teenager. Clearly it's of no relevance whether the teenager was white or black, and the papers should be banned from reporting in this context. It's not stifling freedom of speech, by all means be allowed to report that an officer had shot an unarmed teenager. But not inciting racial hatred by labelling the white vs the black.
 
Semple said:
However 6 shots to me (2 head shots) seems more of an intent of shoot to kill rather than shoot to injure.
Click to expand...

"Shoot to injure" isn't really a thing... if you shoot someone, there's a high chance you're going to kill them. As someone posted previously, police officers are trained to aim for the centre of mass, simply because it's a bigger target.

Semple said:
If the lad really was able to turn around, being unarmed with his hands in the air, i don't see why the officer saw the need to shoot.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but then with all the conflicting evidence, that's a big "if".
 
Semple said:
However 6 shots to me (2 head shots) seems more of an intent of shoot to kill rather than shoot to injure. If the lad really was able to turn around, being unarmed with his hands in the air, i don't see why the officer saw the need to shoot.
Click to expand...

Armed cops are trained to shoot to kill. No middle ground. They do not shoot to injure. They are trained to shoot as a last resort.
 
balky12 said:
We give them that right. If it makes our streets safer why not? If you are innocent it's a mild inconvenience. How many times have you been randomly searched?

We live in a day and age where people take weapons out, conceal them. Rather the police do their best to stop these people before they do something serious, than dealing with the murder investigation after.

If you think it's a sad view, then you need to wake up to the world we live in. People do not have respect for each other anymore.

Again, you need to apply context. The random searches I have had have been in high density, alcohol fuelled, known-violent hotspots. The 'random' searches are in fact, not that random, believe it or not. Maybe at an individual level, but they pick these spots for a reason.
Click to expand...

Random stop and searches are actually illegal (because it's a human rights issue) - but police have been performing them anyway. For it to be legal, Police need to have reasonable expectation that they will find drugs/knives etc, and need to tell you why they are stopping you.

But go ahead and give up your rights in the name of "safety".
 
cheesyboy said:
But he did stop in the end. And was no longer a threat. And still got shot in the face, with his hands above his head.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell mate I hope you have been in contact with the relevant authorities and made your witness statement! I mean, unless you have stated hearsay as fact in order to back up your personal agenda... but you wouldn't do that now would you?
 
Johno please? said:
This, how about trying not to be a scumbag? it really isn't that hard.
Click to expand...

this is exactly why people are so annoyed

your calling the guy a scumbag based on the character assassination done by police after they murdered him

claims are the police officer did not know he had commited robbery (if its proven he did) and it was unrelated

whos the bigger scumbag anyway ? the guy leaving a shop without paying for cigars (suspected) or the guy who murdered an unarmed man with 6 gunshots
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom