Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
From:

He was a suspect in the theft of Swisher Sweets from a convenience store

To:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.

Is a bit of a stretch there methinks...

Did you watch the video? He assaulted the clerk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.[1]

I know where you are getting your own "media narrative" from.

He was a suspect because he matched the description of the guy in the video. The cop doesn't know it was him, we don't know it was him. And it doesn't change anything about his encounter with the cop.

The only thing it does is let people justify it in their mind because, to quote you, the unarmed person gunned down by the cop was a violent criminal thug.

Yet you are accusing everybody else of thinking with their heart and not being rational...

Obviously that characterization rests on the man in the video and the deceased being the same person. Come on now, big kid rules. I shouldn't have to state this explicitly.

Second, if you had actually read my posts, you would see that I say specifically that it doesn't provide proof for or against the officer's justified use of force. It only changes the plausibility of the deceased "needing to be shot," and since the officer has not yet been convicted of any crime, it seems that these protests are heavily couched in plausibility.

This is only issue number 1000 on which we disagree, and honestly I have no interest in trying to argue with you as it's the very definition of a waste of time.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Obviously that characterization rests on the man in the video and the deceased being the same person. Come on now, big kid rules. I shouldn't have to state this explicitly.

Got it.

When you type "we know that the kid was a thug and a violent criminal and everything portrayed by the media should be questioned because of that fact" we are all supposed to know that what you really mean is "the revelation that the officer was investigating a theft and that the kid was a suspect means that there might be more to the story and we should keep an open mind and consider that neither the deceased or the officer has been convicted of anything at this point."

Because every reasonable user on Dakka is going to read "violent criminal thug" and just know that from the bottom of your heart you really meant "suspect in a robbery".

And talking to me is the waste of time

Edit: and just for fun. It is interesting that you didn't have anything to say in this thread until your today, when with your very first post on the subject you said Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes. that he was a suspect in a theft and innocent until proven quilty...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They think he robbed a store?

Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.

These riots are based on peoples' reactions to the media narrative of the big bad police officer shooting a sweet little boy. Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. This doesn't change the lethal force issue, but it certainly calls into question the media narrative that started this whole thing.

Ensis Ferrae has it - it's not that the robbery alone justified his shooting. Rather, the media narrative suggests that a sweet little boy was randomly attacked by a police officer. We now know that this is absolutely not the case. We can talk about the disparity of force issue, and try to hash out whether or not the shooting itself was justified, but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes.

Nice to see it didn't take long for Nugg to show up and drop the Thug.

Is Thug still code for "black criminal"?

Anyway, it doesn't change anything in this situation other than give some people peace of mind knowing that another "thug" is off the streets and that he had it coming.

I didn't drop the thug - the police officer did.

Anyway, maybe it doesn't change anything if you're in the habit of thinking with your heart. However, for those of us exercising critical thinking, knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.

It seems that you are suggesting that "the media" knew the black student was a violent thug and deliberately concealed this information in order to provoke an outrage response from the public.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They think he robbed a store?

Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.

These riots are based on peoples' reactions to the media narrative of the big bad police officer shooting a sweet little boy. Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. This doesn't change the lethal force issue, but it certainly calls into question the media narrative that started this whole thing.

Ensis Ferrae has it - it's not that the robbery alone justified his shooting. Rather, the media narrative suggests that a sweet little boy was randomly attacked by a police officer. We now know that this is absolutely not the case. We can talk about the disparity of force issue, and try to hash out whether or not the shooting itself was justified, but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes.

Nice to see it didn't take long for Nugg to show up and drop the Thug.

Is Thug still code for "black criminal"?

Anyway, it doesn't change anything in this situation other than give some people peace of mind knowing that another "thug" is off the streets and that he had it coming.

I didn't drop the thug - the police officer did.

Anyway, maybe it doesn't change anything if you're in the habit of thinking with your heart. However, for those of us exercising critical thinking, knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.

It seems that you are suggesting that "the media" knew the black student was a violent thug and deliberately concealed this information in order to provoke an outrage response from the public.

Never said that the media concealed information to incite a riot. But, they definitely didn't waste any time publishing photos like these:




And by the way, his role in the robbery is not exactly beyond question considering that his friend, who he was with, admitted that he did it...

http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/26289596/ferguson-chief-names-cop-who-shot-michael-brown

Is that from Fox News?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."

We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.

There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.

So when he was shot the police officer didn't even know that he was accused of being a violent criminal thug?

What a shocker...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that from Fox News?

From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.

He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."

We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.

There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.

IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that from Fox News?

From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.

He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.

This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."....

I had not realised it was illegal to walk while black in the USA.

 d-usa wrote:
So when he was shot the police officer didn't even know that he was accused of being a violent criminal thug?

What a shocker...

d... we don't have all the facts. We only have a sliver of information of the actions that led up to the shooting.

A) we do know the first shot was done in the car.

B) we do know that the officer suffered some sort of facial damage.

C) we do know that Brown final resting place was twenty-ish feet away from the car.

D) and... that's basically it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."

We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.

There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.

IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that from Fox News?

From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.

He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.

This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.

Fox News is part of a left wing media conspiracy to, do what, exactly?

Please, if the agenda is so clear, you should be able to lay it out for us.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."....

I had not realised it was illegal to walk while black in the USA.

Read the official report... the two were walking in the middle of the street blocking traffic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."

We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.

There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.

IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that from Fox News?

From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.

He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.

This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.

Fox News is part of a left wing media conspiracy to, do what, exactly?

Please, if the agenda is so clear, you should be able to lay it out for us.

Who is talking about a left-wing agenda or a conspiracy?

It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.


A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.

Where is the official report?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."

We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.

There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.

IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.

So your narrative in this thread so far has been:

"This kid was a thug. A violent criminal thug. Clearly his life as a violent criminal thug should be taken into consideration. I mean look at him assaulting that clerk. Here, Wikipedia even has an article on assault to point out what a violent criminal thug that kid was. He was not innocent, he was a violent criminal thug. I mean, clearly he was only accused of being a violent criminal thug. I shouldn't really have to type that. Everybody should know that when I say "violent criminal thug" repeatedly I really mean "kid accused of theft" and not what I actually typed. I mean we don't have the facts yet to decide if he was a suspect, a violent criminal thug, or innocent, but he was a violent criminal thug. And of course it is completely irrelevant if the cop knew or didn't knew if he was a violent criminal thug...but I just want to point out that he was..."

Did I get it all?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."

We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.

There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.

IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that from Fox News?

From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.

He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.

This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.

Fox News is part of a left wing media conspiracy to, do what, exactly?

Please, if the agenda is so clear, you should be able to lay it out for us.

Who is talking about a left-wing agenda or a conspiracy?

It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.


A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.

So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.

A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.

While the media would never dream up a story of a american-pie white police officer being unjustly targeted for gunning down a violent criminal thug?

Edit:

you were doing a lot better before you jumped into this thread with both feet going "hahahaha I knew it, the black kid was a thug!!!!"

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson

They were approx. 10 minutes apart.

Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.

The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.

It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."

We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.

There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.

IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is that from Fox News?

From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.

He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.

This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.

Fox News is part of a left wing media conspiracy to, do what, exactly?

Please, if the agenda is so clear, you should be able to lay it out for us.

Who is talking about a left-wing agenda or a conspiracy?

It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.


A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.

So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.

I specifically stated that I do NOT believe that there is any kind of conspiracy. Please read my posts in their entirety or don't respond to them at all. Your reply constitutes trolling.

This is rather irrelevant on the whole, but @Kilkrazy I would like to advise you that the guardian has taken a thoroughly one-sided view of this issue, and is ignoring all evidence that opposes their view. I don't really want to say anything other than to avoid the guardian as a balanced news source.

When was it that "thug" became a commonly accepted code-word for a black suspect and/or union member?

 Ouze wrote:
When was it that "thug" became a commonly accepted code-word for a black suspect and/or union member?

Blame Zimmerman for that one...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...
So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.

I specifically stated that I do NOT believe that there is any kind of conspiracy. Please read my posts in their entirety or don't respond to them at all. Your reply constitutes trolling.

No, you didn't. You asked rhetorically who is talking about a conspiracy. I think you are, because it is clearly implicit in your statements about the "media agenda", which involves a wide number of outlets.

What is the agenda to which you have referred?

So why didn't the police department release any of this info the night it happened? Why clam up?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where is the official report?

The official report that led up to the shooting isn't out yet, I was referencing the first police conference call back in Monday where we got snippets of what happened before they clammed up. Sorry.

Here's official FOI official report for the burglery of that convience store:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/15/ferguson-police-report.pdf

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...
So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.

I specifically stated that I do NOT believe that there is any kind of conspiracy. Please read my posts in their entirety or don't respond to them at all. Your reply constitutes trolling.

No, you didn't. You asked rhetorically who is talking about a conspiracy. I think you are, because it is clearly implicit in your statements about the "media agenda", which involves a wide number of outlets.

What is the agenda to which you have referred?

It's called "media sensationalism" and it's not a disputed phenomenon. There is no conspiracy. It's about reporting events in a way that maximizes provocation, because provocation ultimately increases profits. End of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism

 Ouze wrote:
So why didn't the police department release any of this info the night it happened? Why clam up?

Exactly...

Maybe when the DOJ jumped in?

I'm not clear on the timeline but I think that wasn't for like 3 days.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
right?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where is the official report?

Also... he mentioned it at the press conference this afternoon:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html

The officer approached Brown not because of the robbery, but “because they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic,” Jackson said.

Far different than "walking while black".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not clear on the timeline but I think that wasn't for like 3 days.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
right?

The earliest I heard was Monday afternoon. Not sure if that was officially "DoJ is here, don't do gak till I say"... or, what.

Lemme see if I can make sense of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ouze

Yup... Monday afternoon.
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/11/fbi-involved-michael-brown-death-investigation/13896129/

 Ouze wrote:
So why didn't the police department release any of this info the night it happened? Why clam up?

It's fairly common that LEOs will "clam up" about this sort of stuff as at that point it's still an ongoing investigation, and as such to make certain comments about it, could/would skew public perception and would thus create an unfair court environment.


I dont think that this is the whole reason why this police department has only now brought this kind of information out... It's plausible in my mind that with the tensions/protests/riots as they were, things needed to calm down as they probably feared that this kind of information would only incite further violence from those rioters/looters.