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.

 CptJake wrote:
Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen? Would someone who does that not be correctly described as 'violent', and since assault is criminal, well, maybe the label would still fit?

Talk about "forging a narrative...".

If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals. I have a hard time believing that the majority of people here have not pushed someone at some point in their lives.

I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.



So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.

 CptJake wrote:
I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.



So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.

Great deflection, but also a non answer.

You have honestly never pushed anybody at anytime in your life?

I think this whole line of discussion is sort of irrelevant. The police that stopped him had no idea this altercation had happened and it was no salient to why they stopped him.

 Ouze wrote:
I think this whole line of discussion is sort of irrelevant. The police that stopped him had no idea this altercation had happened and it was no salient to why they stopped him.

We still don't have all the details of that police stop.

The convention here is that the officer didn't put 2 and 2 together at the initial contact.

The initial contact was to tell Brown&Friend to get off the road... then when he drove past them, stopped and backed up.

At this point, he probably realizes that they fit the description of the robbery 10 mins earlier.

But, again... we don't know for sure yet.

 Ouze wrote:
I think this whole line of discussion is sort of irrelevant.

This.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.



So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.

Great deflection, but also a non answer.

You have honestly never pushed anybody at anytime in your life?

While committing a crime? Nope, never. In the context of sports? Yep. In the context of fights, yep, but I can honestly say I never instigated any of the fights I've been in.

And I'll also admit, I can be very violent and have committed some very violent acts when I had to.

But never against some poor guy trying to make a living or against someone that much smaller than me and never while stealing.

 CptJake wrote:


While committing a crime? Nope, never. In the context of sports? Yep. In the context of fights, yep, but I can honestly say I never instigated any of the fights I've been in.

And I'll also admit, I can be very violent and have committed some very violent acts when I had to.

But never against some poor guy trying to make a living or against someone that much smaller than me and never while stealing.

Three different posts, three different criteria of "assault" and "violent criminal".

Your first post:

Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen?

So you argue that even if no crime is committed, pushing someone makes you a violent criminal because you assaulted him.

Which is something you are apparently guilty of doing. Although you then spend the next two posts trying to justify your way out of it by saying "I never pushed a clerk or store owner" and "I never pushed anyone while committing a crime or stealing", even though you have already established that pushing someone makes you a violent criminal even if no theft occurred or no other crime is being committed.

Now I'm not pointing this out in order to go "Now CptJake, we all know damn well that you have assaulted plenty of people and that you are a violent criminal yourself, so shut your trap!" It's not my intention to makes this a "yeah, you too!" post.

My point is that:

A) The whole "he was a violent criminal" is completely irrelevant to what actually happened because it appears that the cop didn't know about his "violent criminal" status at the time and it didn't change the nature of the confrontation.
B) That the basis of the whole "he's a violent criminal, look at him assaulting people" is such a ridiculous low standard that if we were to apply it to all of us we would all be violent criminals. If a push makes you a criminal then we are all guilty.

 CptJake wrote:
I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.



So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.

yeah, stealing, then assaulting the clerk, then FOLLOWING the clerk a bit, strikes me as violent and very aggressive. Its a guy half his size he pushes too, a simple trip could have resulted in serious injury to the clerk, would we have riots then?

Some people (not you jake) can downplay this all you want, but the fact is:

the mob wants blood, no matter if the cop is proven innocent, they will not believe the verdict.

As much as they want to cry out that all the cops are racist, the rioters need to look in the mirror and realize that they are operating under preconceptions and prejudice themselves by not even acknowledging the possibility of the cops innocence or conforming to the rule of law until a verdict is passed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

My point is that:

A) The whole "he was a violent criminal" is completely irrelevant to what actually happened because it appears that the cop didn't know about his "violent criminal" status at the time and it didn't change the nature of the confrontation.
B) That the basis of the whole "he's a violent criminal, look at him assaulting people" is such a ridiculous low standard that if we were to apply it to all of us we would all be violent criminals. If a push makes you a criminal then we are all guilty.

except the fact is, he was violent and has been recorded on tape as such, and that is just what is 100% proven.

He didnt "push" the clerk, he violently shoved him, and pursued him a bit after, you can tell the clerk is terrified and he has good reason to be.

You are trying to equate this to something benign like school kids pushing each other or two buddies having a drunken argument, which it simply is not.

He is alleged to have been more violent by the cop and some witnesses, while this tape doesnt prove he was violent at the scene, it does show an immediate history of it.

It does lend credence the the cops and some witnesses reports that he was violent at the time of the shooting.

The cop was just doing his job, if doing your job makes you lynch able by the mob, then we are all lynch able.

one would think, given history, that mobs wouldnt be the go to reaction to this thing, especially given that there has been no verdict yet and the facts are still coming out.


edit for clarity

 easysauce wrote:

the mob wants blood, no matter if the cop is proven innocent, they will not believe the verdict.

This is a big problem here. We had the same with the Mark Duggan case. Cop found innocent. Its a cover up. Cop found guilty. Its proof of deeper problems they are hiding. This is one of the big issues police are facing, that people trust authority less and less and expect more and more to be out in the public domain wether appropriate or not.

 d-usa wrote:


My point is that:

A) The whole "he was a violent criminal" is completely irrelevant to what actually happened because it appears that the cop didn't know about his "violent criminal" status at the time and it didn't change the nature of the confrontation.
B) That the basis of the whole "he's a violent criminal, look at him assaulting people" is such a ridiculous low standard that if we were to apply it to all of us we would all be violent criminals. If a push makes you a criminal then we are all guilty.

It does help to explain how the situation progressed from a policeman asking them to get out of the middle of the street to having to shoot an unarmed man attacking the policeman. Far from the original "poor little kid accosted by the police while just walking down the street and killed on his knees with his hands up...He Was Going To COLLEGE!!!" though.

 CptJake wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:


1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.

MRAPs are very expensive to maintain, and 'free' seems to ignore the cost the tax payers pony up to get them back stateside then reconditioned for LEO use. It would be cheaper to blow them in place or sell them for scrap than to pass them to CONUS LE. And, the bottom line is they were designed and built to defeat IEDs and other explosions from the ground upwards. Frankly, that is not a threat most CONUS LE faces, so they are paying a premium for a capability they do not need. They are crappy APCs (poor mobility, too tall for some urban applications, high roll over rate, low OR rate, don't carry a full SWAT team and so on). There are several purpose built vehicles out there that are MUCH better for SWAT use than an MRAP designed to withstand major explosions.

I know I would be pissed if my county burdened me and my fellow tax payers with the upkeep on an MRAP or two.

I can't find the article, but I read somewhere that many police departments take them, leave them in storage for the required number of years and then sell them to military vehicle collectors as a way to finance what are often cash-strapped departments. This I totally understand.

However, like you, what I don't is dumping taxpayer $ into a reconditioning a vehicle not designed for the use at hand.

 Eilif wrote:
I can't find the article, but I read somewhere that many police departments take them, leave them in storage for the required number of years and then sell them to military vehicle collectors as a way to finance what are often cash-strapped departments. This I totally understand.

However, like you, what I don't is dumping taxpayer $ into a reconditioning a vehicle not designed for the use at hand.

I think that's a lot less offensive than, say, government dollars going into healthcare for the needy, which is socialism.

Have they explained why the officer fired his gun yet?

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Have they explained why the officer fired his gun yet?

Cop says the kid tried to take his gun, backed away, and was then charging at him. The autopsy can be interpreted to support that. A video taken of a bystander also seems to support that.

Edit - ninja'd

 cincydooley wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Have they explained why the officer fired his gun yet?

Cop says the kid tried to take his gun, backed away, and was then charging at him. The autopsy can be interpreted to support that. A video taken of a bystander also seems to support that.

If the cop is telling the truth, then I can understand why he shot him. It seems like the cop panicked and unloaded his gun. Whether that's justifiable or not is more complicated.

Only thing we know for certain is that the dead kids accomplice's testimony was pretty clearly a lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Have they explained why the officer fired his gun yet?

Cop says the kid tried to take his gun, backed away, and was then charging at him. The autopsy can be interpreted to support that. A video taken of a bystander also seems to support that.

If the cop is telling the truth, then I can understand why he shot him. It seems like the cop panicked and unloaded his gun.

That's what it sounds like to me, too, but we still need more info

If true, this is big.

BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

That sounds painful!

Indeed

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

We need to wait to see if it's corroborated and confirmed, obviously.

 cincydooley wrote:
We need to wait to see if it's corroborated and confirmed, obviously.

Absolutely. The source I linked to is not close to something I would put faith in, which is why I started with 'If true'.

Sweet jeebus, even the name of the injury sounds painful.

 cincydooley wrote:
We need to wait to see if it's corroborated and confirmed, obviously.

Yeah, I'm not too sure about that source. I started looking at their articles and cleared my browsing history after getting to the KKK rally announcement. Wasn't sure if it was a "Hey, watch out", or "Hey, it's party time" kind of announcement. The content of the other articles made it ambiguous enough that I didn't want to stick around and find out.

The Grand Jury may start up tomorrow, so this stuff should be coming out officially soon. And hopefully the parallel federal investigation will keep the county honest.

Apparently there's been a group of wannabe communist revolutionaries from Chicago that have been stirring up much of the trouble these last few nights.

https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench/status/501748522996482048

 Ouze wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
I can't find the article, but I read somewhere that many police departments take them, leave them in storage for the required number of years and then sell them to military vehicle collectors as a way to finance what are often cash-strapped departments. This I totally understand.

However, like you, what I don't is dumping taxpayer $ into a reconditioning a vehicle not designed for the use at hand.

I think that's a lot less offensive than, say, government dollars going into healthcare for the needy, which is socialism.

Not going to get into it here, but just to assuage my curiosity, are you being serious or joking?

The massive number of emoticons would suggest joking, but since none of them are smileys it's kind of a toss-up.

socialism.

...is an inside joke here...

 whembly wrote:
socialism.

...is an inside joke here...

COMMIES? IN MAH 'MURICA? NEVER

 CptJake wrote:
If true, this is big.

BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

fun fact don't grab the shirt of a 300 pound dude from a car and let him pull you into the frame of your door

 mega_bassist wrote:

 whembly wrote:
socialism.

...is an inside joke here...

COMMIES? IN MAH 'MURICA? NEVER

Evidently... ISIS is here...



Stock up on your ammo bro.