Jump to content
IGNORED

American Politics / Current Events Thread


CodysGameRoom

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

 

lol

Like Silent Hill said I see the juxtaposition you are framing here, but I would like everyone to try to respond to the content of others’ posts substantively. 

Let us avoid devolving into bickering. This goes for everybody. Please.

Edited by Link
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gloves said:

I'd not believe anything here without video, frankly. Washingtonpost, left leaning, right, or otherwise.

I'd want to know at the least who is making the original claim that he was going for the officer's gun. And if it's the officers on the scene making the claim, it's an untrustworthy one.

There's also this article. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html

"The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Administrator · Posted
5 minutes ago, Rhino said:

Did you read the article?

"Wilson and other witnesses stated that Brown then reached into the SUV through the open driver’s window and punched and grabbed Wilson. This is corroborated by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm. While there are other individuals who stated that Wilson reached out of the SUV and grabbed Brown by the neck, prosecutors could not credit their accounts because they were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence, as detailed throughout this report."

I did not; it's impossible to read due to it being behind a paywall. Despite my ability to pass the paywall without paying, the full article doesn't load regardless; likely it looks for user information existing in order to pass the remainder of the article beyond the first paragraph.

Putting news behind a subscription paywall is a good way to get me to not care what you say, especially when it looks like ads are there even if you subscribe.

That aside, and taking it at face value, I don't see the correlation between fighting with the officer, and attempting to take his gun. I'd still want to see video to make a judgement call on it.

Even BEYOND that, I'd argue you're being incredibly harsh to presume that a teen is to be expected to act rationally in a fight where the other side has weapons, else expect to be killed. Is it foolish to go for an officer's gun? Yeah, of course it is? Should the officer retaliate by taking said gun in hand and shooting the teen? Absolutely not. The suspect was unarmed, attempted to become armed, and was subsequently disarmed and then murdered for it. The officer should be expected to be able to EASILY apprehend a teen without resorting to shooting them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gloves said:

I did not; it's impossible to read due to it being behind a paywall. Despite my ability to pass the paywall without paying, the full article doesn't load regardless; likely it looks for user information existing in order to pass the remainder of the article beyond the first paragraph.

Putting news behind a subscription paywall is a good way to get me to not care what you say, especially when it looks like ads are there even if you subscribe.

That aside, and taking it at face value, I don't see the correlation between fighting with the officer, and attempting to take his gun. I'd still want to see video to make a judgement call on it.

Even BEYOND that, I'd argue you're being incredibly harsh to presume that a teen is to be expected to act rationally in a fight where the other side has weapons, else expect to be killed. Is it foolish to go for an officer's gun? Yeah, of course it is? Should the officer retaliate by taking said gun in hand and shooting the teen? Absolutely not. The suspect was unarmed, attempted to become armed, and was subsequently disarmed and then murdered for it. The officer should be expected to be able to EASILY apprehend a teen without resorting to shooting them.

I don't think you fully understand what happened. To break it down in a simple manner, Michael Brown reached into the officer's car and reached for his gun. The gun was fired twice. Michael Brown starts to run away, then turns around and charged toward the officer. This is when the officer shoots and kills Michael Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Administrator · Posted
Just now, Rhino said:

I don't think you fully understand what happened. To break it down in a simple manner, Michael Brown reached into the officer's car and reached for his gun. The gun was fired twice. Michael Brown starts to run away, then turns around and charged toward the officer. This is when the officer shoots and kills Michael Brown.

Who fired the gun twice? Michael Brown?

I don't understand what happened, as all I know of the situation is what you've told me here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Who fired the gun twice? Michael Brown?

I don't understand what happened, as all I know of the situation is what you've told me here.

No one knows for sure who fired the gun inside the car, at least I don't think you can prove who fired it since both Michael Brown and the officer had gunpowder residue on them. Can you read this article? https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/457049-time-to-retire-ferguson-narrative

"The report, issued in 2015, found that Officer Wilson's accounts were corroborated. He'd acted in self-defense. Brown, the report said, had reached into the police vehicle and grabbed Officer Wilson by the neck. And Brown appeared to be lunging toward Officer Wilson when Officer Wilson shot him in self-defense.  "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Administrator · Posted
3 minutes ago, Rhino said:

No one knows for sure who fired the gun inside the car, at least I don't think you can prove who fired it since both Michael Brown and the officer had gunpowder residue on them. Can you read this article? https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/457049-time-to-retire-ferguson-narrative

"The report, issued in 2015, found that Officer Wilson's accounts were corroborated. He'd acted in self-defense. Brown, the report said, had reached into the police vehicle and grabbed Officer Wilson by the neck. And Brown appeared to be lunging toward Officer Wilson when Officer Wilson shot him in self-defense.  "

I can read this one yep. Got some more info from it and I can see both sides now.

Still - I think at the core the issue really is, why would the self-defense be "shoot the teenager"? I can't help but feel like there's surely some other way for a 28 year old trained police officer could take to hand-to-hand and not kill a kid. Was Officer Wilson alone, or were other officers in the area? I'm just having trouble accepting that there was no way to deescalate without shooting.

Anyroad, seems it's been argued to death already and I'm surely not anywhere near prepared enough to make any arguments. Thanks for sharing info.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
19 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

Nobody is going to wait to be shot before firing.

He was unarmed...

19 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

systemic racial bias was not a factor in Michael Brown's death

Source? The Justice Department found systemic racial bias in the department where the officer who murdered Brown was placed. What is your proof that racism was not a factor?

I guess the “source” is the investigation that cleared the cop of charges. 
 

Michael Brown stole from a store, assaulted the clerk, and the cops were called. He then proceeded to attack the cop, try to take his weapon (clearly with the intention to do harm) and was killed in self defense. No part of the situation had anything to do with racism. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gloves said:

 

13 hours ago, Rhino said:

No one knows for sure who fired the gun inside the car, at least I don't think you can prove who fired it since both Michael Brown and the officer had gunpowder residue on them. Can you read this article? https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/457049-time-to-retire-ferguson-narrative

"The report, issued in 2015, found that Officer Wilson's accounts were corroborated. He'd acted in self-defense. Brown, the report said, had reached into the police vehicle and grabbed Officer Wilson by the neck. And Brown appeared to be lunging toward Officer Wilson when Officer Wilson shot him in self-defense.  "

I can read this one yep. Got some more info from it and I can see both sides now.

Still - I think at the core the issue really is, why would the self-defense be "shoot the teenager"? I can't help but feel like there's surely some other way for a 28 year old trained police officer could take to hand-to-hand and not kill a kid. Was Officer Wilson alone, or were other officers in the area? I'm just having trouble accepting that there was no way to deescalate without shooting.

Anyroad, seems it's been argued to death already and I'm surely not anywhere near prepared enough to make any arguments. Thanks for sharing info

 


This isn’t directly solely to you, just anyone who’s discussed this case.

While he was a teenager technically, he was also a legal adult and knew full well what consequences his actions could have. If anyone attacks a cop and tries to take their weapon, they obviously want to do harm, even kill. 
 

Also, I understand cops should be attempting to subdue someone without the use of deadly weapons, but when someone is attempting to take your deadly weapon, then deadly force becomes a valid option for defending yourself, legally, especially for police. Plus Michael Brown was 6’ 4” 300lbs. I can’t imagine what type of training you’d need to physically subdue him, and attempting to leaves you very vulnerable. He already showed attempts to harm/kill the cop. The best way to prevent this situation is to not commit a crime, assault someone, then assault the police when they show up. Michael Brown had full control over his fate. 
 

All of the facts are out and the case is closed. There is nothing to argue or debate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I guess the “source” is the investigation that cleared the cop of charges. 

They also investigated and found proof of systemic racial bias. So why are you choosing to believe the source when it fits your narrative, but not believe them when it doesn't? Or are you changing your stance and admitting systemic racism is alive and well in today's society?

39 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

No part of the situation had anything to do with racism. 

You can't be sure of that. Especially since the department was found to have deep systemic racial bias.

25 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

All of the facts are out and the case is closed. There is nothing to argue or debate. 

Wrong for a few reasons. First, there are still many conflicting eyewitness reports. Secondly, you DO understand how our justice system often fails? Many innocent people are put on death row, put in jail, etc. I'm NOT saying Michael Brown was innocent. I am simply saying, our justice system fails over and over again. It's part of the systemic racism that you deny. 

Regardless, there is still plenty of debate and you are not the authority to state otherwise. A cop shouldn't shoot an unarmed person. Period. A cop shouldn't shoot someone SIX god damn times if they are unarmed. The punishment for his crimes should not have been death. Why is an officer not trained to subdue? You want to bring up his height and weight? Shouldn't a trained officer know how to fire a non-life threatening subduing shot, if he be put in a situation where he feels he MUST fire to protect him and those around him? Nah, shoot the 18 year old boy 6 times. From a distance. Two shots were in the head. He really couldn't have taken the time to shoot him in the leg? Save his life? No grace under pressure? Bad training. Part of systemic racism.

It was wrong and he should not have died.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:
50 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

I guess the “source” is the investigation that cleared the cop of charges. 

They also investigated and found proof of systemic racial bias. So why are you choosing to believe the source when it fits your narrative, but not believe them when it doesn't? Or are you changing your stance and admitting systemic racism is alive and well in today's society?

I still haven’t read enough of the report to comment about it. The report is completely unrelated to this specific case, so I don’t know why you keep referring to it. 

5 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:
50 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

No part of the situation had anything to do with racism. 

You can't be sure of that. Especially since the department was found to have deep systemic racial bias.

The only possible angle of racism is the hypothetical that if Michael Brown were white, he wouldn’t have been shot. But if you insist that the facts we know aren’t  enough proof, then the report (and the hypothetical) isn’t enough proof for you to claim racism. 

5 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:
35 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

All of the facts are out and the case is closed. There is nothing to argue or debate. 

Wrong for a few reasons. First, there are still many conflicting eyewitness reports. Secondly, you DO understand how our justice system often fails? Many innocent people are put on death row, put in jail, etc. I'm NOT saying Michael Brown was innocent. I am simply saying, our justice system fails over and over again. It's part of the systemic racism that you deny. 

Regardless, there is still plenty of debate and you are not the authority to state otherwise. A cop shouldn't shoot an unarmed person. Period. A cop shouldn't shoot someone SIX god damn times if they are unarmed. The punishment for his crimes should not have been death. Why is an officer not trained to subdue? You want to bring up his height and weight? Shouldn't a trained officer know how to fire a non-life threatening subduing shot, if he be put in a situation where he feels he MUST fire to protect him and those around him? Nah, shoot the 18 year old boy 6 times. From a distance. Two shots were in the head. He really couldn't have taken the time to shoot him in the leg? Save his life? No grace under pressure? Bad training. Part of systemic racism.

It was wrong and he should not have died

So many issues with this to address. Just do me a favor and research why police don’t target extremities when shooting. Then look at a few videos of civilians in police training (hostile) situations and see how they react. (I get that they’re not trained at all, but it gives you an idea of how quickly things happen and why it’s so easy to judge their actions when you have zero experience)
 

If you still feel the same way about the officer’s actions, then we can chat about it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gloves said:

I can read this one yep. Got some more info from it and I can see both sides now.

Still - I think at the core the issue really is, why would the self-defense be "shoot the teenager"? I can't help but feel like there's surely some other way for a 28 year old trained police officer could take to hand-to-hand and not kill a kid. Was Officer Wilson alone, or were other officers in the area? I'm just having trouble accepting that there was no way to deescalate without shooting.

Anyroad, seems it's been argued to death already and I'm surely not anywhere near prepared enough to make any arguments. Thanks for sharing info.

You're welcome. It's easy to second guess things after the fact and play Monday morning quarterback. Could he have done something differently? Maybe, but when it could be life or death and someone has already attempted to steal your weapon, deadly force should absolutely be on the table. Instances like this YouTube video are why some officers nowadays don't hesitate to use deadly force if they feel like their life is in danger. All it takes it 2 seconds and you're dead. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eSxuhZ3HdQo

Half joking, but I wonder how feasible something silly like a giant net gun would be. Tasers don't always work, guns are deadly force, pepper spray doesn't always work, but you shoot a giant net at someone and I don't think they're getting up too quickly. Maybe a sounds weapon? Idk, this is above my pay grade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

They also investigated and found proof of systemic racial bias. So why are you choosing to believe the source when it fits your narrative, but not believe them when it doesn't? Or are you changing your stance and admitting systemic racism is alive and well in today's society?

You can't be sure of that. Especially since the department was found to have deep systemic racial bias.

Wrong for a few reasons. First, there are still many conflicting eyewitness reports. Secondly, you DO understand how our justice system often fails? Many innocent people are put on death row, put in jail, etc. I'm NOT saying Michael Brown was innocent. I am simply saying, our justice system fails over and over again. It's part of the systemic racism that you deny. 

Regardless, there is still plenty of debate and you are not the authority to state otherwise. A cop shouldn't shoot an unarmed person. Period. A cop shouldn't shoot someone SIX god damn times if they are unarmed. The punishment for his crimes should not have been death. Why is an officer not trained to subdue? You want to bring up his height and weight? Shouldn't a trained officer know how to fire a non-life threatening subduing shot, if he be put in a situation where he feels he MUST fire to protect him and those around him? Nah, shoot the 18 year old boy 6 times. From a distance. Two shots were in the head. He really couldn't have taken the time to shoot him in the leg? Save his life? No grace under pressure? Bad training. Part of systemic racism.

It was wrong and he should not have died.

Really trying to understand your viewpoints here but I just don't get it. A cop should absolutely be allowed to shoot an unarmed person IF they fear for their life. All it takes is a scuffle to ensue, the unarmed perp grabs the cops' gun, and then fires and kills the cop with their own weapon. The unarmed perp is now armed. You also can't always know whether they are or aren't armed. There are countless horrifying videos of traffic stops gone wrong where one minute the person doesn't look like they're armed, then the next moment they have a gun and they're shooting at the officer. Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun AND was charging him before the officer shot him. 6 shots is not excessive. Maybe 60, but not 6. The officer had cause and his life was in imminent danger. He had every right to shoot Michael Brown. Could he have done something differently, sure, but he didn't. Maybe he could've run away when Michael Brown charged him, but that's not what cops do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

The report is completely unrelated to this specific case, so I don’t know why you keep referring to it. 

Incorrect, the investigation was a direct result of this case.

4 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

The only possible angle of racism is the hypothetical that if Michael Brown were white

You can't possibly know what angle there is. That officer could be racist. You have literally no way of knowing.

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

A cop should absolutely be allowed to shoot an unarmed person IF they fear for their life.

Sure.

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

All it takes is a scuffle to ensue, the unarmed perp grabs the cops' gun, and then fires and kills the cop with their own weapon.

Sure. In this case, there was some distance in between the unarmed man and the cop. There WAS time to react and think.

4 hours ago, Rhino said:

Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun

No proof of this. It's totally possible he reached in to attack the officer, and the officer attempted to unholster his weapon and fire it.

4 hours ago, Rhino said:

6 shots is not excessive.

Disagree.

4 hours ago, Rhino said:

The officer had cause and his life was in imminent danger.

Disagree.

4 hours ago, Rhino said:

He had every right to shoot Michael Brown.

Your opinion, not fact, and I disagree.

4 hours ago, Rhino said:

Could he have done something differently, sure, but he didn't.

Why not? Why did he choose to take a life instead of reacting differently?

4 hours ago, Rhino said:

Maybe he could've run away when Michael Brown charged him, but that's not what cops do.

That's a silly suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Incorrect, the investigation was a direct result of this case.

You can't possibly know what angle there is. That officer could be racist. You have literally no way of knowing.

Sure.

Sure. In this case, there was some distance in between the unarmed man and the cop. There WAS time to react and think.

No proof of this. It's totally possible he reached in to attack the officer, and the officer attempted to unholster his weapon and fire it.

Disagree.

Disagree.

Your opinion, not fact, and I disagree.

Why not? Why did he choose to take a life instead of reacting differently?

That's a silly suggestion.

I'll agree the officer could've fired the gun. If I'm a cop and someone is reaching inside my vehicle attacking me, I'm going to assume they might try and go for my gun. He didn't do something different probably because he feared for his life and thought he was about to die. What do you think he should have done differently, thinking from his perspective that he was just attacked moments earlier by Michael Brown when he reached into the officer's car? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
13 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

The report is completely unrelated to this specific case, so I don’t know why you keep referring to it. 

Incorrect, the investigation was a direct result of this case.

Let me rephrase: The report may have been initiated due to the Michael Brown case, but the actual investigation of the case itself didn’t identify any racial motivation, or even fault of the cop. So the findings of that separate report are not reflective of the Michael Brown case. 

8 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
13 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

The only possible angle of racism is the hypothetical that if Michael Brown were white

You can't possibly know what angle there is. That officer could be racist. You have literally no way of knowing


But we DO know the angle, which are the facts of the situation/case, per the investigation. They’ve been laid out a few times in this thread. Whether the cop himself is racist or not (neither of us know 100%), there was no indication or evidence of racism from the investigation, so that’s what we have to defer to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rhino said:
8 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

 

I'll agree the officer could've fired the gun. If I'm a cop and someone is reaching inside my vehicle attacking me, I'm going to assume they might try and go for my gun. He didn't do something different probably because he feared for his life and thought he was about to die. What do you think he should have done differently, thinking from his perspective that he was just attacked moments earlier by Michael Brown when he reached into the officer's car? 

Clearly he should have shot him in the leg or subdued him with Jujitsu tactics. /s


The cop obviously acted in self defense appropriately, anything else could have easily left him vulnerable and with a good chance of death.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
13 hours ago, Rhino said:

6 shots is not excessive.

Disagree.

You shoot until the threat has stopped and it happened to be 6 shots. No charges for excessive force

13 hours ago, Rhino said:

The officer had cause and his life was in imminent danger.

Disagree.

Proven in the investigation

13 hours ago, Rhino said:

He had every right to shoot Michael Brown.

Your opinion, not fact, and I disagree
 

Proven in the investigation

13 hours ago, Rhino said:

Could he have done something differently, sure, but he didn't.

Why not? Why did he choose to take a life instead of reacting differently?

He chose to in order to protect his. Any other reaction could have caused his death. You may not agree with it morally, but its a textbook self defense case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking for the Archie Bunker in your neighborhood (or local police force) or lack thereof is cheap and easy. It’s less important or useful than examining the structure and policies that harm people of color more as a percentage of their share of the population than they harm white people in America.

2 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

Whether the cop himself is racist or not (neither of us know 100%),

This is true and all very well and good. We don’t need to say “Hey Cop (A) are you racist? (Y/N)” Obviously the answer is no every time. We all know it’s bad. That doesn’t mean that black people and other minorities are not disproportionately affected by police action, due to the class they disproportionately inhabit. 

No, Cop (A) might not personally hate black people. Yet for some reason black people are most of those held and tortured in disappearing sites, and their neighborhoods are patrolled moreThe Southern Strategy never went away and is far from dead.

Quite frankly, I don’t care if Michael Brown tried to grab Darren Wilson’s gun or not. Maybe he (or someone who looked like him) wouldn’t have allegedly stolen cigars and been a person of interest to the police in the first place, had he grown up with accrued generational wealth and quality education

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Link said:

Looking for the Archie Bunker in your neighborhood (or local police force) or lack thereof is cheap and easy. It’s less important or useful than examining the structure and policies that harm people of color more as a percentage of their share of the population than they harm white people in America.

This is true and all very well and good. We don’t need to say “Hey Cop (A) are you racist? (Y/N)” Obviously the answer is no every time. We all know it’s bad. That doesn’t mean that black people and other minorities are not disproportionately affected by police action, due to the class they disproportionately inhabit. 

No, Cop (A) might not personally hate black people. Yet for some reason black people are most of those held and tortured in disappearing sites, and their neighborhoods are patrolled moreThe Southern Strategy never went away and is far from dead.

Quite frankly, I don’t care if Michael Brown tried to grab Darren Wilson’s gun or not. Maybe he (or someone who looked like him) wouldn’t have allegedly stolen cigars and been a person of interest to the police in the first place, had he grown up with accrued generational wealth and quality education

 

 

 

Is there a good source showing the amount of people who commit crimes and what their race is?

"Of the thousands held in the facility known as Homan Square over a decade, 82% were black."

Are 82% of crimes in Chicago committed by African Americans or is it really a disproportionate amount being taken to this facility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-Frisk-data

I think the Stop and Frisk numbers out of New York are a perfect example of what disproporionate policing looks. Only 10% sh of the people stopped each year are white. 

"5 million people stopped."" 9 oit of 10 completly innocent."

Edited by Californication
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rhino said:

Is there a good source showing the amount of people who commit crimes and what their race is?

Closest I can find, Illinois.

via https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/Prison-Population-Data-Sets.aspx

And to the next question, are all people who commit crimes arrested?

18 hours ago, Rhino said:

Are 82% of crimes in Chicago committed by African Americans or is it really a disproportionate amount being taken to this facility?

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the answer is yes, despite comprising only 30% of the overall population. Why then are 82 (or whatever)% of arrests of black people? That’s disproportionate.

How many of whoever wind up at a police torture site where documentation is scarce at best, is a compound effect.

Why are black people arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate per 100,000 than white people?

Edited by Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...