• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown resigns

upsideguy said:
...

Again, the only "FACT" about this case is the GJ determined that Wilson was not criminally culpable. Everything else is simply opinion.
Click to expand...

No. Everything else is documented, scientific forensic evidence... also known as "fact".
 
upsideguy said:
I think there is consensus on what happened in the car. If it ended there, there would likely not be an issue. Unfortunately, he was shot and killed away from the car. That is the element of controversy. No one really knows how / why he was actually killed or why he needed to be killed.
Click to expand...

I think Wilson feared for his life.
 
Tasers and Mace are called "nonlethal weapons" but in reality they can and have killed people.

1) They are basically "please don't sue me" weapons. In other words cops can use them before shooting someone and be able to honestly say "I did everything possible before shooting".

2) Against large people tasers and mace are largely ineffective. Especially against someone of Brown's size and youth.

Against someone small they are often TOO effective (deadly or highly injurious).

3) Finally, because of extremely short range, both require officers to allow suspects to close with them to literal knife fighting range which many depts. counsel against.

Basically if they are close enough to mace, they are close enough to grab your gun.
 
Texmex said:
Brown was unarmed. How would he shoot someone?
Click to expand...

Next time you feel like making a smart remark first click the link to make sure your smart remark isn't actually and demonstrably stupid.

From the news story:

"Officer David Smith was an 18-year veteran of the force, police said at an afternoon news conference.

The suspect, 43-year-old James Clark of Greene, pulled away Smith’s weapon and shot the officer three times, according to police."

By your idiotic argument James Clark was also "unarmed".

"Big" Mike was shot in the hand trying to take the officer's weapon, and then shot dead charging the officer. The officer did what he had to do to go home to his family.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Next time you feel like making a smart remark first click the link to make sure your smart remark isn't actually and demonstrably stupid.

From the news story:

"Officer David Smith was an 18-year veteran of the force, police said at an afternoon news conference.

The suspect, 43-year-old James Clark of Greene, pulled away Smith’s weapon and shot the officer three times, according to police."

By your idiotic argument James Clark was also "unarmed".

"Big" Mike was shot in the hand trying to take the officer's weapon, and then shot dead charging the officer. The officer did what he had to do to go home to his family.
Click to expand...

Hey Forrest Gump, this thread isn't about James Clark. Again, was Brown armed or was Wilson armed. Even a second-grader should be able to answer.
 
Last edited:
Texmex said:
Hey Forrest Gump, this thread isn't about James Clark. Again, was Brown armed or was Wilson armed. Even a second-grader should be able to answer.
Click to expand...

Does it matter if he was armed or not? You can kill someone with bare hands.
 
Texmex said:
Hey Forrest Gump, this thread isn't about James Clark. Again, was Brown armed or was Wilson armed. Even a second-grader should be able to answer.
Click to expand...

Officer Wilson did what he had to do to avoid ending up like Officer Smith. I'm sorry if you want me to keep this to a second grade level but reality doesn't bend to your simplistic demands.
 
jmotivator said:
Officer Wilson did what he had to do to avoid ending up like Officer Smith. I'm sorry if you want me to keep this to a second grade level but reality doesn't bend to your simplistic demands.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you are correct. As usual, the court system sides with the cop, but Wilson acted foolishly and will probably pay for it for the rest of his life. Justice is served!
 
Texmex said:
I don't believe you are correct. As usual, the court system sides with the cop, but Wilson acted foolishly and will probably pay for it for the rest of his life. Justice is served!
Click to expand...
What do you think Wilson's foolish actions were?
 
upsideguy said:
I read it. It is a great closing argument for the defense, but that is all it is. To get to her conclusion, one must weigh some testimony over other testimony, and not consider that there is others things that are unknown. While we appreciate that the testimony she chooses to accept is not inconsistent with the physical evidence, there is conflicting testimony and other explanations that are also not inconsistent with the physical evidence. It advocates a position that may or may not be true, because she takes liberty in filling in the blanks.

Too much of this thread involves people "filling in the blanks". My only point is to start with the foundational piece of what we can accept: the Grand Jury recommendation (though, we could, if we chose, pick that apart as well... but you have to start somewhere) and from that basis, highlight the fact much remains unknown (blank).

The GJ was asked to see if the evidence (as presented) in the matter was sufficient to document probable cause that one of several crimes (resulting in death occurred). Their findings, which were merely recommendations to the DA (and reflect the way the DA presented the case) were that there was not sufficient evidence to support probable cause and thus no charges should be filed. They may no other determination. They did not try the case nor challenge the evidence.

So, as a result of the GJ activity, we can continue with the PRESUMPTION of innocence of criminal wrong doing for Officer Wilson. Any other conclusion one wishes to come to is pure conjecture (though granted, some conjecture might be supportable) or otherwise speculative. In making your determinations as to what happened, you may think you are right, but the truth is, there is chance you are not.

While the GJ clearing Wilson of criminal wrongdoing may have sanctioned his legal right to kill Brown, it did not give him the moral kill Brown (that is to be "litigated" in the eternal court). The GJ clearing of Wilson might have relieved him of criminal culpability, it did not relieve him of responsibility (that will likely be litigated in civil court).

There are far more questions that remain..... those of you that pretend to know the answers to those questions are pretending or are deluded. Its ok to have an opinion; just respect the fact that your opinion can be wrong.

Wilson gets the Presumption of Innocence.... but, let me remind you that OJ Simpson also enjoys the presumption of innocence in the death of another Brown..... If we respect system of justice and the rule of law, both are equally valid.

Again, the only "FACT" about this case is the GJ determined that Wilson was not criminally culpable. Everything else is simply opinion.
Click to expand...

The difference between Brown and OJ is that Brown is protected from law suits by his job. If he is not found guilty in a court of law he cannot be sued civilly. Or at least most states have such protections for their officers. Not sure about MO. The fact is that Brown is innocent of any wrong doing legally.

Your questioning of his culpability morally is irrelevant and nothing more than spin.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The difference between Brown and OJ is that Brown is protected from law suits by his job. If he is not found guilty in a court of law he cannot be sued civilly. Or at least most states have such protections for their officers. Not sure about MO. The fact is that Brown is innocent of any wrong doing legally.

Your questioning of his culpability morally is irrelevant and nothing more than spin.
Click to expand...

I believe you mean Wilson. Brown was the strongarm robber. And Wilson may not be so shielded as he was not cleared by trial.
 
Texmex said:
I don't believe you are correct. As usual, the court system sides with the cop, but Wilson acted foolishly and will probably pay for it for the rest of his life. Justice is served!
Click to expand...

The grand jury, which is made up of civilians, not the court system is what determined this.
 
Texmex said:
I don't believe you are correct. As usual, the court system sides with the cop, but Wilson acted foolishly and will probably pay for it for the rest of his life. Justice is served!
Click to expand...

What is the justice here?
 
longview said:
What do you think Wilson's foolish actions were?
Click to expand...

Certainly not self defense??

Maybe law enforcement?

Protection of the population?

Legal investigation?

Just doing his job correctly?

Enforcing jaywalking laws?
 
Navy Pride said:
His career is ruined because of Sharpton and his ilk and he was only doing his job. and the irony is he was doing it right. What the hell is this country coming to?


Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown resigns
Click to expand...

Just like the four cops who were beating up Rodney King were doing their job? Just because the grand jury didn't indict doesn't mean that there was no misconduct...and there's certainly two sides to the story.
 
SMTA said:
Certainly not self defense??

Maybe law enforcement?

Protection of the population?

Legal investigation?

Just doing his job correctly?

Enforcing jaywalking laws?
Click to expand...
My point exactly, what were officer Wilson's options,
to not draw his weapon and ether be beaten to death, or shot with his own gun?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Just like the four cops who were beating up Rodney King were doing their job? Just because the grand jury didn't indict doesn't mean that there was no misconduct...and there's certainly two sides to the story.
Click to expand...

There is no comparison between the two incidents.

We have both sides of Rodney King's incident. There were four cops acting as a group.

We only have one side of this incident. There was one cop by himself.

The situations are completely different.
 
Blue_State said:
There is no comparison between the two incidents.

We have both sides of Rodney King's incident. There were four cops acting as a group.

We only have one side of this incident. There was one cop by himself.

The situations are completely different.
Click to expand...

Why is there only side of the brown shooting.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why is there only side of the brown shooting.
Click to expand...

Brown is dead. He isn't going to tell his side of the story. Maybe seance?

I am speaking directly about the people involved, not witnesses or forensic evidence. Just the story from the person.
 
Manc Skipper said:
An unarmed youth was shot to death, and his shooter has walked away with half a million dollars fighting fund donated by angry old white men.
Click to expand...

A police officer defend himself from an over 6' "youth" who weighed 250+ pounds, who tried to take his weapon. Your comment is ignorant of the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom