• 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!

More believable that Michael brown was violent??

Do you feel that Michael was capable of attacking the cop?

  • Yes, it's more believable after seeing the video

    Votes: 26 63.4%

  • No, it's not more believable that he attacked the cop unprovoked

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • I think the cop shot him out of anger

    Votes: 11 26.8%

  • I think the cop feared for his life and that's why he shot him

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    41
Superfly said:
Don't even try to reason with Solletica. At some point, this has to be considered trolling.
Click to expand...

And not to mention finding a young black actor who is willing to play that role in the aftermath of all this. Maybe they have stock video they keep around for this stuff, just like the drugs and guns they plant in peoples cars.
 
Superfly said:
Um - by watching the video? How about you ask that store clerk if Brown was violent?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Fine...I will re-phrase.

The question was 'do you feel that Michael was capable of attacking a cop'?

How on Earth could I possibly know what he is or is not capable of doing?

I do not and neither do you...only he knew that.


Good day.
 
DA60 said:
:rolleyes:

Fine...I will re-phrase.

The question was 'do you feel that Michael was capable of attacking a cop'?

How on Earth could I possibly know what he is or is not capable of doing?

I do not and neither do you...only he knew that.


Good day.
Click to expand...

Before the video, I would say you had a good point.

However, after this?

mb.jpg

It looks like he's quite capable of attacking anyone.


Good evening.
 
Superfly said:
Before the video, I would say you had a good point.

However, after this?

View attachment 67171520

It looks like he's quite capable of attacking anyone.


Good evening.
Click to expand...

I try not to judge crimes until ALL the facts are in.

Maybe he was capable of attacking a cop, maybe he was not.

I cannot know.

I am certainly not calling one video 'ALL the facts'.

Not should anyone else, IMO.


Let the courts decide.
 
If the police say that Michael attacked him first it will definitely be more believable now as opposed to before. I still suspect foul play, but I know how our minds work. Seeing him tower over and manhandle the clerk paints a picture of his character.

There's a saying; "live in such a way that if anyone should speak badly of you, nobody would believe it".
 
upsideguy said:
There is no excuse for a policemen to shoot an unarmed man. Whatever crime the person may be suspected of is irrelevant to the police action.

That all said, this very thread is a bit offensive. Trying someone in absentia, with almost no facts to work with, is nothing more then rumor mongering. I suppose, however, that is keeping with most debates at DP, as it seems too many people like to debate things they know very little about and just want to debate feelings and impressions rather than facts.
Click to expand...


Actually, yes there is.

If someone physically assaults a Police Officer the officer can and WILL use deadly force to stop his attacker.

No Cop is going to take the chance of getting knocked out so they can then be disarmed and have their gun used against them.
 
My impression of this whole situation is that no one really knows what happened, but a bunch of people made assumptions and acted on them.

edit:
That said, I always tend to approach a situation involving a police officer shooting someone from the perspective of "why did they shoot the person?".
If that question is not answered, I move on to things like "should they have shot the person?"
If I get a no on that last, we enter the territory of "was it a mistake or intentional?", and "what reason(s), if any, did the police officer have that would justify shooting this person?"

So you see, it takes a bit to reach the point of "that police officer is a sick SOB who just wanted to shoot someone", let alone "they shot the person because of their race".
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Actually, yes there is.

If someone physically assaults a Police Officer the officer can and WILL use deadly force to stop his attacker.

No Cop is going to take the chance of getting knocked out so they can then be disarmed and have their gun used against them.
Click to expand...

You are correct... I was not precise in my answer. I believe I was responding to the notion of a fleeing suspect. If an officer believes his life or the life of others is imminently endanger, he can use deadly force. If the man is merely fleeing, regardless of the crime, he can not.

That said, if the man is unarmed, the bar of "believing one's life is in danger" is a bit higher than if he is armed...
 
taking cigars from a little store owner and confronting an armed police are two different things please give me a break!!!!! the big tuff black guy syndrome lol i hope no one here is justifing the shooting.....
 
so what you are saying is that if you hit a cop and run he can kill you correct? but what is interesting is that cops are assauted everyday and people run looks like there would be alot more people shot by police maybe 2 to 5 hundred a day lolcattle sniper 2.jpg now this guy from the cattle guy in nevada pionting his gun at the police should have been shot lol
 
Last edited:
plutonium said:
taking cigars from a little store owner and confronting an armed police are two different things please give me a break!!!!! the big tuff black guy syndrome lol i hope no one here is justifing the shooting.....
Click to expand...

"Little store owner".

?
 
solletica said:
Careful, those are some big, adult words you are using: confirmed, insinuated. I recommend that you not use such words until you actually know what they mean.

In that post you cited, I stated clearly that the Johnson was likely coerced into confessing the robbery by the cops in exchange for not being charged w/another crime.

In other words, confession doesn't prove guilt, a concept that rush likely hasn't taught you.

By Occam's Razor (another word to which you're not likely familiar), that's the explanation for him not being charged, given all the OTHER known facts.
Click to expand...

It's more than a little premature to mention Sir William. ;)

But if we were, and I'm not, how likely is it that Johnson's confession was coerced when it surely was recorded and a jury will see it? And which is more likely--that this cop went rogue and shot a "gentle giant" to death or that Brown bum-rushed the cop?

(Who knows? As JayDubya said on another thread, both of these explanations are dumb.)
 
Brown is obviously a dirt bag... not sure that means the shooting was justified though.
 
plutonium said:
so what you are saying is that if you hit a cop and run he can kill you correct? but what is interesting is that cops are assauted everyday and people run looks like there would be alot more people shot by police maybe 2 to 5 hundred a day lolView attachment 67171578 now this guy from the cattle guy in nevada pionting his gun at the police should have been shot lol

taking cigars from a little store owner and confronting an armed police are two different things please give me a break!!!!! the big tuff black guy syndrome lol i hope no one here is justifing the shooting.....
Click to expand...

Your writing is very convoluted... can you clarify please.
 
Fenton said:
Actually, yes there is.

If someone physically assaults a Police Officer the officer can and WILL use deadly force to stop his attacker.

No Cop is going to take the chance of getting knocked out so they can then be disarmed and have their gun used against them.
Click to expand...

And the burden of proof -- once deadly force is used -- should be squarely on the officer. You pull the gun, you better be able to justify it.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
And the burden of proof -- once deadly force is used -- should be squarely on the officer. You pull the gun, you better be able to justify it.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof shouldn't include a rush to judgment that leads to looting and rioting.
 
Fenton said:
The burden of proof shouldn't include a rush to judgment that leads to looting and rioting.
Click to expand...

This is not a rush to judgement -- as has been shown, this is a community with a history of questionable police conduct and a frightening disconnect between the people and the police force. This apparently is a town where civil unrest has been brewing. But all that aside -- the looting, the rioting, the robbery, the past grievances against the Ferguson police, the militarization of local forces in general, the history of troubled race relations, etc. -- it is incumbent on the police to use restraint, to only use deadly force when absolutely necessary and to fully justify that force. You can try to cloud the issue all you want, but the questionable actions of the police force make the force a clear party to this unrest. Police need to be held accountable for their actions -- always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom