• 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!

Protests over Missouri teen's death turn violent[W:647,807]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excon said:
Much like the following quoted poster, huh?

:doh
No one was shot for skittles or bubble gum.
Click to expand...

How many rounds does it take to stop a sober, unarmed man?
 
Thorgasm said:
How many rounds does it take to stop a sober, unarmed man?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the quotes.

How many? Clean straight shots, or just glances and no critical ones?


Regardless of any guilt or innocence in this case, around eight to ten I would say.
 
Thorgasm said:
How many rounds does it take to stop a sober, unarmed man?
Click to expand...

The same amount it takes to stop a drunk, armed man - one. But we're not all good shots, so take as many as you need.
 
clownboy said:
The same amount it takes to stop a drunk, armed man - one. But we're not all good shots, so take as many as you need.
Click to expand...

How many did this officer use?
 
Excon said:
Irrelevant to the quotes.

How many? Clean straight shots, or just glances and no critical ones?


Regardless of any guilt or innocence in this case, around eight to ten I would say.
Click to expand...

Why not 16 to 20?
 
Thorgasm said:
Why not 16 to 20?
Click to expand...
Because 8 to 10 is all it supposedly took.
That is why.



For everyone.
This person has been doing a great job of covering it on his twitter account.
Images and videos as well.
https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench


This is supposedly an eyewitness. What he describes just seems to be incredibly unbelievable.



The following is just so stupid.

BuxIMCNIcAA81qL.jpg:large
 
Ockham said:
Missouri police shooting of teen Michael Brown sparks protests, looting, vandalism - CBS News


The looting and violence is in response to the shooting of Michael Brown when, according to police, Brown and another man assaulted the police officer, there was a struggle and shots were fired, ultimately killing Brown. The two men in the alleged assault were not armed. However, a different account was provided by one Dorian Johnson, who says the struggle was initiated by the police officer, who assaulted Brown - Brown broke free and started to run when the police officer then shot Brown.

The point of this post is NOT justifying or dismissing the shooting which was the flashpoint of the violence (though I am resigned to the fact it will devolve into that at some point) but I'm more interested in why looting is the preferred method of showing distrust and dissatisfaction with police actions, when the owners of these stores which were broken into have absolutely NOTHING to do with the police shooting. Why is looting and destroying innocent people's livelihoods the preferred method of action in these circumstances? We see this time and time again - and I'm reminded of the 1992 So.Central LA riots.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to go out and damage property in protest of a police shooting, zip zero none. Particularly when the facts haven't been laid out, these people are driven by the hearsay of the neighborhood who think they know.
I suppose if we had the answers to the question why it happens, we could solve the issue.
 
Excon said:
Because 8 to 10 is all it supposedly took.
That is why.



For everyone.
This person has been doing a great job of covering it on his twitter account.
Images and videos as well.
https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench


This is supposedly an eyewitness. What he describes just seems to be incredibly unbelievable.



The following is just so stupid.

BuxIMCNIcAA81qL.jpg:large
Click to expand...


I don't care about some youtube video.

It takes 9 shots to stop an unarmed man?

That's so far beyond stupid the Hubble telescope can't see it.
 
Thorgasm said:
I don't care about some youtube video.
Click to expand...
:doh
And I do not care what you think about a video provided as more information for everybody.
So spare me.



Thorgasm said:
It takes 9 shots to stop an unarmed man?

That's so far beyond stupid the Hubble telescope can't see it.
Click to expand...
Your comment. clearly applies to your comment.
It can take more than that even, or it take less. Not understanding that is absurd.
 
Excon said:
:doh
And I do not care what you think about a video provided as more information for everybody.
So spare me.



Your comment. clearly applies to your comment.
It can take more than that even, or it take less. Not understanding that is absurd.
Click to expand...

He wasn't on PCP.

You pretending that was reasonable is absurd.
 
Thorgasm said:
How many did this officer use?
Click to expand...

If it's anything less than the entire clip he's probably going against department policy. Around here if the decision has been made to use deadly force we require they make it deadly force.
 
Excon said:
No one said he was.


It can be reasonable depending on where and how many times the person is struck. Why is it that you have such a hard time understanding that?
Click to expand...

Because I understand that you only fire until the threat is mitigated.
 
Thorgasm said:
Because I understand that you only fire until the threat is mitigated.
Click to expand...

Your comments do not show any such understanding. As it may take 23 shots for one threat to be mitigated while it only takes three for another.
So again.
It can be reasonable depending on where and how many times the person is struck.
Why is it that you have such a hard time understanding that?​
 
Last edited:
The shot guy's family have asked that people on the internet who have reposted a picture of their dead child's body lying on the ground please take them down.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The shot guy's family have asked that people on the internet who have reposted a picture of their dead child's body lying on the ground please take them down.
Click to expand...
Even though they may sincerely desire such, I seriously doubt they think anybody is going to comply with their request, so it appears to be just another attempt to bring attention on the subject.
 
Excon said:
Your comments do not show any such understanding. As it may take 23 shots for one threat to be mitigated while it only takes three for another.
So again.
It can be reasonable depending on where and how many times the person is struck.
Why is it that you have such a hard time understanding that?​
Click to expand...

:rofl

Why, is it because he was still black after the first two shots? Is that why he was still a threat?
 
Excon said:
Irrelevant to the quotes.

How many? Clean straight shots, or just glances and no critical ones?


Regardless of any guilt or innocence in this case, around eight to ten I would say.
Click to expand...

You need to stop using your slingshot for calculations.
 
Thorgasm said:
:rofl

Why, is it because he was still black after the first two shots? Is that why he was still a threat?
Click to expand...
I see, so you don't understand, but instead want to insert a racist claim. Figures. :doh
 
Protests over Missouri teen's death turn violent

Excon said:
You need to stop posting nonsense.
Click to expand...

You mean like 8 or 10 shots to stop a human?
 
Excon said:
I see, so you don't understand, but instead want to insert a racist claim. Figures. :doh
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt the officer missed center mass the first 8 shots. The man was unarmed. Even if the officer's canned claim of "he went for my gun" the officer obviously had control of his firearm for the last 8 shots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom