• 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!

Michael Brown was a robbery suspect before he was shot to death, police say

Being around lawless people increases that probability too. Far, far more innocents have been killed by those people, and they don't make a living having to deal with societies issues day in and day out.

Indeed it does, I did not say otherwise. Just that being around cops will increase your probabilities of being shot and it's not 100% determined by your own behavior.
 
I just gave you examples. Less babies, innocent people, and by-standards don't count as "innocent" in your book.

My statement was that being around cops increases your probability of being shot, and that's not 100% determined by one's own behavior. You disagreed to that. That was the statement, and I have demonstrated for my hypothesis.

Try again.

You're conflating two different posts. First, none of those examples are indicative of "being around police", but rather just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Second, your few links don't prove your statement that "police have shot up many an innocent".

You're only successfully demonstrated your hate of police.
 
Indeed it does, I did not say otherwise. Just that being around cops will increase your probabilities of being shot and it's not 100% determined by your own behavior.

I suppose it would be appropriate to add that cops can be a target, so being near them might put one in the line of fire.
 
And you are wrong in that the video goes directly to Brown's character as well as the above comment of state of mind.
You mean Brown's character of surrendering to authorities and putting his hands up in the air?

Here's some completely irrelevant information that we can use to speculate on the police officer's state of mind...
Police domestic violence nearly twice average rate
 
You mean Brown's character of surrendering to authorities and putting his hands up in the air?
iLOL
:lamo
That hasn't been shown to be true, and coming from his accomplice in crime, isn't very believable at all.
 
Indeed it does, I did not say otherwise. Just that being around cops will increase your probabilities of being shot and it's not 100% determined by your own behavior.

I'll admit I've been reading your posts with interest, and thinking about them. I am a 52 year old woman and I have been in contact with cops and certainly around them, and I never once worried about being shot by any of them. When I get pulled over for speeding or whatever, I do what I have to do to get it over with and get out of there.

I asked my husband if he feels there are possibilities of being shot by a cop when you interact with them, and he said "Not the same as the possibilities of me being shot the next time I drive to Boston".

Do you think any cop is capable of shooting you for no reason?
 
I suppose it would be appropriate to add that cops can be a target, so being near them might put one in the line of fire.

Also true. There are many caveats that could be explored. My main contention, however, was to contest the notion those shot by police owe it 100% to themselves for having been shot.
 
Do you think any cop is capable of shooting you for no reason?

Yes, intentionally or otherwise. Anyone is capable of shooting anyone else for no reason.
 
Police chief says that the cop didn't know he just robbed the store when he came up on him. This just released...

Ah, now it makes sense. I've been scratching my head as to why in the heck it took the police department this long to release that video and information on the robbery. Turns out the information is completely irrelevant. The cop didn't know he was shooting at a suspect. So we still don't know a damn thing for sure other than a big unarmed black guy was shot by a cop and died.
 
michael-brown-ferguson-shooting.jpg


Looks like the same guy to me. Even has the same colored underwear.
 
You mean Brown's character of surrendering to authorities and putting his hands up in the air?

Here's some completely irrelevant information that we can use to speculate on the police officer's state of mind...
Police domestic violence nearly twice average rate

Are you seriously trying to claim that this specific police officer was guilty of domestic violence?

Perhaps we could post up some statistics about violent crime and black youth - would that taint Brown, under your logic?
 
Ah, now it makes sense. I've been scratching my head as to why in the heck it took the police department this long to release that video and information on the robbery. Turns out the information is completely irrelevant. The cop didn't know he was shooting at a suspect. So we still don't know a damn thing for sure other than a big unarmed black guy was shot by a cop and died.
As some one pointed out earlier, the Officer may have come to that knowledge during their interaction.


A third person recounting of what they were told by the Officer, seems to confirm this.




As in a thread started by Josie.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...shot-michael-brown-calls-into-radio-show.html
 
I'd just like to clarify that in the two cases it wasn't tobacco that was the instigating factor but, rather, resisting a lawful investigation.

In Garner's case he had a record of selling untaxed cigarettes. I know it's not a violent crime but it's still a crime and warrants investigation. Resistance to such an investigation may legitimately warrant the use of force in obtaining or preserving evidence.

In Brown's case it appears that he too resisted a lawful investigation. The question at hand in both cases is whether or not the level of force used to preserve evidence was reasonable.

Really and what was the "lawful investigation" about in the Brown case, Lutherf? Was it over a pack of cigarellos, perhaps?


In Garners case he was stopped because why? Oh he had a record of selling untaxed cigarettes, you say?


In both cases tobacco was indeed the instigating factor to stop and question Garner and Brown.
 
I'll admit I've been reading your posts with interest, and thinking about them. I am a 52 year old woman and I have been in contact with cops and certainly around them, and I never once worried about being shot by any of them. When I get pulled over for speeding or whatever, I do what I have to do to get it over with and get out of there.

I asked my husband if he feels there are possibilities of being shot by a cop when you interact with them, and he said "Not the same as the possibilities of me being shot the next time I drive to Boston".

Do you think any cop is capable of shooting you for no reason?

Interesting, but then I don't suppose either you or your husband are black teenagers.
 
It seems that if you are black and poor in Ferguson, then you are collateral in the eyes of the local police.
 
I'd just like to clarify that in the two cases it wasn't tobacco that was the instigating factor but, rather, resisting a lawful investigation.

In Garner's case he had a record of selling untaxed cigarettes. I know it's not a violent crime but it's still a crime and warrants investigation. Resistance to such an investigation may legitimately warrant the use of force in obtaining or preserving evidence.

In Brown's case it appears that he too resisted a lawful investigation. The question at hand in both cases is whether or not the level of force used to preserve evidence was reasonable.

Great argument, except the cop didn't know anything about the robbery. There goes that justification for killing.
 
I guess my point flew over your head too.

Wasn't your point that bringing up things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand could be used to justify tainting the character of someone?
 
Great argument, except the cop didn't know anything about the robbery. There goes that justification for killing.
:doh
Not in the initial interaction of telling them to get out of the street.
 
Back
Top Bottom