• 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

tres borrachos said:
I can make the statement as an absolute, Ikari. The ONLY reason I would shoot someone is if my life or my kids' lives were in danger. I could never shoot anyone just to shoot the person. Yes, I say that with absolute conviction, more than I could state I would never cheat on my husband, never lie to my boss, never steal, and never run naked through Central Park.
Click to expand...

You can say it as an absolute, but it most likely isn't absolute. Just because you cannot conceive of a scenario doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. More times than not, absolutes aren't actually absolute.
 
apdst said:
What if someone stole food from your starving kids?
Click to expand...

Damn, I hope my kids are never starving, but if they were, we'd sell my husband's guns to buy them food.

Now, if we had no guns and someone stole food from my kids, my husband and I would find something else to beat the **** out of whoever was stealing.

I probably, if alone in that situation, would have to let the thief take the food because I'm not big and strong enough to fight a thug on my own.
 
Wiggen said:
'Somebody associated with the cop'? No thanks, I'm not buying that one. It's an attempt to justify an unjustifiable act. Cops are famous for lying like hell to protect their own.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, companions of criminals tend to lie too.

This is what gets me. For a lot of folks it seems more reasonable to assume that the cop simply freaked out and killed the kid for no reason than that the kid did something to provoke the cop into shooting. Why is that?
 
Ikari said:
You can say it as an absolute, but it most likely isn't absolute. Just because you cannot conceive of a scenario doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. More times than not, absolutes aren't actually absolute.
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, which it isn't, what does it have to do with what we're discussing anyway?
 
No, just like you didn't miss the part in the article where it said all of them were dangerous felons. The police in this country have a deserved reputation for being gun happy cowboys. Your chances of encountering this decrease rapidly with your income level and the color of your skin. The whiter and the more well off you are, the less your chances of encountering one of these rogues.

I do love how they've now taken to dressing up like combat soldiers. One Iraq veteran was quoted as saying these guys were better armed and better protected while covering a peaceful demonstration than he was while on patrol in Afghanistan. They love that tough guy image, secure in the knowledge that, unlike Afghanistan, their 'enemies' are unarmed.
 
Wiggen said:
Try to restrain your joy at the notion of one of your 'brothers' :)lamo) being killed.
Click to expand...

My brothers, regardless of race, aren't thieving pieces of ****. Nice try at pigeon-holing me.
 
Arcana XV said:
I'm not interested in hearsay or speculation. I'm interested in facts. The only facts everyone agrees on right now is that Brown was unarmed, that he was shot several times and that he died.
Click to expand...
Too bad for you as it is information that is far more believable (even as third hand) than the story his cohort in crime is spewing.
 
Wiggen said:
Which, if true, apparently justifies the killing of an unarmed kid. I didn't know that cigars were that valuable, but apparently they are far more valuable to the Far Right than the life of a kid.
Click to expand...

Karma's a mother****er.
 
Fenton said:
It makes a huge difference.

Imagine the press release " Police shoot Strong arm robbery suspect after a struggle "

Compared to " Police murder unarmed gentle giant for no good reason "
Click to expand...

A more accurate headline is "Police shoot 17 year old for stealing a cigar"
 
apdst said:
My brothers, regardless of race, aren't thieving pieces of ****. Nice try at pigeon-holing me.
Click to expand...

Wait, are you now saying you aren't really black after all? How can this be?

I'm glad this incident is bringing you so much pleasure, however. Maybe two black kids will be shot tomorrow and you can have twice as much fun.
 
Wiggen said:
No, people like you who value cigars over human life take the cake.
Click to expand...

the video show he was a dangerous person who assaulted a harmless old man trying to protect his property? and people like you want us to give him the benefit of the doubt and defend him? why? because he's black? You need to look at the evidence MORE and try and make political points LESS.
 
tres borrachos said:
Those are the ONLY facts we know right now, correct. Which is why the people making accusations against either the cop or Brown are basing their posts on assumptions, not facts.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I will say this, though: The police department in that town have handled this case in the most inefficient manner I have ever seen. It's like they're following some bizarro world playbook on how NOT to handle a sensitive case.
 
Lutherf said:
With all due respect, companions of criminals tend to lie too.

This is what gets me. For a lot of folks it seems more reasonable to assume that the cop simply freaked out and killed the kid for no reason than that the kid did something to provoke the cop into shooting. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Normally, stealing a cigar doesn't warrant the death penalty. Even if the cop knew about it, which the Chief of Police denies.
 
Arcana XV said:
I'm not interested in hearsay or speculation. I'm interested in facts. The only facts everyone agrees on right now is that Brown was unarmed, that he was shot several times and that he died.
Click to expand...

Hearsay and speculation is all some people have. We have a forum user here named Josie and the person who called in on the radio just happened to be named Josie.
 
tres borrachos said:
Damn, I hope my kids are never starving, but if they were, we'd sell my husband's guns to buy them food.

Now, if we had no guns and someone stole food from my kids, my husband and I would find something else to beat the **** out of whoever was stealing.

I probably, if alone in that situation, would have to let the thief take the food because I'm not big and strong enough to fight a thug on my own.
Click to expand...

You said you would only shoot someone if he endangered your family's live?
 
Arcana XV said:
Exactly. I will say this, though: The police department in that town have handled this case in the most inefficient manner I have ever seen. It's like they're following some bizarro world playbook on how NOT to handle a sensitive case.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Police forces aren't infallible, and this one certainly hasn't done a great job. Maybe they're ill equipped for this?

Reminds me of the Greenwich CT police force (Martha Moxley case) and the Boulder CO police force (JonBenet Ramsey case). Both cases screwed up royally because of incompetent policework.
 
iguanaman said:
A more accurate headline is "Police shoot 17 year old for stealing a cigar"
Click to expand...
That isn't accurate. It is more accurate to say that the adult (18 year old) was shot while attacking an officer, after trying to take his firearm.
 
Lutherf said:
With all due respect, companions of criminals tend to lie too.

This is what gets me. For a lot of folks it seems more reasonable to assume that the cop simply freaked out and killed the kid for no reason than that the kid did something to provoke the cop into shooting. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Because a L.E. officer freaking out and shooting someone is more believable.
 
clownboy said:
A wonder piece of drak reporting doing their best to make incomplete stats show what they want the reader to see.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when confronted by the unpleasant, the best approach is always to attack the reporter. Oh wait, that's what the cops do in Ferguson, isn't it?
 
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

You get it wrong from the first. It was over strong arm robbery, what was stolen is superfluous.
 
Excon said:
That isn't accurate. It is more accurate to say that the adult (18 yearold) was shot while attacking an officer, after trying to take his firearm.
Click to expand...
How do you know that the kid was trying to take the officer's firearm unless you were there? WERE YOU THERE?
 
apdst said:
You said you would only shoot someone if he endangered your family's live?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. And if my kids were starving, I would sell my husband's guns to feed them. So I wouldn't have a gun in this case to shoot anyone.

Stealing food isn't the same as breaking in my house and trying to kill me or my kids anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom