• 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!

Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities

The protests are about something much larger than this single incident

They are about people's perception of what they believe to be much larger than a single incident. In reality, it is a single incident being used as cannon fodder, possibly destroying lives based on very little information.

Even if Officer Wilson is acquitted or not even charged, he and his family will almost certainly have to leave the area. They are going to be targeted no matter what the outcome because of some people who don't want to wait to get information, to actually see what is going on, but rather have a knee-jerk reaction to certain events and automatically get defensive. Heck, the very first day, the officer was receiving death threats, had random people on the internet saying he should be shot down or killed or executed with only "shot an unarmed teenager" to go off of. "Unarmed" does not mean "not a danger". It simply means they do not have a weapon.

Now, I realize the following is an opinion piece, but this is pretty much my feelings on this:

Unarmed Man, Six Shots | National Review Online

The outrage is simply not warranted at this time. Might it be warranted in the future if evidence comes to light that the officer was wrong? Yes, particularly if the police were trying to cover something up. However, no one was given any chance to cover anything up. You do not arrest and/or charge an officer with "murder" immediately after they shoot someone. Not without some damn good evidence that they did something wrong. You have to get the information about the incident first. That wasn't even allowed to happen. They are still getting the information even now, and won't likely have it all still for awhile.
 
You seem quick to insist that maybe a non-black store owner does not press charges out of fear, yet exclude the possibility that black victims of police misconduct would be just as, if not more, afraid of filing complaints. I believe it is safe to say that for any department where there is a significant number of complaints about use of force, there are a significant number of people who stay quiet because they are afraid of the cops or feel that they will be up against the blue wall. To me a lack of complaints is not very meaningful in this scenario. You call it "guilt by association" to mention the reputation of the police departments in question, but these are not large monolithic entities. We are talking about a few dozen police. That is a small tight-knit group and the odds of him not being a party to police misconduct or an active participant are pretty low. When you have cops as bad as these folks, flying under the radar could just mean he is not as horrifically abusive as his squad-mates.

Sure, I mean, police will charge someone with an assaulting an officer for poking them, so you could probably make a claim that it was assault. Of course, if Brown did pay for the cigarillos, this guy got in front of him to block him from leaving for no good reason, and Brown just shoved him out of the way then I think it would hard to make a case out of that. For all we know the store owner said something terribly insensitive to Brown.

I figured you would post one of those reports, but they are really just spinning what the attorney said. His exact words were that Johnson was there and that some cigarillos were "taken" by Brown specifically avoiding any words that mean theft. The issue with the charges is that charges were dropped by police investigating the claim on the basis that Johnson committed no robbery. Of course, interestingly enough, it seems the police claimed an employee reported a robbery, but the store owner's attorney says it was a customer.

Are you saying that people would be all too scared to file a complaint about Officer Wilson specifically, but not too scared to file a complaint about other officers? Statistically, that is highly unlikely. Sure, the police could be covering something up. But there is no evidence of this so far.

As for the clerk/manager, it is possible that he is denying it now because of the protests and the looting. The day after the shooting (or at least the night of that day after) there was looting, including destruction of a QuikTrip in the area. We didn't hear from the manager/clerk of the Market and Liquor store until after the video was released.

Employee Safety Top Concern For QuikTrip Management After St. Lo - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

The owners of that store, or at least their lawyers, have even said that it was fear of being targeted. They don't want to look like they snitched on someone.

Report: Convenience Store Manager Terrified of Being Murdered by Ferguson Customers | The Gateway Pundit

It has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. There are white bullies out there who scare people into not telling on them. A bully is a bully, no matter the skin color. Is it possible that he didn't steal anything? Sure. The evidence we have though suggests strongly that Brown robbed that store, and his friend was there.

Why would you say it would be "no good reason" even if he paid something for them? Perhaps he didn't give the guy enough money. Maybe he damaged something when he reached over the counter. We don't know what happened or why the clerk stopped Brown, but it was not a reason to push him into the display, to assault him. And someone called the police and reported it.

Plus, why is it that you assume the police are lying? Maybe they are. But it could also be the owners or their lawyer lying in order to try to protect the store/owners/employees from reprisal.

Johnson committing no robbery does not mean that Brown didn't. There was a robbery reported by someone. That is all that matters. And there was an assault.
 
The protests are about something much larger than this single incident

But as usual, they use the wrong incident to use in their cause, causing them to look like fools.
 
But as usual, they use the wrong incident to use in their cause, causing them to look like fools.

"Use" is the key word here, and I do mean exploitation.
 
But as usual, they use the wrong incident to use in their cause, causing them to look like fools.

I thought you were done with me. I understand, I'm a hard habit to break
 
................

They are about people's perception of what they believe to be much larger than a single incident. In reality, it is a single incident being used as cannon fodder, possibly destroying lives based on very little information.
This comment seems very ill informed and tremendously bias. If you say it is about perception then you must be willing to provide data that proves there is not an imbalance. You don't know the reality. Unless you are on the ground in Ferguson discussing with the people protesting. If I misspoke earlier, my apologies, it is my perception that there is more being protested than this specific incident and if you look at the signs and hear what is being said they are not referencing just this incident they are referencing the larger issue.

Even if Officer Wilson is acquitted or not even charged, he and his family will almost certainly have to leave the area. They are going to be targeted no matter what the outcome because of some people who don't want to wait to get information, to actually see what is going on, but rather have a knee-jerk reaction to certain events and automatically get defensive. Heck, the very first day, the officer was receiving death threats, had random people on the internet saying he should be shot down or killed or executed with only "shot an unarmed teenager" to go off of. "Unarmed" does not mean "not a danger". It simply means they do not have a weapon.
Of course none of this is okay, not even close. But by condemning this specific aspect of the protests it does not mean I can't still agree with the over arching issue and see the validity in the complaint while disagreeing with "some" of the tactics used to express their frustrations

from your article-

"Over the last week or so, reports that Michael Brown was a) “unarmed” and b) shot six times" it goes on to say that this info has been spun into blah blah blah.
my comment - These are facts of the case and what they may or may not be spun into does not render them illegitimate.

"It is wholly possible for an “unarmed” man to pose a threat"
my comment - yes it is, but not all threats are require the same level of defense

"That some people are naturally stronger than others is precisely why weaker people arm themselves, ..."
my comment- this seems to imply that because MB was bigger than the cop the cop was justified in using his weapon against him. Unless of course, the cop was hyperaggressive in his approach to MB and was himself the one guilty of assault. In which case HE would have been the bully because his weapon gave him an enormous advantage even over MBs size

I could go on but I think you get my point.


The outrage is simply not warranted at this time.
That could be only because it's an issue that does not affect you. This is really a judgement call from someone who is completely unthreatened and unaffected by this issue
 
Are you saying that people would be all too scared to file a complaint about Officer Wilson specifically, but not too scared to file a complaint about other officers? Statistically, that is highly unlikely. Sure, the police could be covering something up. But there is no evidence of this so far.

I am saying that people would be generally afraid of reporting mistreatment from the police, especially if it is a recurring deal. The main incident we know about involves someone from outside the community, who has less reason to be concerned about the consequences of reporting the police.

As for the clerk/manager, it is possible that he is denying it now because of the protests and the looting. The day after the shooting (or at least the night of that day after) there was looting, including destruction of a QuikTrip in the area. We didn't hear from the manager/clerk of the Market and Liquor store until after the video was released.

Employee Safety Top Concern For QuikTrip Management After St. Lo - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

The owners of that store, or at least their lawyers, have even said that it was fear of being targeted. They don't want to look like they snitched on someone.

Report: Convenience Store Manager Terrified of Being Murdered by Ferguson Customers | The Gateway Pundit

Sure, maybe everyone but the police are lying, but I am not sure why you are so insistent on believing everyone else is a liar. Is it really so hard to believe that police are just interpreting the video the way they like to protect one of their own? Would hardly be the first time.

The evidence we have though suggests strongly that Brown robbed that store, and his friend was there.

Nothing we have seen "strongly" suggests such a thing.

Why would you say it would be "no good reason" even if he paid something for them? Perhaps he didn't give the guy enough money. Maybe he damaged something when he reached over the counter. We don't know what happened or why the clerk stopped Brown, but it was not a reason to push him into the display, to assault him. And someone called the police and reported it.

The key word in my statement was "if" in case you missed it.

Plus, why is it that you assume the police are lying? Maybe they are. But it could also be the owners or their lawyer lying in order to try to protect the store/owners/employees from reprisal.

I am not assuming they are lying, just noting that the police account differs from that given by the owners.

Johnson committing no robbery does not mean that Brown didn't. There was a robbery reported by someone. That is all that matters. And there was an assault.

Why was a robbery reported, though? Is it because there was a robbery or because someone saw a black guy push someone and walk out of a store with something?
 
So why wasn't this story released like the story was suppose to be so incriminating and telling about MBs "character"? What does this tell you about officer Wilson?

It tells me nothing about Wilson. To think that what happened in Jennings has, without a doubt, something to do with Wilson would be bigoted stereotyping and committing a logical fallacy. A person should be judged on his actions alone.
 
I am saying that people would be generally afraid of reporting mistreatment from the police, especially if it is a recurring deal. The main incident we know about involves someone from outside the community, who has less reason to be concerned about the consequences of reporting the police.

Sure, maybe everyone but the police are lying, but I am not sure why you are so insistent on believing everyone else is a liar. Is it really so hard to believe that police are just interpreting the video the way they like to protect one of their own? Would hardly be the first time.

Nothing we have seen "strongly" suggests such a thing.

The key word in my statement was "if" in case you missed it.

I am not assuming they are lying, just noting that the police account differs from that given by the owners.

Why was a robbery reported, though? Is it because there was a robbery or because someone saw a black guy push someone and walk out of a store with something?

Except the people have been reporting mistreatment by other officers. In fact, that is why the other police force that Wilson was on was completely replaced, yet Wilson, from what we know, was never implicated or reported personally even while with that other force.

And I haven't said that the police can't be lying. But the other people in contention here have already either a) admitted to lying or b) indicated that they have lied to protect themselves or c) someone else has exposed their lie or at least version of the story.

As for why the "robbery" was called, you don't know what was said in that store anymore than I do. There was more than just silent gestures inside that store when it happened. So whatever was said is very possibly what led to one of the customers suspecting that someone had robbed the store. Or it could have been someone outside the store saw something suspicious and called it in as a robbery because that is what they believed they were witnessing. And it wouldn't have to be because he was a "black guy" pushing someone. If I saw a white guy in a store pushing someone, especially if I knew it was the clerk being pushed, I suspect the white guy might be robbing the store as well and call it in. You are the one making the assumption that a robbery was called in only because it was a black guy. There is no indication whatsoever of that. That is you assuming.
 
Except the people have been reporting mistreatment by other officers. In fact, that is why the other police force that Wilson was on was completely replaced, yet Wilson, from what we know, was never implicated or reported personally even while with that other force.

People report domestic abuse too, does that mean all domestic abuse gets reported?

And I haven't said that the police can't be lying. But the other people in contention here have already either a) admitted to lying or b) indicated that they have lied to protect themselves or c) someone else has exposed their lie or at least version of the story.

Please illustrate where any of these things are true.

As for why the "robbery" was called, you don't know what was said in that store anymore than I do. There was more than just silent gestures inside that store when it happened. So whatever was said is very possibly what led to one of the customers suspecting that someone had robbed the store. Or it could have been someone outside the store saw something suspicious and called it in as a robbery because that is what they believed they were witnessing. And it wouldn't have to be because he was a "black guy" pushing someone. If I saw a white guy in a store pushing someone, especially if I knew it was the clerk being pushed, I suspect the white guy might be robbing the store as well and call it in. You are the one making the assumption that a robbery was called in only because it was a black guy. There is no indication whatsoever of that. That is you assuming.

I am not assuming anything. This is simply a suggestion based on the fact that it is more often the case that people who are black are reported to police, even if they have not committed a crime. Were it a situation where a young black man were falsely accused of a crime, a police officer angrily confronted him, and in the ensuing events killed him then, regardless of what happened in those intervening moments, it would still be a cause for legitimate frustration.
 
People report domestic abuse too, does that mean all domestic abuse gets reported?

Please illustrate where any of these things are true.

I am not assuming anything. This is simply a suggestion based on the fact that it is more often the case that people who are black are reported to police, even if they have not committed a crime. Were it a situation where a young black man were falsely accused of a crime, a police officer angrily confronted him, and in the ensuing events killed him then, regardless of what happened in those intervening moments, it would still be a cause for legitimate frustration.

You are completely missing the point with the reporting thing. It is statistically improbable that you would have a group of people, a community, where some were willing to report multiple cases of police abuse against them, but that no reports were made against one particular officer who was also involved in the abuse. Is it possible? Sure. It simply isn't likely. Now, it could be that he did it so infrequently that he beat the odds. It could be that he had done it in such a way that he scared people into not reporting him, even if they reported other officers. But from the information we have, this particular officer does not fit the profile of the type of person who would be that intimidating. We could have a false profile.

I already did. The link for the liquor store and what the lawyer said shows that they were simply trying to protect themselves. The friend with Brown admitted to taking the cigars, his lawyer said this was true. The friend also lied when he said that his friend was shot in the back. He wasn't.

Release of information

Was it possible that Brown was shot in the arm while running away? Yes, it is possible. And that could have been what caused him to turn around. We simply don't know enough yet. But we do know that he could not have been shot in the back since there was no entry would in his back, or even one at all in his torso.

You are making an assumption. And what happens in those intervening moments during which the guy was killed should be of paramount importance as to what actions others take, which is why the public should know what actually happened first before running off the deep end and protesting what they don't know.
 
The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.
(Racial tension was endemic in Jennings, said Rodney Epps, an African American city council member.
Police faced a series of lawsuits for using unnecessary force
“There was a disconnect between the community and the police department. There were just too many instances of police tactics which put the credibility of the police department in jeopardy. Complaints against officers.)

Wilson got a job in the police department in the nearby city of Ferguson.

People who know him describe him as someone who grew up in a home marked by multiple divorces and tangles with the law. His mother died when he was in high school. ( I read in a different article that she was a con-woman who killed herself) A friend said a career in law enforcement offered him structure in what had been a chaotic life.

Wilson has had some recent personal turmoil: Last year, he petitioned the court seeking a divorce from his wife, Ashley Nicole Wilson, and they formally split in November, records show

when Wilson was a freshman in high school, his mother pleaded guilty to forgery and stealing. She was sentenced to five years in prison, although records suggest the court agreed to let her serve her sentence on probation.

Darren Wilson

So why wasn't this story released like the story was suppose to be so incriminating and telling about MBs "character"? What does this tell you about officer Wilson?

Frankly, I'm just as appalled by the release of this kind of information about this officer as I am by the blatant attempts at manipulating the narrative by the release of personal information about MB. Can we all agree to ignore this kind of crap?

I guess he's crooked, then. That proves it! :roll:
 
Well, that was easy

That's all your after. Someone to agree with the idiotic idea that since Wilson got divorced, his mom was charged with forgery and the first pikice department he worked for was crap, that makes him obviously guilty of murder. Right?
 
That's all your after. Someone to agree with the idiotic idea that since Wilson got divorced, his mom was charged with forgery and the first pikice department he worked for was crap, that makes him obviously guilty of murder. Right?

Did you read the OP or any of the comments I posted?
 
Back
Top Bottom