• 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
Lakeside said:
I forgot, you are a Liberal. Did I EVER say that you said anything about MSNBC. Believe it or not the world does not revolve around all you so-called great minds. You made a comment, then I made a comment. Get it? And get over yourself.
Click to expand...

Except you made your comment in reply to my comment. Was it an accident that you quoted me, and then said something entirely unrelated to what I said?
 
Redress said:
Except you made your comment in reply to my comment. Was it an accident that you quoted me, and then said something entirely unrelated to what I said?[/Q

It was in reference to the "wait". You OK now? Did I hurt your delicate sensibilities?
Click to expand...
 
herenow1 said:
I will start off by saying that there is NO justification for shooting a fleeing unarmed man, unless you know for a fact he is a serial killer or the like. Having said that. Is it more believable that Michael Brown could have started a fight with this cop(for no reason)after seeing the surveillance video of him stealing and intimidating the clerk?
Click to expand...

There are already some folks saying that if one compares clothing, it's not the same person because he wouldn't have had time to change clothes that quickly. Don't know, but it leaves open that many of us are seeing what the cops want us to see. Also if it was robbery, why wasn't Johnson brought in or charges filed against him? So far it seems like they're reaching.

If Brown was stopped simply for walking while black, which is what it seems since it's been admitted that the officer was unaware of the robbery report, then y'know, I can no longer fault young, black teens for becoming aggressive in their self-defense against overly aggressive, threatening officers with no valid reason for "assessing" someone thusly. It has become too obvious lately that young black men, even older black men, being "assessed" with no reason for it.

And as you say, there's no reason ever for shooting an unarmed, fleeing or surrendering TEEN, or man.
 
herenow1 said:
I will start off by saying that there is NO justification for shooting a fleeing unarmed man, unless you know for a fact he is a serial killer or the like. Having said that. Is it more believable that Michael Brown could have started a fight with this cop(for no reason)after seeing the surveillance video of him stealing and intimidating the clerk?
Click to expand...

The video doesn't show how Brown and the cop were interacting with each prior to the shooting. That said I do not believe cops go "oh hey look its a black guy, GET HIM!!!! " followed by bang bang bang bang bang bang "is he still moving?" bang bang bang bang.

It is **** like this why there should be cameras on all cop cars at different angles with sound and recording devices on cops themselves. This protects the cop and ensures that no wrong doing is going on.
 
herenow1 said:
I will start off by saying that there is NO justification for shooting a fleeing unarmed man, unless you know for a fact he is a serial killer or the like. Having said that. Is it more believable that Michael Brown could have started a fight with this cop(for no reason)after seeing the surveillance video of him stealing and intimidating the clerk?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

there are plenty of cases where it is justifiable to shoot an unarmed man. however, I don't know enough about this case to state whether it was justified here
 
I voted on the thread title, "Do you think MB was capable of being violent?" because we've seen evidence (in the video) that he was.

The poll title is something different (was he capable of attacking the cop?) and I dont know but the video supports a possibility rather than leaving me neutral.

I voted Yes based on the thread title.
 
Summerwind said:
There are already some folks saying that if one compares clothing, it's not the same person because he wouldn't have had time to change clothes that quickly. Don't know, but it leaves open that many of us are seeing what the cops want us to see. Also if it was robbery, why wasn't Johnson brought in or charges filed against him? So far it seems like they're reaching.

If Brown was stopped simply for walking while black, which is what it seems since it's been admitted that the officer was unaware of the robbery report, then y'know, I can no longer fault young, black teens for becoming aggressive in their self-defense against overly aggressive, threatening officers with no valid reason for "assessing" someone thusly. It has become too obvious lately that young black men, even older black men, being "assessed" with no reason for it.

And as you say, there's no reason ever for shooting an unarmed, fleeing or surrendering TEEN, or man.
Click to expand...

He was stopped because he was walking in the middle of the road blocking traffic and refused to move to the sidewalk when asked. By walking while black do you mean that black people are not capable of walking on sidewalks and have to walk in the road?
 
TurtleDude said:
there are plenty of cases where it is justifiable to shoot an unarmed man. however, I don't know enough about this case to state whether it was justified here
Click to expand...

Agreed. People often forget that hands and feet can kill you just as quick as a gun.
 
How on Earth could I possibly know if Michael Brown was violent or not?

How can anyone that did not know him at least somewhat?

I wish people, in cases like this, would wait to pass judgement on ANY OF IT until all the facts are in.

It is a cliche but there are (at least) two sides to every story.
 
Poll: Do you feel that Michael was capable of attacking the cop?
Click to expand...

Anybody short of a quadriplegic is capable of attacking a cop or can be violent towards others. What a weird poll question. :confused:
 
Here's a suggestion. If you don't like the poll, or think it's wrong to discuss things without all the facts(which is about half the threads on this entire forum) then don't respond. God forbid a poll is created around recent events!
 
Summerwind said:
There are already some folks saying that if one compares clothing, it's not the same person because he wouldn't have had time to change clothes that quickly. Don't know, but it leaves open that many of us are seeing what the cops want us to see. Also if it was robbery, why wasn't Johnson brought in or charges filed against him? So far it seems like they're reaching.
Click to expand...

Here's the version of the events that's consistent w/all the facts and Occam's Razor. . .

darrell wilson shoots dead Michael Brown who is fleeing from him. And unfortunately for him, there are witnesses and word gets out.

Cops in police dept. are in a frenzy--have to come w/up a story fast to justify the cops' actions, and decide to make a phony video of a robbery, paying the convenience store clerk/manager a large sum of $$ to film it there. Cops make the video, then decide to say that the wilson was trying to capture a robber--Michael Wilson--fleeing the crime.

However, the evidence doesn't hold up that wilson could've known about the robbery at the time, and so cops are left to say that wilson didn't know about the robbery but that it happened anyway. Cops then go to Brown's friend, Johnson, and coerce him into saying that he helped rob the store in exchange for not charging him w/another crime and letting him walk free.
 
DA60 said:
How on Earth could I possibly know if Michael Brown was violent or not?

.
Click to expand...


By watching the video, in which case the answer is patently obvious.

I am surprised to encounter anybody who would actually require such instructions.
 
solletica said:
Here's the version of the events that's consistent w/all the facts and Occam's Razor. . .

darrell wilson shoots dead Michael Brown who is fleeing from him. And unfortunately for him, there are witnesses and word gets out.

Cops in police dept. are in a frenzy--have to come w/up a story fast to justify the cops' actions, and decide to make a phony video of a robbery, paying the convenience store clerk/manager a large sum of $$ to film it there. Cops make the video, then decide to say that the wilson was trying to capture a robber--Michael Wilson--fleeing the crime.

However, the evidence doesn't hold up that wilson could've known about the robbery at the time, and so cops are left to say that wilson didn't know about the robbery but that it happened anyway. Cops then go to Brown's friend, Johnson, and coerce him into saying that he helped rob the store in exchange for not charging him w/another crime and letting him walk free.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this forum already have a conspiracy theory section for people to indulge in their unhinged fantasies?
 
Superfly said:
Um - by watching the video? How about you ask that store clerk if Brown was violent?
Click to expand...

Well, at least I now understand why shampoo bottles come with instructions to lather, rinse and repeat.
 
Gardener said:
Doesn't this forum already have a conspiracy theory section for people to indulge in their unhinged fantasies?
Click to expand...

It's the simplest logical explanation given the following facts

1) Cops waited for 2 days before releasing robbery account, instead of immediately following the incident.
2) Michael Brown had no criminal record
3) Dorian Johnson wasn't charged w/robbery, even though video (supposedly) shows he helped commit it.

I suggest you go back to listening to Limbaugh, since logic is too much for your conservative head.
 
solletica said:
It's the simplest logical explanation given the following facts

1) Cops waited for 2 days before releasing robbery account, instead of immediately following the incident.
2) Michael Brown had no criminal record
3) Dorian Johnson wasn't charged w/robbery, even though video (supposedly) shows he helped commit it.

I suggest you go back to listening to Limbaugh, since logic is too much for your conservative head.
Click to expand...

In another thread, you've insinuated that the vid-cam footage was faked. I wonder if you still think this, given that it's been confirmed who the guy strong-arming the tiny-by-comparison clerk was.
 
solletica said:
I suggest you go back to listening to Limbaugh, since logic is too much for your conservative head.
Click to expand...

Ah -- even more bizarre fantasies.

Have you considered moving to Hollywood? Flesh out these scripts a bit and you might be able to earn a living.
 
Gardener said:
Ah -- even more bizarre fantasies.

Have you considered moving to Hollywood? Flesh out these scripts a bit and you might be able to earn a living.
Click to expand...

Only if you're referring to schlocky straight-to-video productions.
 
nota bene said:
it's been confirmed who the guy strong-arming the tiny-by-comparison clerk was.
Click to expand...

But he's just a "teenager", Nota -- a poor, defenseless teenager!

I'm always amazed when racialists have no ability to understand the world around them without framing all human interaction based upon race with one race automatically the victim despite their actual pattern of behavior.

For every genuine racist who hates blacks for being black, there must be a hundred racialists who act as enablers for bad behavior.
 
nota bene said:
In another thread, you've insinuated that the vid-cam footage was faked. I wonder if you still think this, given that it's been confirmed who the guy strong-arming the tiny-by-comparison clerk was.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom