Michael Brown Shooting

[Morgan]

this post doesn't even make sense

It makes sense. 

[Dietrich]

If he was found not guilty, then not really. The Grand Jury didn't have evidence to prove he did anything other than do his job. So that there pretty much says he's guilty. 

It makes sense. 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

This is what I read your post as:

>If Wilson was found not guilty, then the outcome would not be different.

>There was no evidence that Wilson was guilty.

>Therefore, Wilson was guilty.

>???

Edited December 3, 2014 by Dietrich

[Morgan]

No, it doesn't.

 

This is what I read your post as:

>If Wilson was found not guilty, then the outcome would not be different.

>There was no evidence that Wilson was guilty.

>Therefore, Wilson was guilty.

>???

Correction. I meant to say not guilty. I left out the most important word, not. 

[Dietrich]

Correction. I meant to say not guilty. I left out the most important word, not.

Ah.

 

Anyway, for Wilson, in practical terms, you're right; if he would be judged not guilty in a trial (and I agree with you that he would), then he would just as free as he is now.

 

However, right now, all that the grand jury has said is that there's not enough evidence for a trial. This means that, legally, Wilson might be guilty, but it isn't possible to prove it. If there were a trial, then we have an unequivocal judgement: Wilson must be judged either guilty or not guilty. Some people, myself included, would prefer such a judgement to be rendered.

 

For me, this is just a matter of principle, because again, I believe that Wilson is not guilty, and that he would be judged accordingly in a trial.

[WISD0MTREE]

I question the quality of police there. Obviously there is a major disconnect between the community and the police.

I question the police everywhere. Especially response times. That is why I'm armed. 

 

Now it's to decide weather it was on purpose or a psychological reason (he got scared and couldn't stop shooting).

Shooting is repetitive. I'm not sure what police training is like, but it should involve threat assessment as well as accuracy shooting. By that, I mean different targets appear and the cop has to shoot the guy with the gun, don't shoot the innocent bystanders/other cops, etc. 

[Morgan]

Ah.

 

Anyway, for Wilson, in practical terms, you're right; if he would be judged not guilty in a trial (and I agree with you that he would), then he would just as free as he is now.

 

However, right now, all that the grand jury has said is that there's not enough evidence for a trial. This means that, legally, Wilson might be guilty, but it isn't possible to prove it. If there were a trial, then we have an unequivocal judgement: Wilson must be judged either guilty or not guilty. Some people, myself included, would prefer such a judgement to be rendered.

 

For me, this is just a matter of principle, because again, I believe that Wilson is not guilty, and that he would be judged accordingly in a trial.

I personally believe, then, that Officer Wilson acted in accordance with the law and justifiably defended his life. It's better for one who is guilty to be free than an innocent person to be locked up for a crime they did not commit. That's where the importance of innocent until proven guilty derives from. 

Edited December 4, 2014 by Morgan

[Morgan]

I question the police everywhere. Especially response times. That is why I'm armed. 

 

Shooting is repetitive. I'm not sure what police training is like, but it should involve threat assessment as well as accuracy shooting. By that, I mean different targets appear and the cop has to shoot the guy with the gun, don't shoot the innocent bystanders/other cops, etc. 

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. 

[Solomon]

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. 

That is one of the most fatuous statements I've seen. I hope for your sake you copy/pasted it.

 

The world - your world - doesn't have to be like that.

[Hereno]

an armed man is a subject who thinks himself a citizen, perhaps

[Mutant]

an armed man is a subject who thinks himself a citizen, perhaps

How about a similar quote from one of your political leaning?

 

"Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

 

-Mao Tse Tung "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.

[Hereno]

How about a similar quote from one of your political leaning?

 

"Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

 

-Mao Tse Tung "Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.

wade-giles is old; pinyin romanization is Mao Zedong with "Zedong" being the proper name and "Mao" being the family name

 

also, i'm not a maoist, a marxist-leninist-maoist, a third worldist maoist, or any other variation of mao's take on socialist development, so

 

but he isn't wrong, either.

 

see, what i'm talking about is ignorant americans who think that by owning a rifle or a shotgun that they're any less subjects of the us government than their liberal gun-shy counterparts on the other side of the hill

 

political power *does* come from the barrel of a gun but that doesn't mean that the person holding the gun is the politician. they are as much the subjects of their own enablement of dictatorship as the persons on the other end.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Hereno

[Morgan]

wade-giles is old; pinyin romanization is Mao Zedong with "Zedong" being the proper name and "Mao" being the family name

 

also, i'm not a maoist, a marxist-leninist-maoist, a third worldist maoist, or any other variation of mao's take on socialist development, so

 

but he isn't wrong, either.

 

see, what i'm talking about is ignorant americans who think that by owning a rifle or a shotgun that they're any less subjects of the us government than their liberal gun-shy counterparts on the other side of the hill

 

political power *does* come from the barrel of a gun but that doesn't mean that the person holding the gun is the politician. they are as much the subjects of their own enablement of dictatorship as the persons on the other end.

Having weapons gives us the ability to keep our government in check if it comes down to armed conflict. That's part of the reason why the Second Amednment exists. 

[Hereno]

Having weapons gives us the ability to keep our government in check if it comes down to armed conflict. That's part of the reason why the Second Amednment exists.

yeah clearly the american government is being kept "in check" right now

 

at the end of the day, the government lets you have small arms because they don't actually matter, because the cops are the military and the military is overseas bombing funerals using remote-control airplanes

 

not that i'm in favor of gun control, i'm just not against it because i think that there's any chance in hell of an armed revolution against the us government beating it in terms of firepower

 

the barrel of the gun from which political power grows in the us is not your racist uncle's shotgun

[Morgan]

yeah clearly the american government is being kept "in check" right now

 

at the end of the day, the government lets you have small arms because they don't actually matter, because the cops are the military and the military is overseas bombing funerals using remote-control airplanes

 

not that i'm in favor of gun control, i'm just not against it because i think that there's any chance in hell of an armed revolution against the us government beating it in terms of firepower

 

the barrel of the gun from which political power grows in the us is not your racist uncle's shotgun

Using the second amendment against the government has rarely happened in American history. It is only used in extreme situations. We don't keep our government in check to using weapons to solve political problems. That's part of the reason why we had a civil war. 

Edited December 7, 2014 by Morgan

[Fox Fire]

Even if the grand jury decided to take Wilson to trial, would there have been a different outcome? 

Let's not forget that the entire investigation was a complete !@#$ing joke from the depths of any hell that may exist. Pure bias in favor of Wilbag.

[Maleficent_2014]

Thought it was funny that the St. Louis Rams football team came out of their tunnel last week with their hands up in tribute to Mr. Brown. I think they should stick to playing football, and not politics. Unless they want to consider only winning 4 of their last 7 or 8 games is considered competitive....

[Morgan]

Let's not forget that the entire investigation was a complete !@#$ joke from the depths of any hell that may exist. Pure bias in favor of Wilbag.

Even if the investigation was done poorly, Wilson probably acted in accordance with the law. 

[WISD0MTREE]

at the end of the day, the government lets you have small arms because they don't actually matter, because the cops are the military and the military is overseas bombing funerals using remote-control airplanes

There are 300,000,000 (legal) guns in America. There are 1.5 million people in the military. Let's just assume that there are also 1.5 million police. (I can't find any numbers right now on my phone) How many people in the military are willing to do exactly what the government tells them? They are, after all, people with rights like us. They will eventually get too old for service. Then what? They become just like us. Yes, they do have M-1s and drones, but they are fighting an insurgency; hit and runs. How will the EU respond to the USA bombing children and all of that? 

[Hereno]

There are 300,000,000 (legal) guns in America. There are 1.5 million people in the military. Let's just assume that there are also 1.5 million police. (I can't find any numbers right now on my phone) How many people in the military are willing to do exactly what the government tells them? They are, after all, people with rights like us. They will eventually get too old for service. Then what? They become just like us. Yes, they do have M-1s and drones, but they are fighting an insurgency; hit and runs. How will the EU respond to the USA bombing children and all of that?

the eu won't be saying shit if they're doing it too

 

the interests of global capital are not our interests

 

i don't think the us military will ever be deployed on any serious scale to fight against american citizens unless they're people on my side of the political spectrum (ie. anarchists)

 

the people who have the majority of guns are reactionary conservatives who would sooner kill me than any government agent; especially in favor of positive change.

[Fox Fire]

Even if the investigation was done poorly, Wilson probably acted in accordance with the law. 

Probably =/= Fact.

I can sit and say that water is probably dry. But that doesnt mean it is.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

It's Micheal Brown's fault that he got shot; if he didn't rob the store, nothing would happen..

Edited December 10, 2014 by Francisco Franco

[koba]

I don't think we'll ever truly know who the aggressor was. For me, that hardly matters, though.

 

I think looking at this from a legal perspective, based on the precedent from previous supreme court decisions, it's simply not justified to shoot Brown 6 times. We're only ever going to get one side of this story, because Brown is unfortunately dead.

Except for the dozens of eyewitnesses (The chart passed around on another forum i frequent listed over 25).

And the fact Brown was shot twice while fighting Wilson in the cop car over the gun.

And the fact we caught brown on video robbing a quik trip

And the fact the autopsy 100% supports Wilson's and the majority of the eyewitnesses story.