StL County Cops Shoot Teen

[Paul Moscow]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

[ednksu]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

Yeah you totally missed the point, but thanks for trying.  It wasn't that the street was "cleared" but not cleared.  Its that they said protesters were cleared instead of rioters, thus the "" around protesters. 

[michigancat]

Did you guys see where they arrested the guy that took that photo? Let's see him drive an agenda now, bitch!

[Paul Moscow]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

Yeah you totally missed the point, but thanks for trying.  It wasn't that the street was "cleared" but not cleared.  Its that they said protesters were cleared instead of rioters, thus the "" around protesters.

A group of people protesting and blocking the street while doing so is not rioting.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I called Crump an opportunist because he is. He fans the flames by publicly characterizing this shooting as an "execution" - to take just one example - which is highly inappropriate for an attorney and officer of the court.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I have a feeling that this story is going to start swinging towards the cop's side soon showing Brown as a dangerous "thug" who "threatened" the officer's safety. The officer will not be charged, and there will be a crap show of epic proportions nationally. This thing is just getting started.

There were plenty of people like K-S-U-Wildcats! who thought that before there was any video, released police report, or report of weed in his system. A drudge report about weed in his system isn't going to change anyone's mind. If you think having weed in his system has any significance its safe to say that your mind was already made up about the type of person Brown was. Dude, there are still lots of people who feel that George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened by Trayvon Martin.

So I made up my mind before the evidence started coming out? Maybe go back and re-read my posts in this thread. Never mind - you're too busy tossing around the n-word while accusing other people of bigotry.

You're clearly emotional and not thinking rationally about this, but I'll give it another shot. The question is whether the officer had a reasonable belief of eminent death or serious bodily harm when he shot Brown. We don't have video of the fight, so we look to other evidence.

In the minutes just prior to the shooting, Brown (1) stole a box of cigars from a convenience store in broad daylight, (2) attacked the store owner, (3) rather than fleeing after his robbery, casually walked down the middle of the street with his friend, (4) refused to comply with a police officer's command that he get on the sidewalk, saying words to the effect of "no, I'm also to where I'm going," and (5) likely assaulted the officer in his car. These are not the actions of a rational, peaceful person, and now we learn that he was indeed intoxicated.

These are not attempts to assassinate his character - they provide an indication that he was the aggressor, and provide some support to the cop's "he made a run at me" story (if that's what it is). Meanwhile, the frontal wounds noted in autopsy also call into question the eyewitness testimony that Brown was shot in the back while running away from the officer.

This is all stuff to be taken into account.

No rough ridin' way I'm reading all of that, I read the first paragraph and knew you were full of crap so I didn't need to continue. Your first post, about the 8th in the thread, said Brown did something stupid. You didn't know what happened. You dismissed the eyewitness accounts and assumed he did something stupid, you turned out to be correct but that doesn't change the fact you made an assumption. I can admit that I made assumptions, why can't you? Despite all of your skepticism you never called the cop stupid.

Ok well I can't make you read it. I was right, btw, when I said that Brown probably did something stupid to put himself in this position. And I still maintain that that alone doesn't justify his death - but you don't care about that. You and the rest of the mob won't be satisfied until you get your pound of flesh, facts be damned.

[ednksu]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

Yeah you totally missed the point, but thanks for trying.  It wasn't that the street was "cleared" but not cleared.  Its that they said protesters were cleared instead of rioters, thus the "" around protesters.

A group of people protesting and blocking the street while doing so is not rioting.

At what point do you call it a riot?  Road blocks, Molotov cocktails, shots around civilians, shots at police, and destruction of property (via fires) all seem pretty riot-y to me.

[Paul Moscow]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

Yeah you totally missed the point, but thanks for trying.  It wasn't that the street was "cleared" but not cleared.  Its that they said protesters were cleared instead of rioters, thus the "" around protesters.

A group of people protesting and blocking the street while doing so is not rioting.

At what point do you call it a riot?  Road blocks, Molotov cocktails, shots around civilians, shots at police, and destruction of property (via fires) all seem pretty riot-y to me.

One of those things is not like the other - namely 4/5 are violent acts that cause harm to others around them. A road block is not an act of violence.

Also, you should take serious caution knowing that the only news sources who seem comfortable using the term "rioters" interchangeably with protestor or in some cases exclusively are breitbart and the daily news.

[MakeItRain]

I called Crump an opportunist because he is. He fans the flames by publicly characterizing this shooting as an "execution" - to take just one example - which is highly inappropriate for an attorney and officer of the court.

What? man, shut yo ass up, lol

[ednksu]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

Yeah you totally missed the point, but thanks for trying.  It wasn't that the street was "cleared" but not cleared.  Its that they said protesters were cleared instead of rioters, thus the "" around protesters.

A group of people protesting and blocking the street while doing so is not rioting.

At what point do you call it a riot?  Road blocks, Molotov cocktails, shots around civilians, shots at police, and destruction of property (via fires) all seem pretty riot-y to me.

One of those things is not like the other - namely 4/5 are violent acts that cause harm to others around them. A road block is not an act of violence.

Also, you should take serious caution knowing that the only news sources who seem comfortable using the term "rioters" interchangeably with protestor or in some cases exclusively are breitbart and the daily news.

Actually obstructing the free flow of people through physical means is an act of violence.  But lets not get into that too much because its absurd to argue whether or not roadblocks are legitimate part of marching in protest. 

Also add telegraph uk, politico, and Wash Po to your list of sources.  Keep in mind I'm not saying that all of these protests are riots (like I'm sure Daily and Breitbart are), but these specific clashes in specific areas. 

[ednksu]

Remember when I said this was going to get retrenched to bleeding heart libs versus neo-con assholes in the mainstream discourse?  Foxnew's Mygyn Kylly is running with MARK rough ridin' FUHRMAN to be an expert on the shooting now that the "other side" (cops side) is getting play.  Also they intro the story with 6 year cop vet getting accommodation versus dark grainy footage of black kid strong arm robbing people. 

[ednksu]

The usual suspects who show up every time something like this happens are much in-line to have their motives questioned, particularly as their own personal behavior and handling of money that has flowed through their various organizations have come to light over the years.

How the eff is this relevant to Benjamin Crump, an attorney doing pro-bono work?

I didn't say it was.

Yep, I looked again, didn't say Crump.

Wow, that was a predictable response. You dropped that into a conversation about ksuw calling Crump an opportunist. If you decided to drop a non-sequitur in the conversation (you didn't) then you can deal with people not knowing what the hell you're talking about (I didn't).

No, I think I was thinking more along the lines of Sharpton and Jackson MIR.   But there's no use getting into that with you, because you've already made up your mind as always.

Again, you decided to post what you posted when you posted it, I didn't make your post ambiguous, you did.

Did you even hear what Sharpton's message was when he had his press conference? If you're going to be critical of him in this instance I'd suggest you find what he said. I bet everything you'd agree with what he said.

Yeah, Al went off on the release of the video of the guy robbing the store, when media made countless requests for the video.

Nah, I'm not going to buy into Al's shtick.  It's old, tired and played out.

Just curious, because I haven't seen it.  But has anyone here read or heard any indication that this incident in Ferguson would be covered up, and wouldn't be investigated to the fullest extent by local and state authorities?

The greatest was the BBC doing street interviews and a woman requesting that McCullouch be pulled from the case because there is no way he will do a fair, thorough, investigation.  When asked why the woman flat out said she didn't know much about him.

[star seed 7]

The usual suspects who show up every time something like this happens are much in-line to have their motives questioned, particularly as their own personal behavior and handling of money that has flowed through their various organizations have come to light over the years.

How the eff is this relevant to Benjamin Crump, an attorney doing pro-bono work?

I didn't say it was.

Yep, I looked again, didn't say Crump.

Wow, that was a predictable response. You dropped that into a conversation about ksuw calling Crump an opportunist. If you decided to drop a non-sequitur in the conversation (you didn't) then you can deal with people not knowing what the hell you're talking about (I didn't).

No, I think I was thinking more along the lines of Sharpton and Jackson MIR.   But there's no use getting into that with you, because you've already made up your mind as always.

Again, you decided to post what you posted when you posted it, I didn't make your post ambiguous, you did.

Did you even hear what Sharpton's message was when he had his press conference? If you're going to be critical of him in this instance I'd suggest you find what he said. I bet everything you'd agree with what he said.

Yeah, Al went off on the release of the video of the guy robbing the store, when media made countless requests for the video.

Nah, I'm not going to buy into Al's shtick.  It's old, tired and played out.

Just curious, because I haven't seen it.  But has anyone here read or heard any indication that this incident in Ferguson would be covered up, and wouldn't be investigated to the fullest extent by local and state authorities?

The greatest was the BBC doing street interviews and a woman requesting that McCullouch be pulled from the case because there is no way he will do a fair, thorough, investigation.  When asked why the woman flat out said she didn't know much about him.

wow, that sounds like the greatest

[Paul Moscow]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

Yeah you totally missed the point, but thanks for trying.  It wasn't that the street was "cleared" but not cleared.  Its that they said protesters were cleared instead of rioters, thus the "" around protesters.

A group of people protesting and blocking the street while doing so is not rioting.

At what point do you call it a riot?  Road blocks, Molotov cocktails, shots around civilians, shots at police, and destruction of property (via fires) all seem pretty riot-y to me.

One of those things is not like the other - namely 4/5 are violent acts that cause harm to others around them. A road block is not an act of violence.

Also, you should take serious caution knowing that the only news sources who seem comfortable using the term "rioters" interchangeably with protestor or in some cases exclusively are breitbart and the daily news.

Actually obstructing the free flow of people through physical means is an act of violence. But lets not get into that too much because its absurd to argue whether or not roadblocks are legitimate part of marching in protest.
 
The argument is not about occupying the streets as a legitimate protesting tactic but whether or not it constitutes the label "rioting" which you applied, not me. Show me one source that has referred to non-violent demonstrators in streets as rioters.

Also add telegraph uk, politico, and Wash Po to your list of sources.  Keep in mind I'm not saying that all of these protests are riots (like I'm sure Daily and Breitbart are), but these specific clashes in specific areas.

Not all protests are riots but all persons who occupied a street that once may have held a riot must be referred to as rioters, got it.

[Cire]

I think police shooting at people running away in the middle of a neighborhood should be against policy.   Chase the guy down.

[MakeItRain]

The usual suspects who show up every time something like this happens are much in-line to have their motives questioned, particularly as their own personal behavior and handling of money that has flowed through their various organizations have come to light over the years.

How the eff is this relevant to Benjamin Crump, an attorney doing pro-bono work?

I didn't say it was.

Yep, I looked again, didn't say Crump.

Wow, that was a predictable response. You dropped that into a conversation about ksuw calling Crump an opportunist. If you decided to drop a non-sequitur in the conversation (you didn't) then you can deal with people not knowing what the hell you're talking about (I didn't).

No, I think I was thinking more along the lines of Sharpton and Jackson MIR.   But there's no use getting into that with you, because you've already made up your mind as always.

Again, you decided to post what you posted when you posted it, I didn't make your post ambiguous, you did.

Did you even hear what Sharpton's message was when he had his press conference? If you're going to be critical of him in this instance I'd suggest you find what he said. I bet everything you'd agree with what he said.

Yeah, Al went off on the release of the video of the guy robbing the store, when media made countless requests for the video.

Nah, I'm not going to buy into Al's shtick.  It's old, tired and played out.

Just curious, because I haven't seen it.  But has anyone here read or heard any indication that this incident in Ferguson would be covered up, and wouldn't be investigated to the fullest extent by local and state authorities?

What? When he got there he spoke with Brown's parents behind him and spoke to the looters and told them that this is not what his parents want, they are ruining what the message should be.

http://youtu.be/ENMOPtjMvO0?t=11s

Also worth noting that shitbag opportunist scum, Al Sharpton, is paying for the funeral. rough ridin' jerk.

[ednksu]

http://www.vox.com/michael-brown-shooting-ferguson-mo/2014/8/18/6031679/ferguson-missouri-mo-protests-michael-brown-police-military

jesus

I despise agenda driven reporting.

"A cleared street in Ferguson after protests that lasted until very early August 18. (Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)"

Many other images describe the plight of protesters or the militarized police force.  Yet this pic is described as a street cleared when it still has the derbies that "protesters" attempted to use to block the streets to police traffic as the riots were occurring.

Cleared of protestors, genius. And its actually implied from the photo that the debris is left over from the people who previously occupied the street. I get what you're trying to imply but you whiffed.

Yeah you totally missed the point, but thanks for trying.  It wasn't that the street was "cleared" but not cleared.  Its that they said protesters were cleared instead of rioters, thus the "" around protesters.

A group of people protesting and blocking the street while doing so is not rioting.

At what point do you call it a riot?  Road blocks, Molotov cocktails, shots around civilians, shots at police, and destruction of property (via fires) all seem pretty riot-y to me.

One of those things is not like the other - namely 4/5 are violent acts that cause harm to others around them. A road block is not an act of violence.

Also, you should take serious caution knowing that the only news sources who seem comfortable using the term "rioters" interchangeably with protestor or in some cases exclusively are breitbart and the daily news.

Actually obstructing the free flow of people through physical means is an act of violence. But lets not get into that too much because its absurd to argue whether or not roadblocks are legitimate part of marching in protest.
 
The argument is not about occupying the streets as a legitimate protesting tactic but whether or not it constitutes the label "rioting" which you applied, not me. Show me one source that has referred to non-violent demonstrators in streets as rioters.

Also add telegraph uk, politico, and Wash Po to your list of sources.  Keep in mind I'm not saying that all of these protests are riots (like I'm sure Daily and Breitbart are), but these specific clashes in specific areas.

Not all protests are riots but all persons who occupied a street that once may have held a riot must be referred to as rioters, got it.

Paul the problem is that I highlighted a specific night, with a specific event, captured with a specific picture to make my point.  A point which every major news outlet said there was riotous behavior.  You keep applying your own biases to my point to paint all critiques of these protests with a broad brush.  I agree non-violent demonstrators are, by definition, not participating in a riot (once again much to the chagrin of Breitbart).  Don't apply your own reflections of frustration to my comments about specific detrimental acts when everyone, from the Brown family to Captain Johnson, agree that this kind of behavior is a setback to the legitimate protests. 

[Dugout DickStone]

It's 10pm, time for the cops to LRAD then gas a peaceful assembly.

[michigancat]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson/what-it-was-like-in-the-streets-on-fergusons-worst-night

[michigancat]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

HE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary.

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero.

[Trim]

Anyone still investigating the shooting?

[Trim]

If he has any pull at all, Al should just own it and encourage snitching and maybe get some witnesses out.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Also worth noting that shitbag opportunist scum, Al Sharpton, is paying for the funeral. rough ridin' jerk.

It will be a nice marketing expense deduction for Al Sharpton, LLC.

[j-dub]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

HE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary.

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero.

this is amazing.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I called Crump an opportunist because he is. He fans the flames by publicly characterizing this shooting as an "execution" - to take just one example - which is highly inappropriate for an attorney and officer of the court.

What? man, shut yo ass up, lol

Good answer. Not that you care, but Crump is likely violating MRPC 3.6(a) with his over the top rhetoric.