Curious as to the people asserting that the police force was only acting to save property from "rioters and looters" when a state senator has come forward accusing the police of gassing a peaceful protest she was participating in, and in fact, there are no reports suggesting rioting beyond the initial reaction to the incident.

Particularly worrying are the arrests of aldermen and journalists who seem to be committing the crime of "not doing what the police want." It is also off-putting to see people come so rabidly to the defense of this police department when they have been explicitly relieved of all duties as a result of their overreaching misconduct.

Hopefully the focus can return to the shooting, media portrayal of the victim, and the role race plays in police work.

Mike Brown was not a random unarmed kid that got randomly approached by a police officer for no reason at all.
Prior to the incidents Brown robbed a local store in the vicinity.
Saying that unarmed as if that means that an individual, particularly one as tall and heavy as Brown, can not possibly be dangerous at any rate is incorrect.



I don't know precisely what happened, and I honestly don't care too much since I don't even live in the USA, but I am inclined to doubt that it is a black and white situation.

Here are some sources that can speak for themselves.
https://board.freedomainradio.com/to...erguson-riots/

All this talk about police brutality is bullshit. The police have ROE (Rules Of Engagement), and get yearly psychiatric evaluations. (My dads a cop so I would know). The rioters must have done something for the ROE to be compromised. End of story.

Brown robbed the place and the cop heard his description soon after. That's what the cop's proxy is saying. So both the cop and Brown knew what was up when they locked eyes. The cop's saying Brown charged him and tussled for his gun with him. Brown gets up and runs away. Protocol says the cop needs to stop Brown, so he shouts 'Freeze'. Brown turns and charges him again and the cop opens fire. The cop's proxy said he thought Brown must have been high on something, 'cus he just kept coming.

This narrative is supported by the first autopsy and the requested second autopsy. They both found that Brown was facing the cop when he was shot (so he wasn't running away, like some claimed). Now though, Brown's family is calling for a THIRD autopsy - which is unprecedented.


What you've got here is a group of people who decided from the get-go that they knew what the correct and real storyline was. Now, that they're starting to be disproven, they're at a point where they need to either accept what the real facts of the case are OR just continue to use it as an excuse for looting.

One thing that confuses me is the fact that whenever an African American (teen) is shot the media immediately jumps to the conclusion that it was an act of racism and makes cops look worse and worse. Anyone remember Trayvon Martin? The media didn't tell the full story and completely ruined the life of George Zimmerman because of it but that's off topic.

Every time something like this happens, it's the same shit all over again.

EVERY STORY HAS TWO SIDES

The only source of information we have is the media, which is already biased in itself. Often, they outsource information from other media, resulting in a never-ending circle of ignorance. We weren't there, we don't know exactly what happened. Even video footage can be misleading. I'm sure that our opinions would change drastically if we would be able to feel how the policemen experienced this case, and equally drastically if we would be able to see how Brown experienced the case.

that little addition to the story was added later: http://www.thewire.com/national/2014...-brown/376130/

You have an unarmed guy dead 35 feet away from the cruiser. Shot, after fleeing. Police's story is that Brown suddenly turned and charged at him. Which begs the really obvious question: why did an unarmed Brown choose to charge at an armed police officer who had fired his gun once already? You can't say it's because of drugs, marijuana doesn't work like that. What's the explanation? There is no reason in the world for him to sprint at a police officer pointing a gun his way.

That story doesn't fly.

Maybe because he was a violent person in a desperate situation?


You've seen that the rest of the community is violent and aggressive, so it's not hard to imagine.



It seems pretty obvious from where he was shot that he was not surrendering when shot.

Yeah that's some neat armchair forensics but given the actual medical examiners and experts calling the results inconclusive maybe just shhhh

p.s. lol trying to rationalize charging towards a gun barrel with "he's a violent person" pretty sketchy stuff, man

Not sure if you are just joking around, but nothing you just said disagrees with what I said, and nothing in that report about the autopsy disagrees either.

The assumption by pro-Brown criminals is that Brown was surrendering at the time, which there is no evidence to support.

About as sketchy as saying "he definitely didn't do it because I wouldn't do it", right?

You said there is no reason in the world, and I gave you one. That means you should re-evaluate your position right? I mean, that's the logical thing to do.