I'll now try and answer your substantive argument. What if I was to qualify Moose's 'spark' argument by offering this? It wasn't this particular incident that provided the 'spark'. But it's another fatal shooting of a black civilian by a white police officer and the underlying issues have never been addressed. Which incident is picked on as a 'cause celebre' is almost random and probably mostly driven by relative media coverage. Those that make out this particular incident is a 'spark' (if they exist) are probably not too bothered about enquiring into the specifics of the case. It's the unremitting sequence of similar fatal shootings that's the real 'spark' though. Could you go along with that? And remember, I'm not arguing at all that it justifies rioting. But it does justify anger. As to your scenario of events. Yes that sounds reasonable and probably the one the Grand Jury thought most plausible. There was all sorts of conflicting evidence including from those who made out they were eyewitnesses but in fact weren't and made out heresay evidence was real evidence or completely fabricated evidence to back their cause. And there were those who changed their evidence along the way. The fact that the perp finally fell so close to the cartridge cases indicates his proximity to the police officer who might have thus felt particularly threatened. The fact he was bent over and killed by a shot to the top of the head suggests he may have been going down anyway and had ceased to be a threat. It also explains the accuracy of the final shot. Was it the last round in the gun? Magazine sizes vary. Was the question of whether restraint could have been shown even asked? What is beyond doubt is that you have a guy who's initial crime was nicking a few cigars ending up being fatally wounded. He'd thrown his considerable weight about and been generally stroppy in the store too. Then he'd assaulted the police officer in his car (a second charge) and tried to nick his gun. As you've said, it's a 'dangerous neighbourhood' or words to that effect. The police officer had done the correct thing and called for back up. So my question is - why the hell does he get out of his car? Why is the need to apprehend this guy immediately so compelling? - he's stolen a few cigars. Back up is on its way. Why go after him on foot alone and put youself in danger in this instance when your colleagues are zooming towards you? Is that what you'd have done here given the nature of the initial crime? Of course the elephant in the room is that this police officer's armed and you wouldn't have been. So that gives him a sense of bravado. In the final analysis he can always fire a fatal shot. And that's what he did.
I'll stick with my view that Moose has you fooled, in the same way as you had us fooled in your early posts. That isn't being patronising that is me being honest. Personally, on serious subjects, I prefer honesty and straight talking as it just saves a lot of the stupid posts that you have mentioned. But as for the rest of it, I think that this subject is extremely important and I have very strong opinions on where I think the responsibility lies. I don't care whether it is Moose, you or anyone else, I find criminal apologist views, extremely distasteful and dangerous, wherever they come from. The subject matter I am arguing about is exactly what the thread was meant to be about and I took a bit of time in various earlier posts, and in #103, to explain in some detail why I feel so strongly, even talking about some of my experiences. If people find that boring, then they can ignore my posts, or read about something they consider more important. Compare with my efforts to explain myself with those of Moose, who just seems to spout in general political dogma without actually dealing with the specifics. Yet you feel that I am just having a "childish spat". I have not been so active on these forums lately and if your accusations are right, most would prefer it that way. Certainly, your comments reduce my desire to spend time in detailed discussions with you! So please don't answering my posts if you expect a reply, you may be wasting your time. I have a similar attitude to PhilippineHorn, I find it best to just ignore him. I only notice him now as he "dislikes" most posts that have a go at me.;D .
Your attitude is very unfortunate. I've never accused you of having a 'childish spat' with me. You don't because when I respond to your considered posts I always reply in a considered way too. And I find it very enjoyable and informative which means I'll be disappointed if you decide to discontinue the dialogue. Sometimes there's a misunderstanding which is inevitable given this format. Sometimes I'll go off on one a bit and certainly get it wrong on occasion but try to big enough to admit it if I do. My criticism referred to the way there's always this undercurrent of testosterone fuelled silliness going on in the background and it's directed at least as much at your opponents as it is at you. The protagonists have decided in advance that they're not going to listen to anything their opponents are saying. They're just gonna respond with inane sound bites no matter what. And maybe the reason I've directed that criticism at you specifically on this occasion is that I thought that, seeing as you offer so much considered opinion, you were more likely to have been capable of taking onboard what I was saying than your opponents. Faint hope. I like honesty and straight talking too. That's what you get from me. When you post something considered, and informed by personal experience, I recognise it, find it informative and interesting and respond accordingly. What I find frankly offensive is your continuing assertion that I've somehow allowed myself to be 'fooled' by Moose and, even worse, that I somehow had an agenda to 'fool' others when I first appeared on here. The latter accusation is, quite frankly, bizarre. Firstly, do you really think that a 61 y.o. bloke who's visited 68 countries on the face of this planet at the last count, is in some way more open to being 'fooled' than you are? Secondly, do you really think that I've come on here with some agenda to 'fool' people? I was right up front from the off. I said hi, I'm a WFC supporter who lives in Scotland. I'm a left of centre Guardian reader but am certainly not a knee jerk leftie. What exactly might I have done in the interim to suggest that initial introduction was in some way disingenuous and an attempt to 'fool' people? I take it that what you're referring to is when, as you see it, I somehow inadvertently 'outed' myself by relating that I'd once been an active trade unionist and believe in their importance in representing and benefitting the working man? Presumably you think what I should have said right at the beginning was "Hi, I'm a WFC fan living in Scotland. I was once an active trade unionist so please feel free to use that piece of information to colour and judge whatever I might say from here on in as the prejudiced views of a rampant Trotskyist". Hardly fits with the fact that the only thread I've kicked off on here so far was in reaction to something I'd read in my newspaper of choice that I didn't like. It argued for people to take 'personal responsibility' exactly in the same way as you've been arguing on this thread. In fact that was its title! However, you'd no doubt think that's part of my master plan to infiltrate the WFC forum incognito and bend it to my radical leftist agenda. Such a noble cause. Get a grip! It is of course entirely open to you to choose whether to respond to this post and others or not. But if you want to paint me as a man you can't deal with simply because my politics are a bit different from yours on most issues then I'd suggest you really do have a bit of a problem.
Kelso. Right, I'll respond as I didn't want to offend you. I missed your first post but was fooled, in my view, by the general tone of your earliest posts which seeme to me to come from someone more centre right than you actually are. Sorry you have been so offended, but really, it isn't as bad as you seem to think over here on the right of centre. And regarding you being upset at me saying that you have been fooled by Moose (my, you are sensitive) it was merely my assumption that you had less experience of him than I have. If you want to continue, I suggest a PM as you know, I have a habit of boring everybody as it is!
Unfortunately this phone is telling me I can't kick off a PM thread because I don't have the necessary 'permissions'. I know I've responded to a couple of yours in the past but then it's not been clear to me if those responses have gone and they're not saved as far as I can see. So I will, on this occasion, respond in the full glare of public scrutiny. Not that I suspect anyone else is remotely interested! I accused you earlier of not recognising an olive branch when it was offered. It is therefore incumbent on me to recognise the one you're offering me. I do, I thank you for it and accept it. Handshake time and back to business as usual as far as I'm concerned. What upset me was that I thought you were accusing me of having an 'agenda' to fool you. If some, but by no means all, of my earlier posts suggested I was a man of the centre right that's probably because on those particular issues I might have been! I refuse to define myself by putting myself in one particular box for every single issue. And I'm sure being a centre right man in general is a perfectly fine place to be too. For me, the fact that we both use the word centre is informative and goes a long way to explaining why we can mostly debate something sensibly without losing the plot. And to be entirely honest, it is evident to me that the quality of debate on this part of the forum is better conducted in general by those on the right than the left. That saddens me. I accept that you've had a lot more dealings with Moose than I have and way before I joined this forum. I'm not overly sensitive about anything but will continue to respond to Moose's posts and all others at face value until I have personal reason to suspect some underlying agenda which I've yet to recognise. I'll talk to him and others. I don't recognise the necessity to 'deal' with anybody. I don't find your posts boring. Exactly the opposite in fact. Lots of them are certainly long (as are mine!) and you have to be in the right mood to read a long post. I think we both generally realise that compex issues require complex debate. And we both bring personal experience to the table. If you wish to continue the debate on the specifics of this thread then three things: 1. The word 'values'. Where I'd draw a distinction in 'values' is between those who are rioters and/or justify the rioting as opposed to those who aren't rioters and don't justify it. Everyone on here has made it perfectly clear they're in camp two. So we have the same values. The debate has centred around cause and effect/making excuses and whether a fatality could have been avoided. That's something different from commonly held 'values'. 2. I suggested in my #107 that it was unwise for the policeman to have got out of his vehicle until the back up arrived. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it was incumbent on him to keep the perp in view from a distance (as it would have been here? - your professional input would be welcome). It was only when the perp turned around that it all went wrong. 3. The sanctity of human life. Police officers put themselves in danger on behalf of the public all the time. It's a noble calling. The public should be, and generally are, very grateful. However, I'd hope that the police are very well trained, both here and in the US, to deal with confrontational situations. The police officer here was in charge of a lethal weapon. He has a duty of care to the public and that includes the perp who hadn't committed a capital offence after all. And that's where the process is found wanting in America I think. What should be at the forefront of all their minds should be - how could an arrest have been made here whilst avoiding a fatality? I suspect that question doesn't feature highly enough.
At least be honest about it. You ignore me because I showed you up to be a liar. You ignore me because I think you are an arrogant, obnoxious, hypocritical, cantankerous and all round insufferable individual. You ignore me because I generally make you look foolish every time you try to launch some new small-minded attack on me (as a quick look here will show http://www.wfcforums.com/member.php?5515-PhilippineOrn )
I honestly don't think I do, but hey, it's all opinions. I certainly didn't start this with ZZ on this issue. He is repeatedly accusing me of something with no substance whatsoever and I don't believe that you think to understand means to condone. Because this is the charge.
Moose, Kelso, I'm not trying to "start anything", I am just responding to Moose's posts because I fundamentally disagree with them and I've explained why. That is what you do on a forum, in my view.
The Ferguson situation is the end result of a bat guano crazy gun culture. The civilian population is well armed, so the police have to treat every suspect as if they are carrying a firearm, especially those who are forcing an aggressive confrontation with the police. I think it's hard for those who have never lived outside of the UK to understand the impact of walking through the street knowing that normal everyday civilians are walking past you whilst carrying a firearm. The sad reality for the Police in the US is that the time they don't treat the suspect as being armed is the time they probably won't make it home to their family. This is compounded by sheer statistics. Young people are more likely to commit murder than old people, men are more likely to commit murder than women, and black people murder at a higher rate than white people. This means that young black males tick a lot of boxes that naturally make US law enforcement very nervous indeed, particular in certain areas where community hostility to the police or non-black people is high. If you've never travelled through a heavily black area in the US you probably won't understand how they feel, but I've had people aggressively chase me down the road (both male and female) when driving because I went into the wrong place as a white person. It's extremely intimidating. Does any of this mean that shooting unarmed people is a good thing? Of course not, but you have to understand the lay of US society to be able to penetrate through the heavily biased media coverage. Objectivity in the US media is virtually nil; the situation is not helped by the likes of Al Sharpton (who makes a fortune exploiting this sort of thing for his own financial gain). This particular incident has been blown out of all proportion; the reality is that a 6 foot 4 inch 300 pound man attacked a rookie police officer, attempted to steal his gun, and ended up getting shot for his efforts. It's not like the dead man simply ran from the scene of a crime and got shoot while fleeing for his life; he aggressively confronted an armed law enforcement officer who had to respond as if the target was armed. In fact, the officer's testimony specifically stated he saw Brown reach under his shirt and into his belt, as if to draw a firearm. I think that should strike most people as a reasonable assumption when you're being assaulted by a criminal suspect. The sad reality here is that the officer is as much of a victim as Brown. If the US gun culture wasn't so out of control situations like this wouldn't have such low flashpoints. In this particular case I don't think race really came into it; the officer felt compelled to defend himself and did so. If US society wasn't swimming in guns then perhaps he wouldn't have felt the need to defend himself with deadly force.
Excellent post. Of course it's easy for those far away to extrapolate some UK type scenario onto a US one. I tried not to do that. But my questions 2 and 3 #111 still stand. Why get out of the car before the colleagues you've requested to assist you have arrived? If you've loosed off eleven shots at a guy, and he hasn't replied in kind, wouldn't you be pretty convinced he wasn't packing a firearm himself despite your inexperience as a rookie? Is there any real thought given to try and change all this so people don't have to die? Or is the Charlton Heston view all pervading? P.S. Disliked again in error. Please just ignore it.
No worries about the dislike thing... I don't take it personally even when it is deliberate. As for your questions, I can only refer you to the officer's own testimony. As with all witness statements I am sure his recollection of events is flawed (that's human nature, after all), but I think it paints a reasonable picture of how events unfolded from his perspective. Whether or not they reflect reality is another thing. My interpretation of Wilson's account is that they struggled over the gun and shots were fired (but not aimed due to the struggle). Brown ran, Wilson pursued and ordered Brown to get on the ground (lets bear in mind that at this point, he had assaulted a police office and attempted to wrest his gun away from him). Brown ignores the orders so Wilson fired further shots (possibly warning shots? Unclear on that part). Brown stopped, turned and charged Wilson. Brown reached into his waistband as if reaching for a gun. Wilson fired, Brown kept coming at him and refused commands to get on the floor. At 8 feet away, Wilson fired the lethal shot. If you believe Wilson's testimony then he didn't fire a lethal shot until Brown had aggressively charged to within 8 feet of him. Whether or not Wilson intended to kill on the other shots is unclear. I can only presume at least some were warning shots because I find it unlikely that a police officer in the US is so bad of a shot that he can't hit a target until it is 8 feet away. Given the lack of security footage it's obviously impossible to know how accurate this testimony is, but my understanding is that it is backed up by the forensic reports. It's worth noting that a number of the witness reports conflicted not only with Wilson's account, but also with each other. It's hard to judge how reliable the witnesses were when you consider that aspect. I would personally like to see police officers carrying shoulder cams precisely because of this sort of situation. A shoulder cam recording would make it readily apparent as to whether or not lethal force was justified. I don't believe for a moment that police officers are all law abiding, upstanding individuals, but I believe most are. Camera footage would protect the good officers while identifying the corrupt ones, something I think everyone would be in favour of. Well, except for the corrupt officers, of course.
A law enforcement officer cannot just sit hiding in a car, everytime, leaving the suspect to dump evidence, or allow him to run away, etc, that is not how they are trained. It is perfectly usual and expected for police to stop suspects of crime, it happens thousands of times a day without such tragic consequences. For a start, it may take a long time for back up to arrive, he could be waiting a long time. And remember, in this case, he was actually physically attacked before he got out the car on this occasion. Equally, they cannot just follow like a lapdog, if the suspect runs away, so he can also dispose of evidence, etc. In the UK, a police officer is taught only to shoot to kill, not to wound, unless things have changed since I was involved. That is why shots are fired in bursts not single shots and if there is still a threat, not just from guns, but from attack with any weapon, or any force, then shoot again. There is plenty of things a young man can do to reduce the chances of being killed. Firstly, he can avoid robbing shops and secondly, he can submit to being lawfully apprehended by the police without resorting to violence. Simple. It really is that simple. ...and, I am not wanting to go over all this again, but if people can stop searching for excuse, triggers, reasons, causes, etc and falsely representing what the this officer did as an "execution" which obviously inflames the situation, in the face of plain, straight forward law-breaking, then that would also help.
I'm fine with the getting out of the car bit. I asked you for your take on that some time ago now and way before Arakel weighed in with his considered viewpoint. But if you really think a guy who was unarmed, obviously pissed off about something and had committed a minor crime deserves to die, without any further questions being asked and considered, then your viewpoint is quite simply pathetic. P.S. I hit the dislike button again. This time it was entirely intentional.
I disagree with the first part; not robbing the store shouldn't reduce your chances of being killed because mere theft shouldn't justify a police officer shooting you. Brown may have been a thief but that doesn't mean it is OK to just shoot him. The second part is the relevant bit: a sensible person should never attack law enforcement and force them to defend themselves. Everyone knows US officers are armed, so it doesn't require Einstein's level of intellect to realise that putting them in a position where they are afraid for their physical well being is not a good idea. If you believe Wilson's account of events then Brown's actions would have got anyone shot; the fact he was black had nothing to do with it. If Brown had complied with Wilson's commands, or failing that had at a bare minimum not attacked him repeatedly, he'd still be alive. We can levy criticism at the US gun culture which has raised the stakes in such confrontations, but I can't see that we can blame the officer given that he has to deal with the reality of the society he lives in.
Of course he didn't "deserve" to die, why did you say I thought that? It was tragic. But his actions, in robbing a shop, and then attacking an armed police officer, certainly increased his chances of being killed over someone that went into the shop and bought his cigars lawfully, don't you think?
For those who are interested, there was recent interview with the officer on ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-...ilson-discusses-moment-shot/story?id=27186946 Not sure if you can see this in the UK or not, but it's a good watch if you're trying to understand the officer's thought process. When watching, you might want to bear in mind that US driver seats are on the left side of the car if you're trying to envision what was going on.
Yes, I agree that robbing a shop doesn't JUSTIFY being shot. But I didn't say it did, and certainly don't mean that. What I meant was that it runs the risk of being hurt, possibly from the shop owner, but then from a police officer. I am guessing, but I would suggest that the fact that he robbed the shop meant that he attacked the officer because he did not want to be caught as the robber. Maybe he wouldn't have been so violent if he was just innocently walking home.
Yes, that's probably correct. Based on the interview with Wilson, Brown forced/escalated the entire encounter and that was likely due to the fact he thought he was about to be arrested.
Excellent again. Your secenario is entirely believable and particularly as it's a precis of first hand evidence. As long as the big question of 'how could a fatality be avoided in future' is being asked then I have no problem with a conclusion that, on this occasion, maybe it couldn't have been. But it's not all about protecting police officers. And as a bloke who's job requires a high degree of observance, I always find it strange that others are so confused about what they've actually observed. But you're right. They are!
Yes, good point. Officer Wilson has now resigned. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/29/us/ferguson-protests/
. Not good. He should surely get some sort of severance pay in the circumstances. Six years in the force doesn't exactly sound like a rookie though. I thought the interview with the officer was very believable. And he'd never fired his gun before.
Yeah, I picked up on the 6 years myself. I read early on that he was inexperienced so I just assumed he was a fresh recruit. My mistake, apologies. Still, if anything the fact he had 6 years experience only helps his case. As you said, 6 years and he has never fired his gun before. He's clearly not a hothead. Sadly I think the poor guy is going to end up getting murdered.
I suspect he might get secreted away somewhere on something akin to a witness protection programme. Maybe even some cosmetic surgery to change his appearance. And probably some sort of 'severance pay' on the q.t. If he just gets hung out to dry that's particularly irresponsible on the part of the authorities.
I have read some of them, including that from the fella who helped rob the shop. There are more than 60 witness statements so I have read what appears to be impartial summations of the case on both sides of the argument and the jury after hearing it all agrees. Instead of going round the houses, why don't you just provide a link to the vital evidence/statement that this was a "random execution" as you have suggested, and not as the Jury found.
Could be very dangerous if that happen and potentially put many more lives at risk. You don't want the Police backing out of certain decisions if they know there's no backing from the hierarchy.
It's very clear in all the witnessing that there was a struggle at the car window. Brown, (wounded I believe?), then retreats and is shot more than once. He turns, falling down, having been shot multiple times and is then shot again. The final force can only be excused if Brown still presents a threat having been shot multiple times already. The Police officer has the option to retreat a few paces and wait a moment at this point. The wiki page is good and although not all witnesses agree this gives an interesting summary. http://mashable.com/2014/11/26/ferguson-shooting-eyewitness-testimonies/ In Britain the officer would have dealt with the situation without a gun and even if the first shot had occured certainly not by shooting a fleeing suspect. This is why this is an issue of policy. The officer in question does not need to be racist, he just needs to follow his aggressive training. I think you should also ask yourself what you are saying about the tens of thousands of protesters if you think they are all as biased as me and all just using this as an excuse for trouble. If you don't believe there is something wrong with the policing you are left with racial explanation only for the disproportionate number of black deaths.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-black-people-those-are-scumbags-9898035.html Courtesy of The Indie.
In Britain the officer would likely have been hospitalised and possibly even killed, given the same circumstances. Brown attacked a police officer who he knew full well was armed with a gun. If that doesn't give you a clue as to his state of mind then I don't know what will. Your point on witness statements only really holds water if you dismiss the lab reports and ignore the officer's testimony, which oddly enough aligns with the lab reports. Unless you believe the lab reports are corrupt I don't understand how anyone could believe the officer did anything wrong at this point. The black community in the US is extremely anti-police. An officer could be gunned down unprovoked by 10 gang-bangers and you'd still find witnesses willing to state that the officer deserved it. It amazes me that people take witness statements as gospel when it has been proven time and again that witnesses are incredibly unreliable at best, and disgustingly biased at worst. It's also worth noting that the witness statements all contradict each other. The number of protestors is irrelevant. Sharpton, Jackson and friends have made a lucrative career out of stirring up racial tension and they'll always attact a crowd. They're essentially celebrity demagogues. I don't expect you to understand that because you don't live here and likely see very little of them, but they both have a track record for creating racial mountains out of flat earth, never mind molehills. Every time something happens to a black person, they immediately make it about racism. Yes, there is racism in the States (and far more prevalent than in the UK, too), but it certainly isn't responsible for everything bad that happens to the US black population. The constant cries of racism every time a black American gets killed simply undermines the cases where there really is a cause for concern, such as the Trayvon Martin shooting. That doesn't mean Sharpton and Jackson are always wrong (they're not), but they're not always right either and tellingly their stance is always the same regardless of the facts of the situation. As I've already said, if there is any criticism to level in this particular situation it's at the ridiculous gun culture that requires the police to assume the public is heavily armed and Brown's unnecessarily aggressive behaviour. Based on what the autopsy has told us and coupled with the officer's own testimony, I fail to see what else the officer could have done in these particular circumstances.
