New Michael Brown Shooting Witness Comes Forward

No idea, why don't you ask them.

 

This is exactly why it doesn't make sense. An officer isn't allowed to use excessive force unless his life is in danger or the well being of others is threatened. So unless that officer was attacked by the kid and felt his life was being threatened again, he had no right to shoot the guy. While we have heard no hard facts, it has been leaked out the kid punched the cop and may have tried to get his gun as a shot was heard next to, or inside the vehicle the cop was in. A recording also has a person saying the kid was going back in the officer's direction. How much is true, we don't know yet. But many on the Left want to dismiss this and only bring out that the cop just shot the kid for nothing more than refusing to get out of the street. We don't know if that is true or not do we? We can't condemn all cops as being racist.

 

After talking to a couple of my police friends, it’s not standard OP to run and shoot. I question the validity of this ‘source’.

 

If the forensics still holds that Brown was shot from the back and had no weapon, even if the two had a little tussle previously, tells me the officer was enraged. At that point there was no excuse for him firing his weapon at Brown. His anger got the best of him. Not to mention, the officer was not aware of any robbery at that time. It doesn't matter whether he hasn't shown racism in the past or not. If those are the facts I outlined, the officer was showing his own anger. And I suspect, that was the likely scenario and may have had nothing to do with race. Just anger!

 

I saw nothing that said the kid was shot from the back and I agree the cop could have been enraged if the kid hit him and then ran away. He had no legal right to shoot him. But there is conflicting stories that the kid did come back towards the officer and if that's true, after being beat up once, he wasn't about to let the kid do it again. What gets me is the Left isn't even trying to look at both sides of it. You already have him guilty of shooting the kid for no other reason than he wouldn't get out of the street. At least I'm willing to say either way is possible. Not those on the Left. It could only be the way they say and they don't want to hear anything else.

 

The thug supporters are going to have to deal with it when the officer walks from this.

 

I don't know if he will walk or not. His temper might have got the best of him and I said that in the first post I put up after hearing it. BUT, I think people should at least be able to look at both sides of what we have heard so far and say maybe it's not as cut and dried as we think.

 

Well my prediction has two things working for it.

1. THe cop likely acted correct.

2. Even if he didn't, cops seem to walk substantially more than a civilian facing the same thing.

 

If it comes out that he was not in the wrong, and the officer himself shot an innocent man, then of course something should be done about this officer. There needs to be hardcore punishment for this man IF he was in the wrong.

As for the whole department? I think those specifically who assisted this man to try and portray him as the victim should be punished, but the remainder of the department - again remember, people caught stores on fire, looted, attacked the police, not all of these men should be punished for what happened in that city.

The things that occured AFTER the shooting were definitely at fault on both accounts - the citizens and police. However, I don't think the whole force should be penalized for something one stupid man (and several ignorant officers accompanying him) did.

 

I just want people to take in everything they have heard so far and give both consideration. But it seems that many on the Left want to label you a racist if you say anything different than what they believe. That word racist has been thrown around so much, it has long lost it's meaning.

 

sort of like Reid saying he heard from somewhere/someone/at some time that Romney didn't pay his taxes, right?
If the spin fits, that's all that matters, the left takes it to the mat.

 

the issue is not about racism or if the cop is a racist or not. But there seems to be a recurring theme here by the witnesses who have come forward so far and that is that MB had his hands up while Officer Wilson shot MB. If that is true, then that is not going to go well for the officer as a jsutified shooting and it motts the question of whether or not MB and the officer had a struggle or not.

 

The Post story made it abundantly clear that Wilson was one of the officers fired over the racial polices of his former employer. Since he evidently could not get his old job back under the Consent Decree, he went somewhere else.

Beyond that, I'll wait for the facts to come in.

 

I have read much the same but it isn't about shooting a kid for just being in the middle of the street and doesn't even relate to the probable case of Brown and Wilson being involved in a physical altercation when Wilson was in his patrol car.

Brown was shot and killed after any physical altercation occurred and was apparently over 30 ft away at the time. Wilson was no longer in the patrol car and there wasn't an physical altercation occurring when he started shooting at Brown. There are at least two witnesses now that claim that Brown was not representing a imminate threat of death (or even harm) to Wilson when he was shot and killed. Brown didn't even represent a threat based upon the petty theft robbery as he just shoved a clerk out of the way and didn't even attempt to physically harm the clerk.

There doesn't appear to be any justification for Wilson using deadly force against Brown when he actually shot and killed him. Now if Brown would have been killed while he and Wilson were struggling with Wilson in the patrol car that would have been a different matter but to get out of the car and then gun down a teenage simply trying to run away, and perhaps trying to surrender after the first shot was fired at him as he ran, is not justifiable homicide. It simply doesn't meet the criteria for the use of deadly force by law enforcement.

Where I see the real problem, and that is the primary motivation of the protests, is that generally speaking our prosecutors and criminal justice system white-washes the cases when a black person is the victim of excessive force by law enforcement. There is a huge bias against holding law enforcement officers responsible for their actions that violate the law when it comes to blacks in society. Unjustified stops of blacks in vehicles. illegal searches without search warrants and probable cause, and even the beating and killing of blacks is generally accepted as "police just doing their job" by many whites in society. Whites like to excuse the actions of law enforcement officers when it comes to blacks that have their rights violated.

We are far less likely to accept that if it happens to a white person and statistically it's far less likely to happen to a white person because law enforcement doesn't have anti-white racial prejudice but it does have documented anti-black racial prejudice.

 

Not surprising because law enforcement typically covers up individual cases of anti-black racial prejudice by law enforcement officers. They aways manage to rationalize away the disparities in law enforcement when it comes to "whites" and "blacks" in individual cases but statistically we know that the anti-black racial prejudice is extensive in law enforcement. Every officer's individual actions are always "the exception" to the generaly statistical evidence of anti-black racial prejudice but they can't all be exceptions or the statistics wouldn't exist.

 

At this point, and particularly on this board, it doesn't matter. Wilson could confess he wantonly murdered the giant because he'd hated big blacks since he was bullied by one as a child and the racists would say Brown deserved it for resembling a cop's childhood nemesis. OTOH Brown could resurrect and confess he'd been attacking Wilson with a gun and his defenders would say Wilson should have shot it from his hand. Everyone has made up their mind already and it has nothing to do with evidence in most cases.

 

The effects of watching too many TV cop and lawyer shows is clearly unhinging the cop haters here who are absolutely desperate to railroad somebody white, no matter how ridiculous and baseless their efforts.

 

Well, people are kinda screaming for the police report ya know

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know/ This is the account of the guy that was with Brown during the shooting. I find his story very credible because there wasn't sufficient time to make things up. And, what does he gain by lying? He just happened to be with Brown.

This has nothing to do with being left or right, but everything to do with your own paranoia. Reasonable people see this for what it is shaping up to be. That a police officer was enraged. The excessive numbers of bullets fired at an unarmed teen running away suggests that some people just want to inject politics, instead of understanding the truth. You can piece this thing together yourself without being there, and draw a conclusion of excessive force. It's not that difficult. But, if you choose to use politics, that's on you. It just shows weakness in your own defense of this case when you throw politics into the mix.

 

A thousand times…….yup

 

After watching this video, I say anything is possible..... http://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE