Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)

- Debating with the enemy (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=75)

- - Ferguson (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=58371)

autopsy said shot at a distance which wouldnt support shot close while wrestling for an officer's gun.

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1077760]And still amazing how 2 people look at facts and events and still see completely different narratives and stories. Last night police had a guy on the ground zip tied and maced his face in front of a reporter. That's not heavy handed?[/QUOTE]
I don't know anything about that story - if it is as you describe, sure it seems heavy handed to mace someone after they're restrained...

That has nothing to do with anything I said in my last post though. Individual actions of cops being heavy handed has nothing to do with the demands of many for the police to scale back their show of force, or the ridiculing those people were doing, and how it directly related to more citizen-on-citizen crime, including shootings.

[quote=Chico23231;1077761]autopsy said shot at a distance which wouldnt support shot close while wrestling for an officer's gun.[/quote]

Nope, but it does go along with the audio heard from supposed witnesses immediately after the shooting that was recently released.

[quote=tshile;1077766]Nope, but it does go along with the audio heard from supposed witnesses immediately after the shooting that was recently released.[/quote]

I agree ,I didn't think there was a dispute with that .My question is about the reports that Brown and someone else had pushed the cop back into the patrol car and were fighting for his(cops) gun when a shot went off ?

[quote=Giantone;1077771]I agree ,I didn't think there was a dispute with that .My question is about the reports that Brown and someone else had pushed the cop back into the patrol car and were fighting for his(cops) gun when a shot went off ?[/quote]Update on Officer Wilson's injuries:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/"]Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News[/URL]

What's more interesting than this info is the fact that as of 3:20pm today CNN is choosing not to put this info on the top of its website, instead focusing on an article an officer from LAPD wrote and the public response to that.....CNN is doing nothing but fanning the flames of racism during this complete tragedy for all involved.

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/"]CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News[/URL]

Yup, I turned on CNN this morning just to see how they're covering it and they're continuing to fan the flames.

This is why jumping to conclusions is dangerous. We're now seeing people that jumped to condemn the cop early pivot in many ways to try to excuse their ignorance, justify the actions of the community, or to try to keep the story alive. It's now about systemic racism from police, it's now about how it took 7 days to release the information (lol - you mean the people trained and responsible for doing a thorough and complete investigation doesn't behave like the media? you don't say...), it's now about why he shot him 6 times (the ignorance on self defense is astounding.)

So the improbable story of a young man in college fighting with a cop has become more and more likely. And the obvious story of a racist white cop that decided to kill a young black man is becoming less and less likely.

Go figure.

All these righteous people that love to opine with no facts will not apologize. They are completely ignorant of their role in tearing this community apart, they refuse to see how their bias has blinded them. None of them are going to apologize. None of them are going to learn *anything* from this situation. They'll be right back where they started the next time a white cop shoots/kills a black person.

It's a shame. This cop's career and life is probably ruined. He'll carry these false accusations for the rest of his life.

What's more worrying is the clear bias from Holder on the situation - his reaction is to say that the 'selective' release of information is 'troubling.' The lead person of the justice department has put on full display, yet again, that the color of people's skin is what matters most to him.

Yet it's white people that are racist and the cause of problems. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

[QUOTE=tshile;1078259]

It's a shame. This cop's career and life is probably ruined. He'll carry these false accusations for the rest of his life.

[/QUOTE]

It's interesting how you are allowed to have your opinion, but anyone who doesn't have your opinion shouldn't have one.

There's always two sides to every story.

To me this all comes back to my main argument with T Martin. At the end of the day a young man who was unarmed was shot to death.

There is still a lot to come out of this before we get to the end of this story. In my mind situations like this are decided in the first few seconds of the interaction. As the adult, with a gun in your possession you accept certain responsibilities. It's up to you to maintain your cool and keep the situation at hand.

And in my opinion I feel like the officer may have been a little aggressive which provoked the 18 y/o. And when the 18 y/o disrespected the officer he felt he needed to show his authority. And from there the situation got out of hand.

But I also reserve the right to change my assumptions once more facts are known. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

[quote=mlmdub130;1078263]It's interesting how you are allowed to have your opinion, but anyone who doesn't have your opinion shouldn't have one.
[/quote]
Not sure where you got that from. I'm not against having opinions - I am against being completely biased and seeing a story the way you want because it fits some worldview/agenda you have, and then pretending that doesn't exist.

If you've watched the media coverage of this there's a clear issue with agenda vs facts.

[quote=mlmdub130;1078263]
There's always two sides to every story.

To me this all comes back to my main argument with T Martin. At the end of the day a young man who was unarmed was shot to death.

There is still a lot to come out of this before we get to the end of this story. In my mind situations like this are decided in the first few seconds of the interaction. As the adult, with a gun in your possession you accept certain responsibilities. It's up to you to maintain your cool and keep the situation at hand.

And in my opinion I feel like the officer may have been a little aggressive which provoked the 18 y/o. And when the 18 y/o disrespected the officer he felt he needed to show his authority. And from there the situation got out of hand.

But I also reserve the right to change my assumptions once more facts are known. And I don't see anything wrong with that.[/quote]

If the story that the officer grabbed Brown by the throat, then by the shirt, from his vehicle and Brown stepped away, then the cop got out of his car ordered him to stop, Brown did and put his hands in the air, and then the cop shot him 6 times turns out to be true - then sure.

I'm just confused as to why that story has any legs at this point. It doesn't explain the injuries to the cop. It doesn't fit any training procedures.

The only thing it does fit is the view that cops are racist and that white cops are looking for a reason to kill black men.

There's nothing wrong with changing opinions as facts come out, that's exactly what a person should do (ideally a person would abstain from forming opinions without the necessary facts, but few do that, myself included.) Following the media on the issue shows that isn't what majority of people are doing. Not even close. Instead they're pivoting the story, ignoring new releases of information, and trying desperately to cling to the original narrative. There are many reasons for that.

If it turns out that Brown did nothing wrong and the cop was trying to assert his authority and shot an unarmed man that, other than robbing a store, did nothing wrong then I'll stand firmly behind the idea that the cop needs to be severely punished.

If it turns out that Brown in fact beat the cop as the new information suggest, that the cop did suffer fractures to his face, that Brown did charge the cop after being ordered to stop - who's going to change their mind to say that the cop was justified and that Brown was a scum bag that got what he deserved?

Who's going to agree that: hey, if the cop didn't act this way we may be talking about a good cop being beaten to death in the street?

Looking at who would answer that question in what way tells me everything I need to know about that person. Some people are interested in the facts, others are interested in pushing an agenda.

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BviGBXHCcAANSyw.jpg[/IMG]

From a different view, in terms of tinfoil hat conspiracies, it is interesting that the protest has taken the form of raising your hands and surrendering. Makes for interesting hack analysis of single photos as the images of mass surrender to police in the US are thrown around on the world wide web.

[quote=tshile;1078264]Not sure where you got that from. I'm not against having opinions - I am against being completely biased and seeing a story the way you want because it fits some worldview/agenda you have, and then pretending that doesn't exist.

If you've watched the media coverage of this there's a clear issue with agenda vs facts.

If the story that the officer grabbed Brown by the throat, then by the shirt, from his vehicle and Brown stepped away, then the cop got out of his car ordered him to stop, Brown did and put his hands in the air, and then the cop shot him 6 times turns out to be true - then sure.

I'm just confused as to why that story has any legs at this point. It doesn't explain the injuries to the cop. It doesn't fit any training procedures.

The only thing it does fit is the view that cops are racist and that white cops are looking for a reason to kill black men.

There's nothing wrong with changing opinions as facts come out, that's exactly what a person should do (ideally a person would abstain from forming opinions without the necessary facts, but few do that, myself included.) Following the media on the issue shows that isn't what majority of people are doing. Not even close. Instead they're pivoting the story, ignoring new releases of information, and trying desperately to cling to the original narrative. There are many reasons for that.

If it turns out that Brown did nothing wrong and the cop was trying to assert his authority and shot an unarmed man that, other than robbing a store, did nothing wrong then I'll stand firmly behind the idea that the cop needs to be severely punished.

If it turns out that Brown in fact beat the cop as the new information suggest, that the cop did suffer fractures to his face, that Brown did charge the cop after being ordered to stop - who's going to change their mind to say that the cop was justified and that Brown was a scum bag that got what he deserved?

Who's going to agree that: hey, if the cop didn't act this way we may be talking about a good cop being beaten to death in the street?

Looking at who would answer that question in what way tells me everything I need to know about that person. Some people are interested in the facts, others are interested in pushing an agenda.[/quote]

Lotta "If"s in your response. you would think it would be hard to base a definitive opinion based on that many "if"s or "maybe"s

Well, those seem to be the two main competing narratives coming out. The other option is withholding judgement, but those people aren't doing anything wrong nor are the the subject of my criticism :)

It's the story the people telling us it's all about racism are spouting. I'm putting if's in front of them because I still believe there's a chance they're right - the chance dwindles with every new piece of information, but we still haven't seen an official report or heard the grand jury's decision, so it's certainly still a possibility.

I'm putting if's in front of the officer's story for the same reasons.

[quote=tshile;1078266][IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BviGBXHCcAANSyw.jpg[/IMG][/quote]What a crew here:
[B][I]Akbar Muhammad[/I][/B] (international rep of Farrakhan) should maybe listen to the own words from the Qur'an posted on Final Call:
[I]“O you who believe, if an unrighteous man brings you news, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you did.” [/I][B]—Holy Qur'an Surah 49:6 [/B]Rather than rush to judgement. This guy won't denounce Boko Haram...nuff said.

[B][I]Malik Zulu Shabazz[/I][/B] - Black Lawyers for Justice....nice to see he's decided to attempt to cover his racist and anti-Semitic past and publicly disassociate with the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party. Google some of his past [I]extremely[/I] racist and anti-Semitic statements.

The New Black Panther Party....when the even the Southern Poverty Law Center and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights consider these guys a hate group, again...that says it all.

did you see the members of the new black panther party starting chants? they went like this:

who do we want?

darren wilson

how do we want him?

dead

sounds like a group of good guys.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/justice-report-ferguson-discrimination/index.html]Justice report finds systematic discrimination against African Americans in Ferguson - CNN.com[/url]