Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmdub130
It's interesting how you are allowed to have your opinion, but anyone who doesn't have your opinion shouldn't have one.
|
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:
Originally Posted by mlmdub130
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.
|
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.