jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (28 posts)

Police Brutality. A murder of an unarmed young black man.

  1. realtalk247 profile image71
    realtalk247posted 3 years ago

    FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) reported — An unarmed18-year-old black man was shot and killed by a suburban St. Louis police officer was unarmed. Several protesters were angry that Brown's body remained on the street for hours after the killing.  Brown was a 2014 Normandy High School graduate who was to begin classes at Vatterott College on Monday.

    1. Sed-me profile image82
      Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So awful. Why did they not attend to his body? Was it b/c the scene had to be investigated?
      What reason did the cop give for shooting?

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A quick search reveals that there are conflicting stories about what happened. So it is way too early to speculate.

        But, I think the OP took a lazy cheap shot by just posting a damning blurb without even bothering to offer an opinion. In which case the context of the blurb has to be taken as their opinion - which is at this point, completely unvalidated.

        Geez Louise... The forums are for discussions, and this could be a good one - but at least have the sense to do a little fact checking, and  courage to speak. Unless a blurb is all you can manage.

        Kinda like posting your "opinion" as a question, or just an inflammatory political cartoon with no comment. Why bother if that is all you have to say?

        Just sayin'

        GA

        1. Sed-me profile image82
          Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No doubt there wasn't enough info to get the full story, but I think they made their opinion clear when they stated in the title "Police brutality."

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What? You in league with Quill now? You gonna start with this Mr. Anderson stuff too?

            I knew their opinion. I was just being polite. What I was really saying was, "Hey! You gotta point to make? Do you always form an opinion on first reactions? Ain't ya got the guts to speak up?

            But like I said, I was trying to be polite.

            GA

            1. Sed-me profile image82
              Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, no. I understood your point. As I said the post did not contain a great deal of information. Sad that such a young life was lost none the less.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi, Mr. Anderson. I know how much you like to be called Mr. Anderson. tongue

          I do believe, GA, you missed the OP’s opinion. It is clearly stated in the first two words of the thread title. Clearly, the OP is succinct. We might all learn from him. big_smile
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. Sed-me profile image82
            Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I wonder if you just skip over my posts. lol
            I wouldn't blame you.

            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Call on me! (hand waving frantically in the air) Me! Me! Me! I can answer that! (forget Quill) We want Beth37, (or 7 or whatever the hell number it was), (OK make it Beth 38 if you must), back. This Sed-me just isn't the same!

              Come on Beth, ditch the Sed-Me. Bans be damned. If you can't get 37 back pick another number - but Beth it must be!

              GA

              1. Sed-me profile image82
                Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You can call me whatever you like. wink

                1. GA Anderson profile image83
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And I do. But I still don't like Sed-me! I want Beth! It was the "I worked hard for these breasts that cemented that percepption. How can I have the same thoughts about Sed-me" Sounds kinda pedapholic.(sp?)

                  GA

                  1. Sed-me profile image82
                    Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wait a minute... either you just misspelled a word....... oh.... haha... You're thinking of Beth100... no wonder I've gained your attention. No... I only rated myself a 37. lol

            2. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It certainly was not intentional.

              Actually, you slipped your post in while I was off composing my jab at Mr. Anderson. Very sorry. I will try harder to write faster next time! big_smile
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. Sed-me profile image82
                Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You gotta have a quick left hook around here.

          2. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Nah, I did not miss it. I was just chiding the OP for being lazy, (or chicken),  just as I  lampoon folks that post a link without offering a little set-up or context.

            I am very much hoping the OP is completely wrong. Any life lost is a regret, but one lost to maliciousness is much more regrettable because it was unnecessary.  (damn! That sounds callous, I hope you get the meaning)

            OK,  so I got my foot stuck in the "Mr. Anderson" bucket - now what do I do? I really do like the GA moniker -  Mr. Anderson makes me sound stuffy. I don't mind sounding curmudgeony but I don't want to sound stuffy.

            GA

            1. Sed-me profile image82
              Sed-meposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Haven't you seen the Matrix? Mr. Anderson is kinda bada$$. smile

    2. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How quick the OP is to jump to conclusions. Especially since there are multiple accounts from multiple witnesses. No offense, but I'm more inclined to believe the unbiased accounts from a woman on the street than one of the victim's friends. It is interesting to note that the account of an unrelated bystander actually falls in line with the policeman's account - but let's just ignore that because who doesn't like a good police brutality story right?
      I also notice that while the OP is quick to condemn an unverified action of police - there is no mention nor outrage about the looting and rioting. Interesting to me. I don't care if the victim's friend's account is the accurate one - that gives NO ONE the right for looting and rioting. Just using this tragedy as an excuse to commit crimes. That behavior certainly does nothing to gain any sympathy for their cause either. But, we'll ignore that too - because in the liberal's PC world we can't say any person belonging to a minority did anything wrong without being labeled a racist.
      Sorry but I'm on the wagon from the left's PC world. I call it like I see it. Act like a hoodlum - get treated like a hoodlum - get media coverage that shows you acting like a hoodlum - the world perceives you as a hoodlum. It isn't racism - it is a self-created portrait.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Repeatedly shooting unarmed people: here are conflicting reports who can say don't be so quick to judge.
        Rioting as a result of shooting unarmed people: Well that's just messed up and inexcusable.

        It would be funny if it wasn't sickening. Far more concerned about property damage than human life.

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry if the truth is more than you can handle.

          There ARE conflicting reports are there not? Do you deny there are conflicting reports?

          I'm sorry but unarmed doesn't mean innocent. Furthermore reports are there was a struggle for the officer's gun (one) another that he attacked the officer in his patrol car, then ran (another) then his friend's account that you know, they were just walking along minding their own business.

          It isn't just property damage, it is gunfire every night in the streets - and not from policemen. I guess if one of those rioting, shooting off weapons and/or looting gets shot by police - they'll be yet another cry of police brutality. But if an errant bullet hits an innocent bystander - it will be police don't do enough.

          What I'd like is for people like you who cry racism at the drop of a hat to just as vehemently decry the looting and rioting. But you won't. As you've just proven.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I can't decry as strongly the rioting because it's the predictable and understandable response to the continued murders of unarmed black men by policemen when repeat experience has demonstrated the futility of civil methods, american police tactics have become a running joke around the planet. The shooting of Amadou Diallo for example is a story old around the world (I have heard it discussed as far away as Australia) as a demonstrator of the problems facing American race politics.

            Unarmed man reaches for his wallet and is shot 41 times, no one goes to prison, not even any real punishment so of course the reactions will eventually turn to violence civil methods have been exhausted and black communities know they won't get justice.

            Not to mention property damage isn't on par with murder.

            Whether the kid was innocent doesn't actually matter, even if he was guilty of a crime there is still no excuse for repeatedly shooting unarmed people when you are a trained policemen and have non lethal equipment.

            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Understandable? In what civilized society is rioting an understandable response? What a load of horse hockey!
              The young man's family was attempting to hold a peaceful vigil in his honor. Then the thugs took over, because that is what they are. Thugs. Hoodlums using a tragedy to grab some free goods and shoot off their guns. I see you hold no sympathy for the family's position who actually issued a statement nearly apologizing. This is not what they intended.
              They interviewed a father on the news who has moved his kids' mattresses to the floor because he is petrified every night that some errant bullet will come in and snuff out their lives. You hold no sympathy for him.

              What about the people who own those businesses? Most of them small businesses you'll take note. Neighborhood businesses. What of them? This is how they support their families. You hold no sympathy for them.
              What of all the other scores of families currently caught in the crossfire. You hold no sympathy for them.

              You are not even worth responding to at this point - I cannot believe you would even dare to claim that looting and rioting are an "understandable" response.

              Talk about no respect for humanity.

              1. realtalk247 profile image71
                realtalk247posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Peaceful protest - Yes. Harvard graduates taking pictures with their hands in the air in solidarity of another person that feel victim to police brutality-yes.

                People rioting and civil unrest-looting-does nothing to bring light to injustice.

                1. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree. In fact, the ultimate outcome of riots is the loss of local business. The often decried "food deserts" are consequences of civil unrest and crime.

    3. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The shooting of unarmed suspects is unjustifiable outside of imminent death situations, police men are and should be trained and equipped to deal with unarmed suspects without resorting to lethal force given they receive an assortment of non lethal weaponry and training in restraining unarmed suspects.

      It's inexcusable but you will see plenty of conservatives leap to attempt to excuse it because he was black and he allegedly committed a crime, therefore his life is forfeit. That is their sick idea of justice and how the world should work.

      Also note that apparently these trained and equipped policemen apparently were so terrified of an unarmed 18 year old that they shot him repeatedly "more than just a couple of times" so either this straight out of high school kid was the incredible hulk or police need to shoot unarmed people several times just to defend themselves or this was simple police brutality.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you don't need any facts or details to hold such a firm opinion? Or maybe you have some information the rest of us haven't heard yet? Or maybe you have previously survived close combative - perceived to be life threatening - situations before and know exactly the proper actions to take? Perhaps you have personal experience controlling yourself in an adrenaline rushed fear-for-your-life fight situation?

        Or perhaps the policeman was just a racist and shot the victim because he saw an opportunity?

        You certainly must have the answers to the above questions if you feel so confident condemning the policeman before the rest of the world has heard the details.

        I am hoping for the sake of everyone involved that it turns out to be a sad tragedy resulting from a culmination of honest reactions, but since all I know is the uncertainty of the conflicting news stories - I will hold off forming a firm opinion for a while. That has served me well in the past. Although in some instances a past pattern is a sound reason for holding a particular opinion.

        Hmm...

        GA

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yup several years of military service and most of my life practicing martial arts. I can say with complete certainty that unless it's the incredible hulk you don't need to shoot unarmed people repeatedly to restrain them.

          The wait for more evidence line is a common one and it has some validity but it's also a dangerous line, often used to simply delay reaction until such time as the outrage has blown over.

          Use in moderation

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well then, why should we "wait for more evidence" in a murder trial. Hang 'em at sunrise like the old days. smh What a ridiculous notion. With no video, conflicting reports, of course the investigation is going to take time to unravel the truth.

            "I can say with complete certainty that unless it's the incredible hulk you don't need to shoot unarmed people repeatedly to restrain them."

            So in your world, the police can't shoot criminals. (not speaking specifically to this case because you made a general statement). They are to just let them run away and commit crimes another day. A man rapes a little girl - he's not armed, he just overpowered her. Police find him, he runs - but, they can't shoot him to stop him? Yeah, no. Sorry. Just no.

    4. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is there sufficient information to conclude that it was a case of Police Brutality or self defense or something else. Merely because someone is not armed does not mean they are not dangerous, as the recently released video of Brown's strong arm robbery of a local merchant, on the same night he was shot, attests.

 
working