A punk ass thug that "was " much bigger physically than the officer.
Good riddance to the fine upstanding citizen.
Last edited:
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
Fergusun poll
- Thread starter psycho
- Start date
A punk ass thug that "was " much bigger physically than the officer.
Good riddance to the fine upstanding citizen.
Any time its white on black violence...its news worthy......black on white violence is not news worthy....I remember when 3 white kids 12-13 14 yrs old got in the wrong neighborhood and were beaten and raped and killed......it never made national headline news....its the liberals n democrats who push this double standard.
That doesn't justify the execution of an unarmed man.
If the officer is such a wimp that he was intimidated by a bigger man, then he is obviously not qualified to be a police officer.
Calling this an execution? Really? I'm sorry, but that is an exaggeration at best. Just because the officer shot an unarmed person does not make it an execution. Further, the evidence that has been released, and in some cases leaked, also flat out disagrees with this idea you treat as absolute truth. About the only evidence that could be used to show an execution happened, at least that has been released to the public, is an eye witness report that has been completely contradicted by no less than four other eye witness reports.
The DB
The DB
According to the autopsy reports (not hearsay) an unarmed man was shot 6 times by the police officer and all of the rounds were fired from a distance of not more than one to two feet, and the victim also had multiple gunshot wounds to the head.
Exaggeration? That sounds like reality to me.
HE was walking in the middle of the street.
Police officer asked him to not walk in the street.
(Protect and serve).
If the kid was walking on the side walk this would have never happened.
Who in their right mind would challenge, or try to fight an armed person, especially if it is an officer of the law.
Let him try that in an Arab country, him AND his whole family maybe publicly executed.
Police officer asked him to not walk in the street.
(Protect and serve).
If the kid was walking on the side walk this would have never happened.
Who in their right mind would challenge, or try to fight an armed person, especially if it is an officer of the law.
Let him try that in an Arab country, him AND his whole family maybe publicly executed.
I was a cop. I have no skin in this particular game, since I don't know all the facts, and haven't followed this story too closely, since, as others have pointed out, it is sensationalized for monetary gain of the media and interested parties. And personally, I really don't care how it turns out...cop guilty, cop not guilty...nothing will change as a result of this. There will be another similar story in the near future...the media machine needs to be fed at our expense.
However, what many people fail to understand is that police are trained to stop a threat, and while there is a "force continuum", that is to say, meet force with an appropriate counter-force to stop the threat, that can escalate so incredibly quick that lethal force is needed immediately. This can be true even if you are up against an unarmed assailant. You simply just can't make the argument that because this person was unarmed, that he wasn't capable of causing serious bodily injury, or even causing fatal injuries, to the cop. If you, as a cop, have a firearm in your holster, and likely a shotgun or rifle in your patrol car, and someone starts to attack you, you have to consider the potential danger of that person getting your weapons, if they should knock you out. If someone is actually coming at you, regardless of him being unarmed, and you, as a cop, being armed, you can bet that that person is not interested in being reasonable at that moment.
I understand why people would question an unarmed man being shot by a cop or armed citizen (as well it should be questioned), but there are many other factors that have to be looked at, rationally, besides the simple "gun versus no gun" equation. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are now tried and convicted by an uninformed and overzealous social media machine, rather than by a jury that gets to hear the facts from both sides of the issue, in a calm and reasonable fashion. Not that this will guarantee justice, but it is the system that we have, and should be followed, without destruction of public and private property. I hope the City and residents of Ferguson receive the justice they deserve...no rioting or violence, regardless of the Grand Jury decision.
However, what many people fail to understand is that police are trained to stop a threat, and while there is a "force continuum", that is to say, meet force with an appropriate counter-force to stop the threat, that can escalate so incredibly quick that lethal force is needed immediately. This can be true even if you are up against an unarmed assailant. You simply just can't make the argument that because this person was unarmed, that he wasn't capable of causing serious bodily injury, or even causing fatal injuries, to the cop. If you, as a cop, have a firearm in your holster, and likely a shotgun or rifle in your patrol car, and someone starts to attack you, you have to consider the potential danger of that person getting your weapons, if they should knock you out. If someone is actually coming at you, regardless of him being unarmed, and you, as a cop, being armed, you can bet that that person is not interested in being reasonable at that moment.
I understand why people would question an unarmed man being shot by a cop or armed citizen (as well it should be questioned), but there are many other factors that have to be looked at, rationally, besides the simple "gun versus no gun" equation. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are now tried and convicted by an uninformed and overzealous social media machine, rather than by a jury that gets to hear the facts from both sides of the issue, in a calm and reasonable fashion. Not that this will guarantee justice, but it is the system that we have, and should be followed, without destruction of public and private property. I hope the City and residents of Ferguson receive the justice they deserve...no rioting or violence, regardless of the Grand Jury decision.
You will also note that all of the shots in that autopsy are from the front. Also, the blood of Michael Brown was on the gun from when he tried to take it from Officer Wilson before any shots were fired.
First off, two feet is much closer than most shots were fired from by all accounts, including the autopsy you are trying to cite. However if all of the shots were fired at two feet or less as you mistakenly suggest then Officer Wilson was even more justified as he was under direct threat by an individual much larger than him and who has already tried to take his gun. Being so close, no more than two feet away as you claim, and Officer Wilson only hit the guys arm for the first four shots? I can tell you with 100% certainty that shooting from that range, it is extremely easy to hit center mass, and much more difficult to hit pretty much anything else. If they were in fact that close there would be only two possibilities for this to have happened. One, there was an active struggle (two feet is within arms reach of such a large person as Michael Brown) or two, Officer Wilson was not shooting for center mass, and hit the guys arms intentionally the first four times in an effort to cause less damage and get him to stop. If you shoot someone four times and they are still a threat, where would you shoot next?
Ironically, if the officer did hit Michael Brown center mass, which would have been extremely easy at your stated range to the the point of being difficult not to, even under severe duress, unless Michael Brown was actively grabbing for the Officer Wilson's gun, again. Michael Brown would have likely survived with a shot or two to center mass, after a trip to the emergency room of a hospital. If anything the question I would like the answer to is why did Officer Wilson not shoot for center mass in the first place?
I'm sorry, your narrative still doesn't fit with the evidence, or what would happen in the real world if such a situation were to occur.
Just think, all of this could have been avoided if Michael Brown was just walking where he should have been, and not in the middle of the street...
The DB