So would things be better if we didn't have ANY law enforcement so we won't have things like this happening?

 

YOu can still have law enforcement and not have things like this happen.

 

If you're in a struggle with someone, who is going for your gun.. You don't go for it yourself and tru to unholster it, because the enemy might grab it from you.. unholserting it gives the guy more of a chance to shoot you with it. Officer Wilson didn't even mention about using other methods, he went straight for his gun.. He has a can of OC Spray in his holster, he could've sub-dued a suspect with that, one spray in the face, he goes into pain and then you can sub-due him.

 

This "police officer" is trigger happy and wanted to use his firearm. Nor is there any proof that Mr Brown went for his gun.. because he is dead, the officer can say whatever and then there is no one to counter the accusation.

Look, what i have read, apparently it should be like LA back in '92. Absolute chaos.

There should atleast be National Guards to secure some places, such as the airport, because if the riot hits the airport, damage for billions could happen. 

It have been going for three months now, they'l need to put and end to this.

"It should be" is a poor reason to treat an American city like occupied territory. The military should only be used if the police actually have utterly failed to maintain order. It should never be used to protect against a possibility. Preventing damages of billions of dollars to government property is also a poor excuse to occupy a city: the military's job is to restore order so civilian authorities can take over again, not to defend a piece of government property (the police should be defending government property, not the army).

False This kid was unarmed plain and simple. That should day it all. Police are required to use non lethal force in this instance. Taser would have been the best choice.

Some departments can't afford to give a taser to everyone, and some don't have the budget for any. Also no one is required to use non lethal force on an un-armed subject if the subject intends immediate physical harm, or death to the officer. Some policies say that non-lethal force should be used if the cop can reasonably think he won't be able to take him. When these policies are made they are made from the point of view of "What would a reasonable person do" Darren was obviously not built like Michael, so with reason he decided what actions were necessary. In that time he found lethal force necessary, and reasonable. Also there is a shot right in the top of Michael's head indicating a bent over, or charging position. A lot of arguments are made that his hands were up, but why would someone with there hands up bend over to expose the top of their head. Also please note that Michael is taller than Darren.

YOu can still have law enforcement and not have things like this happen.

 

If you're in a struggle with someone, who is going for your gun.. You don't go for it yourself and tru to unholster it, because the enemy might grab it from you.. unholserting it gives the guy more of a chance to shoot you with it. Officer Wilson didn't even mention about using other methods, he went straight for his gun.. He has a can of OC Spray in his holster, he could've sub-dued a suspect with that, one spray in the face, he goes into pain and then you can sub-due him.

 

This "police officer" is trigger happy and wanted to use his firearm. Nor is there any proof that Mr Brown went for his gun.. because he is dead, the officer can say whatever and then there is no one to counter the accusation.

Hold up.. time out... You made the argument that the officers gun could have been taken by the person who he/she is in a fight with. Why does that not apply to the OC spray? What if he/she that the officer is fighting takes the OC spray from the officer upon the officer un-holstering it, then sprays the officer then takes the officers gun?

Hold up.. time out... You made the argument that the officers gun could have been taken by the person who he/she is in a fight with. Why does that not apply to the OC spray? What if he/she that the officer is fighting takes the OC spray from the officer upon the officer un-holstering it, then sprays the officer then takes the officers gun?

 

Because the suspect isn't going for the OC Spray.. He is more focused on the gun, which is a perfect opportunity to grab your OC Spray. Plus with OC Spray you don't need to "prepare", with the firearm you have to hold it a certain way, then you have to aim in a way it's not going to miss your suspect and a bullet randomly flies off in a direction where it could kill someone. With OC Spray, you point it, flip the top and spray. THEN the suspect would be incapacitated because he won't be able to see.. which then he won't be going for your gun. 

 

Like i said, how do we know that he was going for his gun? the officer in question said it.. which could be a lie to save his ass.

Here's what they did night 1 

7-8 businesses burned 
3 cop car's burned possibly 1 civ car burned
Looted / Vandalized dozen of businesses 
Dozen's of shot fired both at police / fire fighters and into the air
try to rough up reporters actually throwing rock's and bottles at them
and Blocked a highway for like an hour


Also I support Offficer wilson since Day 1 he was always innocent based of facts

An officer has to shoot a white person, calm solution. Officer shoots a black person and the world goes insane.

What about black cop shots white person?

 

What about black cop shots white person?

 

The world is quiet.......

YOu can still have law enforcement and not have things like this happen.

 

If you're in a struggle with someone, who is going for your gun.. You don't go for it yourself and tru to unholster it, because the enemy might grab it from you.. unholserting it gives the guy more of a chance to shoot you with it. Officer Wilson didn't even mention about using other methods, he went straight for his gun.. He has a can of OC Spray in his holster, he could've sub-dued a suspect with that, one spray in the face, he goes into pain and then you can sub-due him.

 

This "police officer" is trigger happy and wanted to use his firearm. Nor is there any proof that Mr Brown went for his gun.. because he is dead, the officer can say whatever and then there is no one to counter the accusation.

 

Valid point.

 

Yeah well this is reality going into 2015 things happen.

Because the suspect isn't going for the OC Spray.. He is more focused on the gun, which is a perfect opportunity to grab your OC Spray. Plus with OC Spray you don't need to "prepare", with the firearm you have to hold it a certain way, then you have to aim in a way it's not going to miss your suspect and a bullet randomly flies off in a direction where it could kill someone. With OC Spray, you point it, flip the top and spray. THEN the suspect would be incapacitated because he won't be able to see.. which then he won't be going for your gun. 

 

Like i said, how do we know that he was going for his gun? the officer in question said it.. which could be a lie to save his ass.

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where a police officer is fighting a criminal for his/her life. No matter what the officer pulls out of his/her duty belt OC spray or not, there is always a chance it could be taken from them.

The world is quiet.......

Hmm, your sure?

Something is bound to happen...?

Hmm, your sure?

Something is bound to happen...?

 

A riot of about 20-30 People? Not to be racial, but when a black guy shoots a white guy, the Black people think he did everything right 

Yes, Michael Brown is not alive to dispute Wilson's version of events. That's true in every successful murder trial; if the victim does show up to challenge the defendant's version, that defendant is not getting convicted of murder. There are, in fact, ways to deal with that problem and obtain a murder conviction.

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where a police officer is fighting a criminal for his/her life. No matter what the officer pulls out of his/her duty belt OC spray or not, there is always a chance it could be taken from them.

 

yeah there is, but every situation is different. There was no need for the officer to go for his firearm. Also if the suspect wanted his gun so bad.. he would've attacked the officer, Officer Wilson sustained little to no bruising.. which wouldn't be normal in a situation like that.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/darren-wilson-injuries-grand-jury-2014-11

 

No blood, no scratches.. just two brusies, to his cheek and neck, which is barely visible. 

Watching the live stream and things are getting crazy tons of cars now on fire and more businesses on fire I also heard on the police scanner about bringing in the national guard.

yeah there is, but every situation is different. There was no need for the officer to go for his firearm. Also if the suspect wanted his gun so bad.. he would've attacked the officer, Officer Wilson sustained little to no bruising.. which wouldn't be normal in a situation like that.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/darren-wilson-injuries-grand-jury-2014-11

 

No blood, no scratches.. just two brusies, to his cheek and neck, which is barely visible. 

The orbital fracture was said to be on the left side of his face... funny how the only pictures show the right side right?

Honestly, after reading news reports, i don't think he should've kept his job, The only reason he would've kept his job is because he has the role of "police officer" these situations are tricky because if you let him keep his job riots happen, if you fire him then police officers will be pissed off to the point they most likely won't show up for any other court cases.. which results in criminals being let into the street.

 

if i was on that jury, i would've voted guilty.. because honestly his "he went for my gun" story sound like absolute bullcrap.. he is saying that to save his own ass, 99% of cops always say that. I couldn't care less which way you put it.. in my eyes, it was murder.

And this is exactly why you are not on the jury. 

People just don't seem to get this, he was not found innocent. Officer Wilson was found to be unsuitable for charges for lack of reasonable proof behind the intentions of the shooting. You cannot charge people with murder when you cannot prove what happened. 

 

This whole thing is ridiculous; the judgements being cast on the officer are ridiculous. No one knows what happened and the evidence provided for the most part is a he said she said with forensic evidence that SUPPORTS the officer. The decision to not charge Darren Wilson was the RIGHT decision, there's no argument to suggest otherwise with legitimate grounds as you cannot find someone guilty when the evidence provided cannot prove so. 

I'm just watching a news report about this and I feel that these protestors wont get anywhere destroying public/private property.

 

Cheers.

YOu can still have law enforcement and not have things like this happen.

 

If you're in a struggle with someone, who is going for your gun.. You don't go for it yourself and tru to unholster it, because the enemy might grab it from you.. unholserting it gives the guy more of a chance to shoot you with it. Officer Wilson didn't even mention about using other methods, he went straight for his gun.. He has a can of OC Spray in his holster, he could've sub-dued a suspect with that, one spray in the face, he goes into pain and then you can sub-due him.

 

This "police officer" is trigger happy and wanted to use his firearm. Nor is there any proof that Mr Brown went for his gun.. because he is dead, the officer can say whatever and then there is no one to counter the accusation.

 

I disagree with this. The evidence pretty clearly suggest there was a struggle at the car and during that time, two rounds were fired in the process. I mean, Wilson pulled up and held him at a gunpoint to begin with, the gun was already out at that point.

 

If he was in the struggle as the suspect went for his gun, it's possible both his hands were tied up and he just couldn't magically grab OC spray from a pouch. He was alone, which in a sense would explain why he pulled up and instantly drew the gun before there were any scuffles, to try get him to comply immediatly. That by no means defines him as trigger happy, but I wouldn't go saying that was too smart either. Not the best way to make contact, especially with a suspect.

 

Why didn't he use OC to begin with? I don't know, too many risks for him to do it alone I guess. Should he have been under the influence of drugs, that might have only pissed the guy off further, without any disabling effect and a taser can easily miss, or even be ineffective.

 

Also, I'd like to know what source did you base your statement on here: "he is saying that to save his own ass, 99% of cops always say that." This disappoints me because it is a very legitimate reason, same as something like "fearing for his/her own life".

Edited November 25, 201411 yr by Olanov

Also, I'd like to know what source did you base your statement on here: "he is saying that to save his own ass, 99% of cops always say that." This disappoints me because it is a very legitimate reason, same as something like "fearing for his/her own life".

It wasn't a statement, more my opinion. However 99% was a bit exaggerated, probably 25% of cops say that to save their ass. and in this case i believe he was saving his ass, he only got away with it because he is a cop and there is a lack of evidence to suggest otherwise.

It wasn't a statement, more my opinion. However 99% was a bit exaggerated, probably 25% of cops say that to save their ass. and in this case i believe he was saving his ass, he only got away with it because he is a cop and there is a lack of evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

Yeah, well that's a 50/50 on whether he's lying. But yeah, that was a pretty big exeggeration.