taequan1222 wrote Seeing as you're not black you don't have a right to speak for them and what they have been through.

What kind of reasoning is that?
You're not a murderer so you don't have a right to condemn murderers.

I'm just going to get my opinion out here on this one, the issue was originally never about race, it started as a gross misuse of police authority. Darren Wilson was not aware of the fact that Michael Brown was even in the store so the point about him robbing the store(which was refuted by the owner) is null and void. The fact that he was jaywalking is ridiculous, Darren Wilson was looking for someone to pick on because no one is pulled over or stopped for jaywalking anymore. Multiple eyewitness accounts say Darren Wilson pulled Michael Brown into the car, Michael Brown defended himself ran off. Darren Wilson even said he didn't mean to kill Michael Brown, but think about this all officers are equipped with tasers along with firearms. If you were going to subdue someone use a tasers it limits mobility and basically renders them paralyzed for a few minutes. Darren Wilson shot to kill, there was no if and or buts about it. He couldve just as easily shot him in the leg but there were no lower body gunshot wounds? I'm not condoning the rioting its not making anything better, but all eyewitnesses said the Michael Brown did give up and put his hand up but proceed o get shot multiple times. Now take the whole point of color out of this situation it till incriminates the officer to no end, the officer was wrong and still is wrong no matter how they try to portray Michael Brown in a bad light it was irrelevant and unknown at the time of the shooting so why does it matter now? Doesn't make Darren Wilson anymore justified, that's all I have to say

E40 wrote I'm just going to get my opinion out here on this one, the issue was originally never about race, it started as a gross misuse of police authority. Darren Wilson was not aware of the fact that Michael Brown was even in the store so the point about him robbing the store(which was refuted by the owner) is null and void. The fact that he was jaywalking is ridiculous, Darren Wilson was looking for someone to pick on because no one is pulled over or stopped for jaywalking anymore. Multiple eyewitness accounts say Darren Wilson pulled Michael Brown into the car, Michael Brown defended himself ran off. Darren Wilson even said he didn't mean to kill Michael Brown, but think about this all officers are equipped with tasers along with firearms. If you were going to subdue someone use a tasers it limits mobility and basically renders them paralyzed for a few minutes. Darren Wilson shot to kill, there was no if and or buts about it. He couldve just as easily shot him in the leg but there were no lower body gunshot wounds? I'm not condoning the rioting its not making anything better, but all eyewitnesses said the Michael Brown did give up and put his hand up but proceed o get shot multiple times. Now take the whole point of color out of this situation it till incriminates the officer to no end, the officer was wrong and still is wrong no matter how they try to portray Michael Brown in a bad light it was irrelevant and unknown at the time of the shooting so why does it matter now? Doesn't make Darren Wilson anymore justified, that's all I have to say

Okay, yes. I agree with your about 4%... Yes, no one gets pulled over for JayWalking anymore, but its still "against the rules". From what I have read and watched, Brown reacted to the officer after he asked Brown to get out of the street. Thats where it all began.

Witnesses: Yes, they all say roughly the same thing BUT you have to look at this. (THIS IS NOT IN ANY MEANS SUPPOSED TO BE OFFENSE OR RACIST OR ANYTHING). Look at he neighborhood in which this happened, clearly not the most upbeat, nice, neighborhood. In EVERY single "eye witness" interview, the eye witness were always some punk, hipster. Of course they are going to WAAY over react and blame the white person for killing one of their fellow homies. Thats exactly why facts cant be laid out because people in the neighborhood are standing up for Brown (facts or not)

Autopsy: Read up on it.. This basically spells everything out. Six shots entered Browns body. After watching and reading mean articles, they all seem to say the same thing. The entry wounds on this arms were on the outer part of the upper arm. Knowing that, the statements have been said that the other bullets entered the from of Brown body, as if he was facing Wilson. Thats being said, how can his hand be up, in the surrender location, and have bullet entry wounds on the opposite side of his arm? It doesnt make sense, its not possible. Clearly showing that his hand were not up at the time he got shot. Also, the bullet wound on the top of his head was stated to have entered at a certain angle only achieved if Brown was looking down, charging, or running. Yeah, see. Things dont add up that he was just "a innocent kid that was walking away"

Dont believe me? Go search for autopsy reports. Youll find the same thing.

Other gun shot wounds: You said "there are no lower body shots". And you are 100% correct. But do you know why? Police and military are trained to use as few as shots as possible, and eliminate the suspect. Theyre trained to shoot upper body/head. How would you feel if a shooter came into your school with a gun and by the time he was killed, he kill 50 students? Just to find out the police shot and most shots him in the legs, not disabling him. If he was shot in the upper body, 48 of the students would still be alive... See what I'm getting at? They dont shoot to disarm, they shoot to kill. And if Wilson found him a threat, I am 110% on this side.

Also, (cant say this is 100% true or not but gonna use it anyways) I've read in many occasions that Wilson had a bruise on the back of his head. Does that just appear? No. If thats 100% true, that would signify Wilson was in face pushed up against the squad car and assaulted.

This is exactly what happened with the Tryvon Martin case. The democrats and black community hide the facts to make the white people sounds oh-so mean towards them.

Not to mention the riots. Seriously? Are they really that dumb? "Yeah, the white man shot and killed one of our african american friends. Lets riot, loot, and destroy our own town in hopes of seeking revenge" One of the dumbest things I have ever heard about. Not theyre going to blame the white people for their taxes being raised when the city has to rebuild everything...

Idiots.

It's okay for the African Americans to kill each other. But if a white guy kills a black man, then its racist. **** the people protesting and the people who think it was about race. At the end, the cop did his job.

They never show two sides its always
one side like with this case its the good side of
Michael Brown they never show the bad side of him
though and I bet there was more bad than good.
News Broadcasters always stick to one side.

I feel as if black people are more racist than white people. I got great black friends so no hate. But black people cause a lot more problems and act like wild animals and get mad when something happens.

The double standard here is disgusting, then people try to say it isn't a race issue. I bet most of you haven't even heard of this story,
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
It's a completely different matter when a white man is shot.

Besides, it's hilarious that the community thinks rioting will cause anything. At the end of the day they are destroying THEIR OWN neighborhood and stores.
It's completely ignorant.

Pool wrote

EazyB wrote

Pool wrote

This whole ordeal is stupid. The cop should've never killed him, he should've shot him in the leg once, then took him into custody.

Nope. If you're going to shoot someone, you are shooting to kill. A police officer carries nonlethal weapons for incapacitating people. If a situation escalates to the point where he needs to draw his weapon and use it, he should be shooting to eliminate the threat. Granted we don't have all of the facts in this case, but if it comes out that is in fact true that Michael Brown attempted to disarm the officer then he deserves to be shot. What do you think he would have done to the officer if he successfully got the gun away from him? Would that have been a "hate crime"?

Yeah, shoot to kill. That's worked for the US so many times. Look at all the riots that happen when a white authority figure shoots an African American.. Shooting to kill really solves all problems doesn't it? Shoot the person in the leg, handcuff them, then take them in to custody.. Instead of unloading 10 bullets into one guy.

That's not how an operator is trained to disable a target. They are trained that if a gun is needed, then lethality is needed as well. They double tap center mass and or the head.

Besides someone charging you with a gun is a MAJOR threat if he is within 21 feet.

-Pawn wrote I am sorry to say, but if you truly believe that people are simply rioting because of the fact that a white person killed a black person, you're ignorant. They're rioting because the kid didn't even rob the store, as the store owner said, and he was unarmed and gunned down entirely by police. I'm sure that if you had a son who had no weapons on him and he was shot to death, you'd be rioting and quite mad, too.

He did rob the store, video evidence shows it. However, the robbery was not called in by the store owner, but rather a customer who happened to be in the store.