The Importance of Context

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: I asked you one question... answer this and I'll leave you alone... but you can't dance around it.

Do you believe the robbery is irrelevant to Brown's demise?

Yes, you did ask one question, and I answered. You just didn't like the answer I gave.

Ok, so you don't have to waste keystrokes, could you please quote yourself? Sorry but I just can't find your answer.

Just to sum up the overriding point of this thread, anyone who talks about this case and leaves out the robbery is trying to paint a phony picture... unless they don't know abut the robbery of course.

Rick wrote: I'd like to tell you a short story about John. John is a husband and a father of two young children. John has everything going for him... a very successful business he loves, beautiful healthy family, more friends than he can count, and he's just an all around happy guy.

Yesterday John drove his car to a remote wooded area and blew his brains out.

How could this be? It just doesn't make sense! Why would a guy take his own life when he is the envy of almost everybody he knows? The answer lies in the events leading up to that horrible pulling of a trigger. Three hours prior to his seemingly irrational decision, John backed his pickup down the driveway , completely unaware that his sweet little 3 year old daughter was making chalk drawings in the shade of the tailgate... she died almost instantly.

Even though suicide is an irrational decision in most situations, can you see how John's decision makes a little more sense in this scenario? If I was to leave out that event from the story, your perception of his suicide would be completely different... the only good guess for his suicidal motive would be some sort of mental break hat was out of his control. But in reality, the event prior to his decision was not just important to his motive, it was everything.

Come on Rick, what's the point?!

My point is that full context is ALWAYS required to get the full story, to get the full truth... anything less than full context is absolutely meaningless.

My main problem with the media, and the protesters especially, is that so many are ignoring the full context of the story... not allegations but actual facts.

Michael Brown was reportedly planning on going to college and starting his own future. He graduated from high school, which in itself is a very liberating and exiting experience for every teenager. Michael had an entire future ahead of him so it made no sense to anyone that he would decide to fight with a police officer and actually punch him in the face and try to get to his gun through the cop's window.

So is it really not important to know the events that preceded the fatal encounter? Again, those events were everything imo and the story is really a dishonest distortion without including those events...it's called motive.

Nobody has disputed with any credible argument that Michael Brown indeed robbed a convenience store and then pushed the owner away like a school yard bully does to a weakling. And if you watch that video, it's hard to imagine that was the first time Michael used his great size and strength to get what he wanted or to make a point.

"So what?" you say, "that doesn't mean he caused his own death". Well, what else makes more sense? Michael was on the path to freedom and everybody here knows how that felt when we were young and dreaming of what lied ahead of us. But when Michael was confronted by the cop, he had to realize that he was 18, which meant that he was an adult, which meant that convenience store robbery equates to a loss of freedom in the short term and a huge loss of opportunity and a bright future in the long term. The decisions Michael was faced with were limited and none of them were good, but only one decision would keep that bright future alive... surrender may not have been a viable option in his mind. So if he was determined not to go to jail and have an adult criminal record, why would he not use his size and strength, once again, to fix a prior mistake? It worked out well for him during the robbery, so why just give up a future when you have the power to keep it?

Sorry for the long post, but I've been sick with nothing to do, and I'm sick of hearing this story told by the Michael Brown defenders in half-context.

How far am I off here?

YOUR "imagination" (supposition/assumption/speculation) is NOT germane to the police abuse/
NOT adhering to OFFICIAL police procedure....the bolded comment.

The teenager was Unquestionable in the wrong,HOWEVER,the history of that Police force has tainted ANY objective perspective.

THAT and the on-going DETAILED documentation of police procedure across America. THAT is the present issue and WHY this is a "flash point:....the kid was WRONG, but so was the officer...END OF STORY.

We have evidence that the "kid" was not a good kid, we don't have evidence that the officer was bad. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

PrintSmith wrote: Seriously Z, you are trying to compare a statement made after an exhaustive examination of the facts and a public statement made within hours of the incident on an equal basis? Better still, you are comparing the statement made by the DA and a reporter's take on what they heard the Chief say? And you don't see an issue with trying to do that?

Seriously, P, you are trying to deny the "facts" of this case and the possibility of there being some conflicting information? There are multiple sources who say the same thing about what the Chief "said". I used but one source. I'm not going to waste any more of my time and effort looking for other sources. Do your own research - it's right there on the Internet.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: I asked you one question... answer this and I'll leave you alone... but you can't dance around it.

Do you believe the robbery is irrelevant to Brown's demise?

Yes, you did ask one question, and I answered. You just didn't like the answer I gave.

Ok, so you don't have to waste keystrokes, could you please quote yourself? Sorry but I just can't find your answer.

That's part of the problem - your own personal "interpretation" of my answer. Perhaps I should have couched it from a perspective of it being a "response" rather than an answer?

Sorry, R. But the FACT is, your question demands a very subjective response thereby rendering it moot if I were to offer it because it is an opinion, not a FACT.

Rick wrote: We have evidence that the "kid" was not a good kid, we don't have evidence that the officer was bad. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not wrong. I believe you may be missing a point trying to be made, though.

No one denies the kid was in the wrong. Even the example I gave of conflicting bits of information regarding what the Police Chief said and what the DA said isn't meant to prove the kid was right - he wasn't. Rather, it was meant to show (not prove) that there are problems associated with this incident. Those problems existed before the incident. They exist now. And they will exist into the future.

In direct answer to your question posed earlier, I believe the robbery was related to Officer Wilson's response in that he was aware, as stated by the DA, of the robbery having occurred. Beyond that, I simply do not know. The evidence presented to the Grand Jury suggests, and supports, but does not actually verify, the events that occurred that led to Michael Brown's death at the hands of Officer Wilson. I'd like to "believe" Officer Wilson used good judgment, or even his "best" judgment in his response to Brown. I just have a hard time reconciling the events being anything but a "death penalty" administered for this kid for the robbery he committed. Now, if you take it one step further and include the physical altercation that Officer Wilson avers took place, then his use of deadly force may have been justified. The decision reached by the Grand Jury is something each and every member of the Grand Jury must live with from here on in. If they are secure in the decision they made, then they should be able to sleep well at night knowing their decision exonerated Officer Wilson. I'm not saying their decision was a "wrong" decision.

You have a hard time reconciling that this was anything but a death penalty for a robbery? You can't be serious with that statement Z, it is simply devoid of the very topic this thread seeks to address - context.

The thug wasn't shot for robbing a store, he was shot because he assaulted a police officer and because by any reasonable standard he intended to attack him a second time. That is the only reason the thug was shot, his actions would have given any reasonable person cause to believe their own safety was in serious jeopardy.

The thug wasn't shot on sight because he matched the description of the person who robbed the store. If that were the case, you would have reason behind your statement that a death sentence was imposed for a robbery. That didn't happen here, it's not even remotely close to what happened here.

PrintSmith wrote: You have a hard time reconciling that this was anything but a death penalty for a robbery? You can't be serious with that statement Z, it is simply devoid of the very topic this thread seeks to address - context.

The thug wasn't shot for robbing a store, he was shot because he assaulted a police officer and because by any reasonable standard he intended to attack him a second time. That is the only reason the thug was shot, his actions would have given any reasonable person cause to believe their own safety was in serious jeopardy.

The thug wasn't shot on sight because he matched the description of the person who robbed the store. If that were the case, you would have reason behind your statement that a death sentence was imposed for a robbery. That didn't happen here, it's not even remotely close to what happened here.

You're right, P. Context is very important. That's why I also stated (which you so conveniently left out of your diatribe):

Now, if you take it one step further and include the physical altercation that Officer Wilson avers took place, then his use of deadly force may have been justified. The decision reached by the Grand Jury is something each and every member of the Grand Jury must live with from here on in. If they are secure in the decision they made, then they should be able to sleep well at night knowing their decision exonerated Officer Wilson. I'm not saying their decision was a "wrong" decision.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: We have evidence that the "kid" was not a good kid, we don't have evidence that the officer was bad. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You're not wrong. I believe you may be missing a point trying to be made, though.

No one denies the kid was in the wrong. Even the example I gave of conflicting bits of information regarding what the Police Chief said and what the DA said isn't meant to prove the kid was right - he wasn't. Rather, it was meant to show (not prove) that there are problems associated with this incident. Those problems existed before the incident. They exist now. And they will exist into the future.
.

Thank you for finally admitting that Brown was wrong, but to say that "no one denies the kid was wrong" is truly laughable if you've watched this all play out on TV. It's denial by omission... the story is told from the time Brown met Wilson and not before that. They omit Brown's motive for the aggression against Wilson, which makes Wilson's story sound less feasible. Why would a gentle giant attack a cop? Maybe because he knew he would be charged with a felony as an adult?

The most rock solid evidence of this entire event is the video of Brown committing a strong arm robbery, yet it is the one piece of evidence the Brown supporters refuse to talk about.