The Importance of Context

Rick wrote: 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.

I don't believe "they omit Brown's motive". I believe, rather, they question the use of deadly force by Officer Wilson in this instance. As I said, if the evidence is factual (remember, the evidence supports retaliatory action by Officer Wilson), then the use of deadly force might be justified. The question still swirls, though, at to whether or not Officer Wilson "needed" to kill Michael Brown given the evidence also suggests Brown was shot multiple times. If he was, in fact, "charging" Officer Wilson, as the evidence suggests, then Officer Wilson used his own best judgment to end the confrontation. It's in the eye of the beholder as to whether that act was justified or not.

I do not agree when you say "The most rock solid evidence of this entire event is the video of Brown committing a strong arm robbery". This event is a prelude to what happened following, nothing more. Brown was wrong when he committed the strong armed robbery, period. He was, however, unarmed throughout all the events, both the robbery and the series of events that followed.

And, no matter how one wishes to couch this event, the fact still remains Michael Brown's death at the hands of Officer Wilson is arguably overshadowing a much deeper issue nationwide that has yet to be fully addressed head on. I believe that's the issue homeagain has been trying to address while the rest of us in this thread appear ready to stay mired in the minutiae of details surrounding this incident.

Well, never fear everyone. Al Sharpton is meeting with Hussein today. They'll get it all straightened out for us and we'll be able to move on.

Why would you question the use of deadly force in this instance? We know for a fact that Brown used force, if not a weapon, to rob the store. We know for a fact that Brown assaulted Wilson while Wilson was seated in his patrol vehicle and only stopped the assault after being shot in the hand. We know for a fact that, as a sworn officer of the law, Wilson was duty bound to take Brown into custody for both the robbery and the assault on a police officer, which is why he pursued Brown when Brown started running. We know for a fact that Brown was the larger of the two, outweighing Wilson by roughly 50%. We know as a matter of fact that Brown was in the process of charging Wilson when he was shot. Brown actually stopped running away from Wilson and made the decision to run at him. Brown was running towards someone who was pointing a gun at him when he was shot several times and only stopped the charge when one of the rounds entered his skull. What do you suppose Brown intended to do if he reached Wilson, apologize for assaulting him earlier and ask to be forgiven? Given all of the facts, why would any reasonable person question the use of deadly force by Wilson?

PrintSmith wrote: Why would you question the use of deadly force in this instance? We know for a fact that Brown used force, if not a weapon, to rob the store. We know for a fact that Brown assaulted Wilson while Wilson was seated in his patrol vehicle and only stopped the assault after being shot in the hand. We know for a fact that, as a sworn officer of the law, Wilson was duty bound to take Brown into custody for both the robbery and the assault on a police officer, which is why he pursued Brown when Brown started running. We know for a fact that Brown was the larger of the two, outweighing Wilson by roughly 50%. We know as a matter of fact that Brown was in the process of charging Wilson when he was shot. Brown actually stopped running away from Wilson and made the decision to run at him. Brown was running towards someone who was pointing a gun at him when he was shot several times and only stopped the charge when one of the rounds entered his skull. What do you suppose Brown intended to do if he reached Wilson, apologize for assaulting him earlier and ask to be forgiven? Given all of the facts, why would any reasonable person question the use of deadly force by Wilson?

Because you keep taking things out of context, P.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/fergus...takes_n_6220814.html

IF you do the research, IF you have an open mind, and IF you are intelligent....THEN you would realize
there is a LARGE and looming issue of CORRECT police procedures....this is my point...the trend is disturbing at the very least and at the worst obscene. JMO

I'm willing to bet you a dollar to a doughnut that there isn't a single investigation performed that doesn't have a few errors in it along the way home. Now, one can certainly seek to make mountains out of molehills with regards to those errors if they wish, but the existence of errors in an investigation doesn't make the whole investigation invalid.

Bottom line is that no reasonable person would reach the conclusion that, beyond any doubt that can be sustained by reason, Wilson committed a crime. The purpose of a grand jury is to act as a firewall and ensure that only those who can reasonably be said to have committed a crime are formally charged with the commission of a crime and put on trial. That is their sole purpose, to prevent unjust prosecution by the government. A DA had absolutely zero chance of showing beyond any doubt that can be sustained by reason that Wilson acted in an unlawful manner when he shot and killed Brown. And since there was absolutely zero chance that such a burden could be met, it would be unethical, not to mention immoral, to formally charge Wilson with the commission of a crime and force him to stand trial accused of committing a crime.

Doggone, that race baiting Obama!

www.policeone.com/police-products/body-c...s-wearing-body-cams/

From Z's link:

A report from the Justice Department, which had been in the works before the Ferguson shooting, said there's evidence both police and civilians behave better when they know there are cameras around. The report also cites how footage from the cameras can be used to train officers.

The second I could agree with, the first, not so much. Overall I feel safe in saying that the behavior adjustment is short lived. After a period of time people forget that they are being monitored. Heck, we all know that at any given time there is someone near us with a smart phone or tablet that has a built in camera in it. Does that knowledge impact how you drive your car? Does it impact how you behave in public? Look at what recently happened with Gruber and his remarks. Anyone want to bet he knew he was being recorded when he so candidly spoke of intentionally torturing the language to make certain the "non-partisan" CBO had to score the taxes as not being taxes for purely partisan reasons among other revelations he made?

PS...MORE to the point,TWO egregious ERRORS...Why did the officer allow a BREACH OF SPACE.
WHY was the body UNCOVERED on the ground,FOUR AND ONE HALF HOURS ..which is
AGAINST protocol in both situations.

I think body cams would be a good idea, at least for those cops who work the streets (not sure I see a need if you work all day at the office). But I'm sure there would be some unforeseen issues with them.

They might actually result in more people getting arrested and incarcerated because now you have hard video evidence where they may of not prosecuted before due to insufficient evidence.

Can they be switched off if you need some privacy? But if you forget to turn it back on and miss recording an important event it will make it look like a cover up, when you just forgot.

They don't have a viewing screen so you can't be sure they are actually working. Seems to me you'd have to test them every day as they are recharged. Also the lens can easily get obstructed (maybe a doughnut crumb gets stuck on the lens). Anyway my point is at some point a camera won't be working when it should of been working and then you get charges of police cover ups.

But why just require them for police? I'd like to see our politicians wear them too (the only way to finally get true transparency). How about IRS administrators/auditors? And if a citizen chooses to wear one while attending a government meeting, that should be OK too.

If you are curious about them, here is one model. It goes for about $5,200 for the main system plus $800 for the camera body.

www.digitalallyinc.com/HD-body-cam.html