Nigee has a way with words. He says incredibly ignorant things and expects you to forget about them and judge what he says based on the sentiment instead of what he actually said. That's what incredibly ignorant people do.

@bo_sox48, even though St Louis was spared riots in the 60s, that doesn't mean it's not an extremely segregated and racist city. Missouri is a southern state and still clings to provincial and parochial attitudes. I left there after college and don't regret it one minute.

There is a difference between sarcasm and ignorance, bo_sox.

Just because your brain capacity doesn't allow you to understand it doesn't mean Nigel is ignorant to the situation.

Nigee attempts sarcasm. The problem is, he doesn't understand enough to pull it off very well.

Sarcasm is far too delicate an art for some people to use effectively.

@Jeff ... how is Missouri a southern state?

@ Chairman: Nigee was being sarcastic. His post is critical of the police, not the victim.

the post is critical of the police but that sentence is clearly his own commentary on the victim

"The guy looked like a low-life but shooting him 6 times doesn't look like self-defence it looks like an execution, what's the betting this cop never serves time behind bars?"

I figure this video can summarize my feelings well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A

A recent report says that the shots on Mike Brown were only the front. The officer also was admitted to the hospital for a swollen face and bruises. Are people just ignoring this or what?
Also:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0mAaJMBxKA4

And eyewitness accounts aren't 100% I fully believe that Mike Brown didn't say "don't shoot me" followed by him being gunned down by an officer. The news headlines can either be "riots in St. Louis lead to fatality" or "18 year old gunned down by officer"
I wonder which CNN an FOX are advertising more huh?

Michael robbed store and somebody punched a cop. Obviously immediate execution was the only reasonable response.

Except all the gunshots are consistent with a person who has his arms raised and is surrendering, as well as a shot in the top of his head. Multiple eye-witnesses have him a distance away from police, up to 35 feet.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322540/-Autopsy-suggests-Mike-Brown-had-his-arms-in-surrender-position-when-Darren-Wilson-killed-him

and can you cite the claim about the officers wounds? How could the officer be wounded if Brown was in the process of charging the officer and nowhere near him?

And the torching of quick trips was BEFORE the murder

Also the report says he shoved the police officer back into the car, there was a struggle for the gun and one shot was fired. After this mike brown charged the police officer after the officer got back up and out of the car

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/12/timeline-the-death-of-michael-brown-and-unrest-in-ferguson/

"The officer also was admitted to the hospital for a swollen face and bruises"

I don't even care if that's true. It's probably not, but it doesn't matter. You can be strapped up with a 22 and it can stay on your belt, or you can have a hand on your 45 and it can stay on your belt. You don't get someone off of you by blowing their brains out SIX TIMES.

"eyewitness accounts aren't 100%"

The police account is? There are sooooo many details that they screwed up. Because an eyewitness report may not be 100% accurate you dismiss it, but even though the police report clearly overlooks critical pieces of evidence you're gonna forget about it?

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

"And the torching of quick trips was BEFORE the murder"

No, it wasn't, you're seriously confused

"Also the report says he shoved the police officer back into the car, there was a struggle for the gun and one shot was fired. After this mike brown charged the police officer after the officer got back up and out of the car "

Cite please.

The way many of you seem to think is really bizarre.

This is the worst thing about the internet and social media. The initial story of a cop killing a young man for no reason as he was doing nothing wrong has become the narrative accepted by people. However, as JamesYanik says, the autopsy shows Brown was only shot in the front, and new video has come out with an eyewitness saying Brown was charging police.

Now, the officer here still could be a piece of shit who fired when he didn't have to. But we can't just ignore facts like this.


And as I said before, even if the worst version of the allegations against the cop are true, that does not condone the breakdown of order that has happened. Ferguson was a working class suburb before this, and now it may actually turn into a ghetto as a result of these riots. Who would open a business there now? Who would keep their business there if they could move it? And the worst part about this likely decline is that much of the disorder here is instigated by people from other areas. After the New Black Panthers (a front for the UFO cult called the Nation of Islam, not the successor to the similarly named party from the 60s) leave, all that will be left is a ruined community.

http://www.examiner.com/article/ferguson-mike-brown-shocking-autopsy-escalates-civilian-military-violence

The shot to the top of the head could be once he was falling down after ring shot 4 other times. Besides, some accounts say brown charged the officer and was believed to be on some kind of drug which also explains why it took 6 shots to kill him. No bloodwork has been confirmed yet but that's a reasonable suspicion

"However, as JamesYanik says, the autopsy shows Brown was only shot in the front, and new video has come out with an eyewitness saying Brown was charging police."

He can be shot in the front, does that justify his shooting? The more specific detail is that the shots were consistent with someone who had their arms raised. Why aren't you mentioning this?

And does one eyewitness disprove a number of other eyewitnesses telling a consistent story?

"And as I said before, even if the worst version of the allegations against the cop are true, that does not condone the breakdown of order that has happened. "

You're right, it's police behavior after the fact that does.

I I'd cite it it i the CBS local st Louis's link I posted. Who knows what the truth is but I hate how quickly so many people are rushing to Mike Brown's defence

Did*

"The shot to the top of the head could be once he was falling down after ring shot 4 other times. Besides, some accounts say brown charged the officer and was believed to be on some kind of drug which also explains why it took 6 shots to kill him. No bloodwork has been confirmed yet but that's a reasonable suspicion "

They only reported finding marijuana in his system, which can stay for up to 30 days and is certainly not an aggression-incuding drug. And the number of shots doesn't indicate how much it took to kill. You can rapid fire out six shots in pretty quick succession from any handgun.

And maybe the quick trips were being burned down after (sorry about that) but riots had been going on for some time by then

"I I'd cite it it i the CBS local st Louis's link I posted. Who knows what the truth is but I hate how quickly so many people are rushing to Mike Brown's defence "

Who are citing the St. Louis county police chief who has shown time and time again to be untrustworthy and not working in good faith. It's not exactly a reliable narrative.

"And maybe the quick trips were being burned down after (sorry about that) but riots had been going on for some time by then "

protests, not riots

And no if you actually bothered to check my link the top o the head shot was determined o be the one that killed him And since it was on the top of the head it almost certainly had to be the last since otherwise he would be facing strait forward

4 robberies were reported before the murder an during the 'protests' THEY WEREN'T PEACEFUL! sure it escalated afterwords but THE ORIGNAL PROTESTS WERE CAUSE FOR CONCERN Thus the police were on edge

"And no if you actually bothered to check my link the top o the head shot was determined o be the one that killed him And since it was on the top of the head it almost certainly had to be the last since otherwise he would be facing strait forward "

what does that have to say about anything? You should probably respond to specific posts or claims instead of some vague reference to your own claims

"He can be shot in the front, does that justify his shooting? The more specific detail is that the shots were consistent with someone who had their arms raised. Why aren't you mentioning this?

And does one eyewitness disprove a number of other eyewitnesses telling a consistent story?"

I never said anything about the shooting being justified. It easily could not have been. But, at the same time, there is a reasonable version of what happened where the officer acted properly in self-defense. I leave it to the grand jury to decide, since they will get actual facts to see if there's even a case here. If so, and he's charged and there's a trial, I leave it to the trial jury to determine whether the state can prove it's case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. Like any crime.

Justice is a process, and all cases are complicated. We'll see how things play out.


As for police behavior justifying the disorder, I disagree to an extent. Police departments all over the country are over-militarized. But even then, destroying businesses is not the proper response. If these people were serious they'd go burn down the police department or something. Instead they use the situation steal things. That's not acceptable and I frankly do not understand how many of you seem to think otherwise.