Your claim that they didn't know which of the 6 shots killed him Chairman

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."

Except justice is not being performed here. The officer has not been charged almost a week out. He may never even face a jury. What do you say to that? As long as there is a common belief that his actions were justified, the evidence and truth will never see the light of day.


"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."

Again, people taking opportunity in moments of distraction or chaos doesn't de-legitimize the actual protests. And even then, i don't think it's your place to tell people how they should express their anger and frustrations.

"Your claim that they didn't know which of the 6 shots killed him Chairman "

I said nothing of the sort, only that the number of shots indicates rapid fire and not that he was drugged up so much that 6 shots was needed to kill him, as you stated

On one side of unsubstantiated accounts the officer was attacked and acted, (although seemingly excessive) in self defense
On the other side of unsubstantiated accounts mike Brown was executed by an officer after begging for his life
Anything more (that can be proved) please post

"Except justice is not being performed here. The officer has not been charged almost a week out. He may never even face a jury. What do you say to that? As long as there is a common belief that his actions were justified, the evidence and truth will never see the light of day."

Not being charged a week out doesn't strike me as unusual. The prosecutor has to prepare what he's going to say to the grand jury, and the autopsy results are still quite new. Also there's the whole issue of the DOJ getting involved, which may mess up jurisdiction somehow. Everything I've heard makes it seem like this will go before a grand jury at some point. What more do you want?


"Again, people taking opportunity in moments of distraction or chaos doesn't de-legitimize the actual protests. And even then, i don't think it's your place to tell people how they should express their anger and frustrations."

What have I said that delegitimizes actual, peaceful protests? Protesting against the police is fine. But much more than that is happening.

It is my place, and anyone's place, to tell people that they cannot express their anger and frustrations by breaking the law. The fact that someone from your town was shot is not a green light to rob a store. Candlelight vigil outside the PD? Fine. Picket line outside the PD? Fine. Wildcat general strike? Fine. But not looting and not violence.

Statements from person who performed the autopsy:
DR. BADEN: no gunpowder was present on his [Brown's] body.

7:58 AM PT: From the press conference, saying the two shots to the head were both "back to front" and "supports what witnesses said," and "that this officer should have been arrested."
8:11 AM PT: Says shot to lower arm "consistent" with either facing away or having arms up to surrender.
8:13 AM PT: Dr. Baden says there was no evidence on Brown's body of a struggle.

“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’"

"Not being charged a week out doesn't strike me as unusual. The prosecutor has to prepare what he's going to say to the grand jury, and the autopsy results are still quite new. Also there's the whole issue of the DOJ getting involved, which may mess up jurisdiction somehow. Everything I've heard makes it seem like this will go before a grand jury at some point. What more do you want?"

Except in any normal circumstance, take for example Zimmerman, the shooter would be in custody and at least have an examination or be charged with something before we go to selecting a prosecutor and preparing statements for a grand jury. None of this has happened and the police department is using this time to slander the character of Michael Brown.

You're a police officer in Ferguson. You just had your face pummeled in by a 240 pound kid. He struggled for your gun and you heard a shot fired. You see him now as you come out of your car after being attacked. I'd empty the entire clip into him personally, especially since some eyewitnesses said he was running back at the officer

"You're a police officer in Ferguson. You just had your face pummeled in by a 240 pound kid. He struggled for your gun and you heard a shot fired"

Except none of this actually happened. Seriously, this sounds exactly like the George Zimmerman defense in every way.

So Michael Brown ran from the officer after beating him, then decided to run back at him when he had a gun drawn? Does any of that actually make sense to you?

Also @JamesYanik, you're straight up ignoring the statements of Dr. Baden. What do you have to say to those, which clearly refute the version of events you're claiming.

"What have I said that delegitimizes actual, peaceful protests? Protesting against the police is fine. But much more than that is happening.

It is my place, and anyone's place, to tell people that they cannot express their anger and frustrations by breaking the law. The fact that someone from your town was shot is not a green light to rob a store. Candlelight vigil outside the PD? Fine. Picket line outside the PD? Fine. Wildcat general strike? Fine. But not looting and not violence. "

You've been equating all of it together. The looting (which only occurred on one night) and the violence (which has largely been in response to harsh police crackdown) with the protests as a whole. These began as peaceful protests and during the day they are peaceful. It's at night when instigators come out and the police push in and fire tear gas against protester and citizen alike without discrepancy.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/08/police_in_ferguson_fire_tear_gas_on_protesters_with_hands_up_in_their_own_backyard.php
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/08/police_in_ferguson_fire_tear_gas_on_protesters_with_hands_up_in_their_own_backyard.php

you've literally used the word "these people" as a sweeping statement for the whole community apparently.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0mAaJMBxKA4
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/12/timeline-the-death-of-michael-brown-and-unrest-in-ferguson/
For all those who said that I wasn't right here are links. Maybe click on them before responding though

And although the autopsy doctor said that he shouldn't of been shot so many times I simply refer back to my post just before the last.

"Except in any normal circumstance, take for example Zimmerman, the shooter would be in custody and at least have an examination or be charged with something before we go to selecting a prosecutor and preparing statements for a grand jury. None of this has happened and the police department is using this time to slander the character of Michael Brown."

A grand jury is what charges people in jurisdictions with grand juries, so you're just wrong there.

This is not really comparable to the Zimmerman case since here the shooter is a police officer rather than a civilian, so let's set that to the side. Since he's a police officer, I really doubt that they are arrested after firing their weapon in what they claim is self-defense. I could be wrong, of course, but I would imagine there are departmental procedures which the officer goes through and THEN he may be arrested if the evidence plainly supports that happening. But again, that could be wrong.


As for the slander, I don't see how releasing the video of Brown robbing the store is slander. For one, it's true. He did rob the store. Slander has to be untrue.

Perhaps the prudent thing to do was not to release the video, but it's certainly relevant information. The self-defense theory seems to be that Brown thought the cop was going to arrest him for the robbery, and attacked the cop to try and get away. Seems like a bit of stretch to me, but not unreasonable. But I agree, releasing the video to the public strikes me, on first impression, as something that probably should not have been done. But now that it's out, it's out. We can't ignore it.

Ears ringing from a gunshot in a car. Face pummeled in. Attacker coming towards you after seeing that you. Got back out of the car. And besides if this were an execution the autopsy would I found gunpowder on the body to the close range nature of execution

Thank you invictus, it won't matter because these people read our posts and auto dismiss them but thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one other then chairman who thinks the same way

"You've been equating all of it together."

I think it's clear I'm not.


"you've literally used the word "these people" as a sweeping statement for the whole community apparently."

You're reading into my posts what you want to read, as shown by trying to make my use of "these people" into some ugly slur. I explicitly said outside instigators were the source of much of the disorder, and that there is a legitimate way to protest against the police. But, again, more than just legitimate, peaceful protest is going on, and I won't ignore that.

A question for you all:

Is the primary duty of the police to protect property, or to protect life?

"Thank you invictus, it won't matter because these people read our posts and auto dismiss them but thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one other then chairman who thinks the same way"

A cautious "you're welcome" from me. You seem much more pro-officer here than I am. I just his guilt or innocence should be determined in the courtroom rather than the court of public opinion.

@ Thucy: Morally? Life. Constitutionally? Property, probably.

"Is the primary duty of the police to protect property, or to protect life?"

Life.

But I see what you're trying to do there. I see it, Thucydides. You may have thought I wouldn't, but I do.

I'll paraphrase what I wrote earlier. Someone being shot in your town is not a green light to rob a store. Even if this shooting is as unjust and horrible as the worst claims being made, that does not justify the looting and violence that accompanies the legitimate protests. How hard is this to understand?

Eventually the truth will come out but we don't need people blindly in support of either side

"This country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority" - Noam Chomsky.

They never predicted the extent racial tension would have on the law

I don't see what thucy is doing. Maye you can explain. I don't see at all where the duties to protect property and life are in conflict here.

He's trying to make it out that the officer shooting Brown compared to the efforts of police and now the National Guard to restore order and prevent further looting means that Property is being valued more than Life. He's not separating the two issues, and making a bad faith argument.

In the real world, you are right, SantaClausowitz. There is no real conflict between protecting life and property.

I think there can be, but this case is not one of them.

They are two separate incidents, in the first a police officer either passed or failed at his obligation to protect citizens and his own life and in the second the police national guard etc have an obligation to protect both life and property

That's what I meant. No real conflict here. I should have written more clearly.

What I'm trying to do? I'm not hiding anything.

We have to ask ourselves, as a society, do we consider property to be more valuable than life?

Do we focus on what we have, or who we are?

@bo_sox: The Missouri Compromise of 1820 made Missouri a slave state. The Dred Scott decision paved the way for further expansion of slavery. While Missouri never joined the CSA, the legacy of slavery is apparent in social segregation that lives on to this day. I haven't lived there in 20 years, but I keep a close eye on the local politics. What is happening in Ferguson doesn't surprise me one bit.