no, by definition of anyone breaking a law (which is most people , though they wont admit, in this land of laws),, they were both 'thugs

one because he engaged in smoking weed(which is illegal)

and the other because he stole (Which is illegal) and bullied


what that had to do with their being killed is irrelevant, being that Treyvon was not killed in the act of smoking weed and smoking weed is not a death penalty offense

and Brown was not killed IN THE ACT of a robbery, and robbery is not a death penalty offense

and Brown was not killed IN THE ACT of an altercation with police, which WOULD be a potential death penalty offense


therefore, as imperfect as their young lives and choices were, yes, I DO FEEL upset by their being gunned down,,,,,

as I do with any of the young lives I hear about, as I posted back with the example of the white robbers who were killed running away and the Mexican robbers who were killed trying to get away

but perhaps its only worth addressing or noticing if I happen to be commenting about black folks?

perhaps the problem shouldn't be seen as whether I get upset about young black lives (and others) that are lost but that others don't find any need to get upset about ANY of their lives, and least of all those who are black,,,

When you commit violence against an armed individual, you should expect to be shot. But then you do defend every little thug in the news, so long as they are black. Would this be racist tendencies? I would think so.

So your take is that justice is not blind and should be slanted to the color of the skin. If your white, any transgression should be punished but if you're black all transgression should be forgiven regardless of the facts.

And if you daughter give marks like the officer, then I would suggest that perhaps child protective services needs to investigate as that would be a beating. But then what do the doctors know (Officer Wilson’s medical records released) they were there but what are they to argue with your conjecture?

correction noted,, police can restrain and arrest those who have KILLED, but not black males who have 'hurt'

I don't know about evil, but I do know that killers with GUNS who definitely should be feared based upon their very RECENT harmful behavior seem to be killed less often than black males who are unarmed and have 'hurt' someone

seems the danger a black male might do with sheer brut strength is more of a threat than bullets,,,,something is wrong with THAT picture,,,

something is also wrong if a police officers mindset that a hit from a black male might 'kill' him even though , despite all the 'leaked' reports of his mass beating and 'orbital blowout' he came away with not a scar besides some spot that could easily match the hives my daughter gets around pets


,, police will walk all over people who think that's a reasonable level of 'fear' for a trained cop,,,,

lol,, and your 'truth' is based upon what,, were you the sole eyewitness in the car?

did he 'touch' the gun, or go for the gun or try to keep the officer from going for his gun?



so touching a police officers gun is grounds for death, period,, with no time frame,,,,,good to know


and IM sure, by extension, shooting people with a gun is grounds for death too


and there need be no explanation why those 'grounds' can be overlooked for the sake of preserving the life of some and not others,,,?


perhaps police can summarily execute civilians now and claim that at some point previously that person 'touched their gun'

correction, I don't defend thugs, I defend 'victims' who are not restricted to just the perfect law abiding citizens


I felt it just as wrong for them to shoot the white boy who answered his fathers door and was shot

I felt it just as wrong for a citizen AFTER robbers had run from his house to shoot and kill one

I felt it just as wrong for a citizen AFTER being instructed that police were coming and not to pursue, to follow his neighbors robbers outside and kill them



so, no , its not about racism, its about LIFE MATTERING, even impoverished lives, even minority lives, even non law abiding lives even if that life has stolen, or bullied, or trespassed,,,,,,

its a life that matters, particularly a young and still developing life,,,,


the THUGS, in my opinion, are those that keep promoting the idea that it somehow shouldn't matter,,,,

based on what is that proven?

do we know for a fact who assaulted whom? the officer had a mark that could have been a rash , and Brown had several bullets,,,

apparently his SIZE didn't make him too strong since a virtual life threatening array of punches only left a 1 and one half inch RASH on the officers face,,,

like I said, his SIZE (when he has run over a hundred yards away from an Initial confrontation) became irrelevant

(once that altercation evolved into an attempted escape)

Twist, twist, twist, spin, spin, spin. Will the truth ever be let in?

As a civilian, if I were attacked I would assume my life were threatened, warranting deadly force. If that person went for my gun I would find it only responsible to use deadly force as this person could use my gun against others after killing me. If this person were to run away, the threat would be diminished, but the second he turned around and started running at me again, the threat of being killed comes back full force and I would not hesitate to put that threat down. This is escalation of force. If good people do not use this, evil people will inherit the world.

quote:

Quote:
where do you get the information that they 'sponsored' him

Knowing that he has his own net worth and his own ORGANIZATION specializing in this type of work, I would imagine he wouldn't need anyone else's sponsorship.


What about that little back tax & lien thing.. ( unpaid taxes,rent & ect.) to the tune of $4.3 million dollars ( N.Y Times 11-14) and other publications.... Sharpton ( personally) and his organizations.

I would have a great net worth too.. if I didn't pay my taxes...must be nice.

You twist words here. No, "touching" an officer's gun is not grounds for death. However, attacking an officer, and during the attack reaching for, and/or grabbing said weapon, displays intent to kill. THAT is grounds for death.

As a civilian, if I were attacked I would assume my life were threatened, warranting deadly force. If that person went for my gun I would find it only responsible to use deadly force as this person could use my gun against others after killing me. If this person were to run away, the threat would be diminished, but the second he turned around and started running at me again, the threat of being killed comes back full force and I would not hesitate to put that threat down. This is escalation of force. If good people do not use this, evil people will inherit the world.

Escalation of force is based on threat levels. When police apprehend a criminal that is armed and considered dangerous, the criminal is compliant. Once the criminal pulls his/her weapons and/or becomes threatening, he/she becomes a physical threat and is killed.

What you describe for this incident is not the desire for "responsible levels of fear" but the desire for prohibiting police from using deadly force to protect themselves or others.

As I mentioned earlier, I can describe recent accounts in which police have blatantly overreacted, and those officers need to be held accountable. When a cooperative man gets shot for reaching into his pocket or glove box when asked to provide identification for example, or when a child is seen with a toy (I will not get into reasons). There is a certain degree of danger to one's life a police officer must accept when putting on a uniform. But we cannot expect them, or anyone, to allow themselves to be beaten to death any time someone tries to do so.

Now if you would have left out... blacks are overemotional then your point may have been taken a little more seriously ... I understand the news and certain shows and how left or right wings ...they can go or not enough liberal to be a true liberal ...But I agree with ops post there where to many inaccuracy in this court ... for the grand jury to make a fair decision ... I don't hate officers but some can be corrupt and I don't think that all blacks are thugs... and I heard some of the legal aspects to this case and I made my conclusion about it ... and now others will make theirs ...

Yes, emphatically yes.

The anti-racist crowd and anti-police-brutality crowd have chosen, again, the *wrong* situation to rally around.

Brown basically threw his own life away when he went after the cop's gun, and again when he started moving back towards the police officer.

so after armed people have actually KILLED with the weapon,, what constitutes compliance?

would it be non compliant to stop running and turn around?

The compliance of which I speak, is during the arrest. To answer your question compliance would involve ceasing the attack and surrendering. In Brown's case he would be compliant by stopping and turning around, but the moment he started running at the cop, he became a threat once again.

It seems there was evidence of a point blank hand wound received by Brown in the officer's car, along with gun powder residue and blood, all collaborating the officer's story. Would find it hard to explain what Brown's left hand was doing inside the police car on the opposite the window near where the officer's gun would be.

Also, not sure why Brown never put his hands in the air to show he was surrendering. IF he were, in fact, surrendering.

Makes more sense to me the Brown, who had a history of violent, aggressive behavior, would turn and charge the cop out of anger, than a scenario in which ran, almost got away, then turned to surrender without putting his hands in the air.

..."The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s..."