Aesthetically Arrested





You're kidding, right? You're trying to imply that if Michael Brown, who had no weapon, had laid his hands on the cop that justifies shooting him at least six times? Or deadly force at all? from iamtheaardvark












I am FIRST saying not all the facts are yet known.  I am SECONDLY saying police have a right to defend themselves.  IF the cop was beaten by Brown, and the cop felt his life was in danger, a cop is justified by the LAW to use whatever force necessary to make their defense.  You can BELIEVE whatever you choose, but what I just said is fact.  The cop in question was beaten into unconsciousness and had an orbital blowout (his eye was beaten out of his skull).  If Brown caused that, DO YOU believe the cop had the right to defend himself?

my 2 cents. if i’m the cop, and a suspect has not recognized my authority to be a cop and attacks me, i’m going to fight him, i’m going to mace him, i’m going to beat him with my club and if he still has the drop on me i will shoot him.  I am not going to give my life up to someone who is going to mortally harm me just because he doesn’t have a gun and I do.

I have to say, this is right to me ↑↑↑↑ the original post person probably won’t answer now.

Darren Wilson was only treated for a swollen face.  The x-ray was negative for a swollen fracture.   Several eyewitness also say that Brown was trying to run away and announced himself as unarmed.  There’s no justification for shooting anyone who announces themselves as unarmed.  That’s not self defense.  That’s murder.  If Wilson needed to incapacitate Brown, he could have fired a shot into his kneecaps.  He didn’t need to shoot Michael Brown six times, including twice in the head.

Response to part 1: Injuries the cop. I read a different version. This is what I mean by NOT ALL FACTS ARE YET KNOWN. And if he had a “swollen face” who caused it? If you are a lone cop trying to question a suspect who just robbed a store, and that person attacks you, would you be scared? Would you POSSIBLY be scared for your life? THAT’S WHY MORE 411 NEEDS TO COME OUT.

Response to part 2: “eyewitnesses”. Gurlfriend, I have heard every type of “eye witness” to that incident you can dream. FACTS ARE NOT KNOWN YET.

Response to part 3: “Brown running away”. I saw the initial coroner report online AND reports from other sources Brown received no shots to the back.

Response to part 3: “I’m announcing myself unarmed”. This is again based on “alleged witnesses”. And you can announce you have no gun, you can announce you have no C4, but if you are beating a cop down, then the cop has a right to defend himself. Michael Brown on video while robbing the convenience store violently assaulted the clerk with his bare hands. If Wilson was in a compromised position and (other alleged witnesses said there was a struggle for his weapon) then use of deadly force by a police officer is authorized BY LAW.

This was not some turf battle between gang members. As much as I hate cops myself (they are dicks) there are laws in place that give them latitude to protect their lives if they feel threatened.

Bottom line: you weren’t there, nor was I, nor were ANY of those ignorant ass people protesting using that young man as a banner for police brutality when ALL THE FACTS ARE NOT YET KNOWN.

If you saw the initial coroner report, you know that Michael Brown had no gunshot residue on him, which means he was shot at a distance.  He also received one shot to the top of the head.  Darren Wilson, last I checked, was not the Big Friendly Giant.  Michael Brown either had to be kneeling or on his way down.  The underarm gunshot wounds suggest he had his hands up, which eyewitnesses corroborate.  Yes, I realize eyewitness testimony can be iffy.  But when it’s supported by physical evidence, why do you refuse to believe it?  Is it just that much easier for you to believe that this black kid had it coming to him?

I also read about the residue. I don’t “refuse” to believe anything. If you read ANYTHING I have said, NOT ALL FACTS ARE YET KNOWN.

You and I are not the ones deciding what happened based on news articles and reading a coroner report or watching a video of Brown robbing a store. WE DO NOT GET TO DECIDE. But these protestors have ALREADY DECIDED.

I think THAT is wrong. They don’t get to decide. ALL. FACTS. ARE. NOT. YET. KNOWN. That was the beginning of my premise, and the end of my premise.

Then you should be supporting the protests. If you’ll recall. they originated because the Ferguson Police Department wasn’t releasing ANY information about the shooting. They are still withholding info. Half of what they do release is redacted. And in your first response, you clearly stated that the cop was acting in self defense. So it’s okay to judge in defense of the white guy if we don’t have all the info, but not the black kid?

I support protests against police brutality. I abhor it.

I simply said the cop was very badly injured and asked HOW did he get injured right before shooting Brown.

The only thing I believe I can “judge” (I would rather use the word ASSESS) at this point is the video of Brown robbing the store since that is the single solitary video evidence anyone has seen regarding any of this. Regardless of skin tone, there was a “dangerous suspect in a strong-arm robbery including assault” walking down the street, and that wouldn’t make ANY cop or any human being ready to just walk up to him and strike up a conversation. If I’m a cop and those are the conditions under which I am stopping someone, I’m already on high alert. IF that person approaches me threateningly, that’s level 2. If that person attacks me, that’s level 3.

↑↑↑↑↑ What I said is conjecture EXCEPT for the FACT this cop approached Brown UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Here’s the problem with your “assessment”: the chief of police has confirmed that the initial contact between Brown and Wilson had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the “robbery.” A robbery, by the way, that was Brown grabbing a pack of Swisher Sweets. So even though these two incidents are unrelated, you are treating Wilson as if he was approaching a suspect. He wasn’t. He was just some black kid. That’s where your whole thing falls apart. He had no reason to pursue or go after Brown, other than that he was a cop and Brown was black and that’s just the law of the jungle. Considering that Wilson wasn’t involved with the “robbery,” the only reason I can see that the video was released at the same time as Wilson’s name was to taint Brown as some kind of thug. And that’s why there’s continued protests. Because in this country, a white kid shoots up a theater in Colorado and he was “misunderstood.” An unarmed black kid gets shot six times by a cop and he had it coming because he stole a pack of Swisher Sweets.

You have a problem with my “assessment”? Sorry, but you do not get to govern my thoughts. Not YET anyway.

Concerning what you said, I read the description of the suspect was on the police band when the cop saw Brown walking. As far as I am concerned, EITHER of us could be right.

It also sickens me when you and the protestors say “he ONLY stole X”. As if to say if he stole a Jaguar, then maybe the police COULD have a right to shoot him. But he ONLY stole “X” therefore, how dare the police shoot him. And it matters more to me the WAY he did it. NO respect for the cashier, NO respect for the child witnessing his theft and then assault on the clerk, NO care at all, just THROWING his weight around like he owns the place, walking into a STORE (a place where people GIVE MONEY TO RECEIVE GOODS) acting like it was his own private pantry. Probably scaring the hell out of the clerk and degrading him in too many ways to name.

Now you say the cop had “no reason to pursue some black kid” and basically you are implying the cop was cruising down the road not unlike a KKK member looking for a “black kid” (your words) to lynch. But instead of rope, he had a gun. That’s appalling.

Video was released to “taint Brown as a thug” in order to protect the KKK cop who was out with a lynch-lust to kill a “black kid”. Did I get that right? Did I miss anything?

Then finally at the end, you mention again the dollar amount value of what he stole. Man, that poor boy was MURDERED for stealing something of a value UNDER $50! That’s so unnecessary. No one should be even questioned for stealing anything under $50.

I’m in awe of your argument.

I’m just the messenger.