Riots in St. Louis after Police kill Teen

[Organized States]

And what does this have to do with anything?

You say he's a bad criminal and so Nelson Mandela was labelled as one too. I'm Mandela broke no crimes besides being black and standing up for what he believed in. And I believe that Mike Brown's only crime was being black.

Read my damn post. Read it.

[Ravenflight]

If any American's which to support the actions of Ferguson and stop something like this happening there is a petition
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... a/8tlS5czf

[Kouralia]

Fast court system, eh?

I'd just thought it was rioting at the moment while the police investigated, I hadn't realised the trial was completed and he'd been found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers.

I forgot a jury of his peers defines whether Brown is dead or not!

In UK law (because I can't be fucked to get the US one, and the UK one was on my favourites bar), the following conditions must have been met before murder can be said to have occurred:

• A person of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
• unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
• any reasonable creature (human being);
• in being (...);
• under the Queen's Peace;
• with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

1) is a pre-requisite of joining the Police, and can be discounted.
2) requires a criminal court to determine based on the evidence (or a confession), and cannot be determined before that (in a legal sense) without really, really convincing evidence (e.g. seeing it in its entirety with your own eyes, not seeing part and taking it out of context) - and even that isn't legally relevant for determining whether the person can be convicted of it.
3) yeah, sure.
4) sure
5) irrelevant
6) sure

Where's your evidence that point #2 has occurred?

[Calisu]

You know Nelson Mandela was viewed as the worst kind of criminal, a terrorist.

But he was a terrorist, afaik.

He was a terrorist but his group only targeted government buildings and avoided innocent casualties for the most part.

[Calisu]

And what does this have to do with anything?

You say he's a bad criminal and so Nelson Mandela was labelled as one too. I'm Mandela broke no crimes besides being black and standing up for what he believed in. And I believe that Mike Brown's only crime was being black.

Mandela was behind a group responsible for bombing many government buildings.

[Kouralia]

... I'm Mandela...

No, you're not.

[Calisu]

Brown IS guilty of strong arm robbery but the cops in Ferguson have stated that the cop that shot Brown did not know he was a suspect in the robbery.

[Ravenflight]

... I'm Mandela...

No, you're not.

Nicely done, your a liar

[Organized States]

Brown IS guilty of strong arm robbery but the cops in Ferguson have stated that the cop that shot Brown did not know he was a suspect in the robbery.

He was a suspect. Not guilty, but a suspect.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Classic. The reality of Brown's actions don't mesh well with your mental image of the situation, so you move the goalposts to something I never said or suggested. That's sad.

The rest of your post was filled with a melodramatic nonsense so I won't dignify it with a real response. Really though, Brown was shot dead six times?

Regarding the case, we know Brown had drugs in his system, we know he was the largest individual present, and we know he was the only one with a history of violence.
Occam's razor would suggest that it was something other than Grand Wizard Wilson decided that day was his day to execute someone publicly.

Occam's razor is a heuristic not logic. Regardless, his past doesn't matter. The autopsy seems to suggest he was shot at distance several times by the officer. It will take more time and details before we see a bigger picture, but so far, it appears as though the officer was not justified in shooting Brown.

Not really, distance isn't an automatic indicator of unjustified action. all 6 shots were from the front. 4 shots were not incapacitation shots, located in the extremities. 2 we're head shots. 1 in the eye socket, the other in the top of the head. with the top of the head being the final shot, which suggests Brown was falling forward when it was received. While not conclusive, it one contradicts the initial witness statement of him being shot in the back, most likely a lie to villify the police officer. Secondly it suggests brown was moving forward towards the officer and not away.


additionally, at a cursory glance (I could be wrong) it appears the entry wounds on the arm were on the top of the arm, not the underside, which means his arms were not up in "surrender" as "witnesses" claimed.

All in all, the autopsy actually seems to support the officers account, that Brown rushed the officer, and he fired in self defense. If he did, the number of rounds, fired is actually fairly tame, given the bullet pattern. given the adrenaline factor it is unlikely Brown even felt the impacts,would have kept moving toward the officer, who kept firing until perceived threat was eliminated.


this is all of course, just an alternative analysis, and not necessarily what happened.

[Ravenflight]

Brown IS guilty of strong arm robbery but the cops in Ferguson have stated that the cop that shot Brown did not know he was a suspect in the robbery.

He was a suspect. Not guilty, but a suspect.

CAN YOU NOT READ!

[Calisu]

Brown IS guilty of strong arm robbery but the cops in Ferguson have stated that the cop that shot Brown did not know he was a suspect in the robbery.

He was a suspect. Not guilty, but a suspect.

Usually when there is a confirmed video of a person robbing a store where you clearly see their face it's safe to assume they're guilty. Also might have read my entire post instead of jumping at word 3 to write a reply.

[Kouralia]

He was a suspect. Not guilty, but a suspect.

Usually when there is a confirmed video of a person robbing a store where you clearly see their face it's safe to assume they're guilty. Also might have read my entire post instead of jumping at word 3 to right a reply.

Legally he's a suspect, I believe.

[Calisu]

Usually when there is a confirmed video of a person robbing a store where you clearly see their face it's safe to assume they're guilty. Also might have read my entire post instead of jumping at word 3 to right a reply.

Legally he's a suspect, I believe.

Again might want to read my whole post. I also don't care about American law.

[Ravenflight]

Legally he's a suspect, I believe.

Again might want to read my whole post. I also don't care about American law.

British?

[Kouralia]

Legally he's a suspect, I believe.

Again might want to read my whole post. I also don't care about American law.

I did. I also don't care about US Law, as shown by:

In UK law (because I can't be fucked to get the US one, and the UK one was on my favourites bar), the following conditions must have been met before murder can be said to have occurred:
*snip*

[Organized States]

He was a suspect. Not guilty, but a suspect.

Usually when there is a confirmed video of a person robbing a store where you clearly see their face it's safe to assume they're guilty. Also might have read my entire post instead of jumping at word 3 to write a reply.

I'm aware that the officer didn't know.

Under US law, he's a suspect. He wasn't convicted, therefore, not guilty until proven otherwise, and decided upon by a Jury of his peers.

[Ravenflight]

Usually when there is a confirmed video of a person robbing a store where you clearly see their face it's safe to assume they're guilty. Also might have read my entire post instead of jumping at word 3 to write a reply.

I'm aware that the officer didn't know.

Under US law, he's a suspect. He wasn't convicted, therefore, not guilty until proven otherwise, and decided upon by a Jury of his peers.

I guess in you US you don't have innocent until proven guilty.

[Calisu]

Again might want to read my whole post. I also don't care about American law.

British?

There are many countries outside of the US that aren't Britain.

[Kouralia]

I'm aware that the officer didn't know.

Under US law, he's a suspect. He wasn't convicted, therefore, not guilty until proven otherwise, and decided upon by a Jury of his peers.

I guess in you US you don't have innocent until proven guilty.

Can you read?

[Ravenflight]

British?

There are many countries outside of the US that aren't Britain.

Its just by the looks of the British are defending him and the Americans are saying its all wrong.

[Kelinfort]

British?

There are many countries outside of the US that aren't Britain.

Djibouti?

[Calisu]

There are many countries outside of the US that aren't Britain.

Its just by the looks of the British are defending him and the Americans are saying its all wrong.

How am I defending him? He should be in jail not dead.

[Big Jim P]

Usually when there is a confirmed video of a person robbing a store where you clearly see their face it's safe to assume they're guilty. Also might have read my entire post instead of jumping at word 3 to write a reply.

I'm aware that the officer didn't know.

Under US law, he's a suspect. He wasn't convicted, therefore, not guilty until proven otherwise, and decided upon by a Jury of his peers.

If Brown was rushing the officer, then whether or not he was a suspect is irrelevant.

[Ravenflight]

Its just by the looks of the British are defending him and the Americans are saying its all wrong.

How am I defending him? He should be in jail not dead.

Thats still better than what state he is in.