Ferguson: too much or not enough?

[Jackalope]

I see three items of interest in the picture.

1. A gun which Michael is just barely old enough to buy and of which I very, very highly doubt that he purchased legally.

Without comment on the rest (I'm still trying to determine what likely happened), the bolded part is incorrect. You have to be 21 to lawfully purchase a handgun anywhere in the U.S.

[Jaysyn]

I see three items of interest in the picture.

1. A gun which Michael is just barely old enough to buy and of which I very, very highly doubt that he purchased legally.

Without comment on the rest (I'm still trying to determine what likely happened), the bolded part is incorrect. You have to be 21 to lawfully purchase a handgun anywhere in the U.S.

And who was claiming Brown was the owner of any of the objects in the picture? Exactly.

[pablo628]

Not enough. I like Craigs show, keep it coming.

[Minimalist]

Oh, dear. This is embarrassing.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael...on-n183776

Egypt on Tuesday urged U.S. authorities to exercise restraint in dealing with racially charged demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri - echoing language Washington used to caution Egypt as it cracked down on Islamist protesters last year. It is unusual for Egypt to criticize such a major donor. Ties between Washington and Cairo were strained after Egyptian security forces killed hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood supporters following the army's ousting of freely elected President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.

[Diablo]

Oh, dear. This is embarrassing.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael...on-n183776

Egypt on Tuesday urged U.S. authorities to exercise restraint in dealing with racially charged demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri - echoing language Washington used to caution Egypt as it cracked down on Islamist protesters last year. It is unusual for Egypt to criticize such a major donor. Ties between Washington and Cairo were strained after Egyptian security forces killed hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood supporters following the army's ousting of freely elected President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013.

Ouch!

[Drich]

The only revelant question is Did the douche bag rob a store or not? If he did then know he assassinated his own character.

Just because the cop did not know what mike did 30 minutes before walking down the center of the road, does not mean mike forgot what he did. Meaning when that cop went to pull him to the side, Mike most likly assumed he was going to jail and needlessly escalated the situation himself. (The cop did not beat himself up.) beat up a cop, get shot. Thats kinda a rule a thumb no matter what color you are.

That's funny, I didn't know you Yanks had the death penalty for robbery.

The death penalty can be carried out by citizen in a position to stop a felony crime, intentional death or seriously bodily harm. (That is why george Zimmerman was not even initially detained after killing treyvon.)
In some states one can add the crime of tresspassing or even property damage.

So beating up a cop is indeed a crime the officer has the right to be judge jury and executioner.

That it is why people/smart people do not start fights with people whos jobs require them to be armed.

---

Or -

http://data.newsday.com/crime/nassau-police/


I suppose someone who uncritically believes the bullshit you believe will accept just about anything that an authority figure tells you. You should work on being less of a credulous fool.

I think this is absolutely true and should be strongly remembered in judging the claims from the police. However, it is the black witnesses' testimonies that have been impeached so far with the physical evidence, not the cop's.
When are you going to admit this? When are you going to admit that the two main black witnesses' testimonies that was initially relayed to all the sensation loving media and started the greater riot reaction were lying. They were lying and you and so many others believed them. The guy was not shot in the back.
When are you going to admit that:
1. He was not a honest guy crossing the street.
2. He had committed a very recent crime and would have freaked at the presence of a policeman.
3. He Was in a belligerent, aggressive mood.
4. He was shot about 6 times from the front, corroborating at least in part, with the cop's released testimony.
5. The black witness's testimonies that have been so widespread, have been racist lies, pure racist lies.

I think i died a little inside to give you that kudo, but in this case it is well deserved. You have said a few really good things, but my pride just would let me kudo you.. Maybe i need to evaluate my beliefs if i am agreeing so much with you.

[Minimalist]

However, it is the black witnesses' testimonies that have been impeached so far with the physical evidence, not the cop's.

Are you on the grand jury, Brake? The fucking cops haven't even released the autopsy they performed yet let alone any other evidence. They only released the name of the killer kop under pressure.

Listening to right-wing racist assholes is not evidence. Try to remember that.

And don't listen to Drippy, either.

[Drich]

Is this the young man that was shot?

The only thing this picture says he is guilty of is everything everyone is guilty the first time a gun and camera is present with any indivusal.

I have alot of guns and take people from execs from european and other no gun law countries shooting a few times. EVERYONE wants the thug life photo, everyone holds the glock side ways and stabs the air with it.. Some of the biggest offenders are the most vocal anti gun/guns are the problem with america d-bags.

What shows this gun man as being a monster is how he acted on video against the store owner who confronted him and what the officer said he did to him.

[Brakeman]

I see three items of interest in the picture.

1. A gun which Michael is just barely old enough to buy and of which I very, very highly doubt that he purchased legally.

Without comment on the rest (I'm still trying to determine what likely happened), the bolded part is incorrect. You have to be 21 to lawfully purchase a handgun anywhere in the U.S.

That's what I thought initially, I had even typed it in my first draft, but surprisingly it isn't true. It is a federal law that you have to be at least 21 to be a licensed dealer of guns, but in most states you only have to be 18 to purchase a handgun.

Minimum Ages for Firearms
State Purchase of a Handgun Purchase of a Long Gun
..
Missouri 18 18
..

http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-p...y-summary/

[DeistPaladin]

Can anyone say "Red Herring Fallacy"?

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

How about "Poisoning the Well?"

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person...
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make

Conservatives are especially fond of the latter. Any time they're caught being abusive, they like to go on the offensive and put the accuser on trial. When they can, they like to change the subject and make all the talking points about what an awful person the accuser is and hopefully the accusation will be forgotten.

It usually works. It works very well, I'm sorry to say.

Just look at this thread. We've gone from discussing police abuse, the threat of the militarization of the police, the crackdown on the press (including firing upon, threatening and jailing members of the press just for doing their job) to discussing the victim and, well, he was a horrible person anyway, right?

Totally.
Fucking.
Irrelevant.

Let's just grant the argument. Let's say the victim really was a punk, a thief, a drug dealer, *put your character assassination here*, etc. etc. Let's just grant all these assumptions about him. This frankly is no better than defending a rapist by showing pictures of the rape victim at a party getting drunk, being scantily clad or whatever and trying to imply she had it coming. This is pure blame-the-victim. But fine, let that go. Let's grant all these assumptions.

So?

The cop who shot him DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS STUFF WHEN HE SHOT HIM. Even the police chief admitted this.

Since the cop didn't know, it wasn't part of the decision to shoot.

Since it wasn't part of the decision to shoot, it's totally irrelevant.

Totally.
Irrelevant.
Return to the subject.

The allegations that are relevant:
1. A cop allegedly shot an unarmed man who had his hands in the air.
2. When peaceful protests gathered, the cops seem to have acted like a bunch of drunken frat boys with some shiny new toys they got for Christmas and decided it was time to party. And boy, howdy, did they party!
3. The press has been intimidated, threatened, fired upon and arrested for doing their jobs.

This is an example of how NOT to handle public relations.
This is an example of how NOT to diffuse public anger.
This is an example of how NOT to keep order.
This is an example of how NOT to maintain a free society.
This is an example of why we should NOT militarize the police.