What's the argument with the weed thing? He might have been stoned when this happened? Does that actually carry weight?
I think that's the argument. And unfortunately I think it will catty weight.
What's the argument with the weed thing? He might have been stoned when this happened? Does that actually carry weight?
The cops side of the story is leaking and he says he was bum rushed by Michael Brown twice. Once where he punched the cop and tried to take his gun. The next time was when he was shot and killed.
If this is true, does the cop not have every right to protect himself by eliminating the threat?
Ultimately no one knows except Wilson; but I don't believe for a second that Brown "went for" the cops gun. I think Wilson drew the gun first and then Brown grabbed for it. That would explain why the gun went off in the car while Wilson maintained possession of it.
Ultimately no one knows except Wilson; but I don't believe for a second that Brown "went for" the cops gun. I think Wilson drew the gun first and then Brown grabbed for it. That would explain why the gun went off in the car while Wilson maintained possession of it.
It doesn't matter if he's trying to stop the cop from pulling the gun or going for it. It's the same thing.
Are you kidding me - there is a huge difference.
Are you kidding me - there is a huge difference.
Are you kidding me - there is a huge difference.
What's your point exactly? The difference is you would actually be convicted of rape if you were arrested, while testing positive for weed is not a crime at all, despite the fact one has to possess it beforehand. Not to mention even if you're talking about his possession whatever time ago, since when do misdemeanor count for anything other than the misdemeanor being committed. He might have had a failure to use his left turn signal ticket too. Ohh, crime. Hell, he was walking in the middle of the street when this happened. More crime. Crime is everywhere!!
What's the argument with the weed thing? He might have been stoned when this happened? Does that actually carry weight?
The second option, minus the hyperbole.
Are you kidding me - there is a huge difference.
So in your opinion. It's ok to try and stop a cop from pulling his gun? I don't get what you are saying. Elaborate please. I can't see any situation where it's a good idea, or you should be denying a cop from pulling his gun. Imo, that's a very bad idea, and is asking for trouble. And I'm quite sure that the law states you are not allowed to do that. Also, how does the cop know what his intentions are?
Are you kidding me - there is a huge difference.
Going for the cops gun is 100% justification for using deadly force.
So you are a cop, and trying to subdue a perp. He lunges for your gun. Do you need to let him grab it before you shoot him?
So in your opinion. It's ok to try and stop a cop from pulling his gun? I don't get what you are saying. Elaborate please. I can't see any situation where it's a good idea, or you should be denying a cop from pulling his gun. Imo, that's a very bad idea, and is asking for trouble. And I'm quite sure that the law states you are not allowed to do that. Also, how does the cop know what his intentions are?
I think those defending the cop in this situation are doing a great job stating black and white factual information and I agree with most of it.
All you're missing is a **** load of context you can't even begin to fathom.
Your opinions are nice and all, but please remember that's all they are. Extremely uninformed, culturally biased, opinions.
My opinion? **** the police. Everyday.
My opinion? **** the police. Everyday.
I can't think of a bigger indicator of "Extremely uninformed, culturally biased, opinion" than a statement like that.
Dat NWA, doe.
Dude, think about that one for a bit.
BTW, welcome back, I missed you.
Well, duh. Of course they are opinions, since nobody actually has all of the facts. There are people, like the dumb **** who made the thread, who don't care about facts, but for the most part, it sure seems like most people are being respectful and thoughtful. (As in, full of thought)
Since you've clearly got all the answers and evidence that we're missing out on, why not enlighten us instead of insulting our intelligence? Or are we too stupid to understand?
Well, I don't want to use my experience because it is not the same as an actual police officer's experience or training and there's no way I'm going to be able to do this without sounding lame as hell...
When I was on my first deployment in the Navy I was assigned temporary duty to shipboard security. As shipboard security I was armed. I had to go through some training, although in my opinion the training was pretty micky-mouse. Anyway, one of the training sessions was "weapon retention" and it was all about not letting anyone, ever, under any circumstances, take your firearm or gain control of it in any way. As I was trained, someone attempting to take control of your weapon escalated the situation up what they called the ladder of force (aka the use of force continuum) to the highest level, lethal force.
That's what my statement is based on. Not sure if my statement sounds different to everyone else but to me it makes sense.
Not once did I claim to have any answers here. I have my opinion of course. I'm not any smarter than you here, actually thats not true, I'm definitely smarter than your dumb ***. But I digress.....
I really enjoy a bunch of white dudes from Utah (i know some of you are not, and I don't care anyway) spouting off about what a white cop should do when dealing with a black, unarmed kid. It's awesome, really awesome.
Not once did I claim to have any answers here. I have my opinion of course. I'm not any smarter than you here, actually thats not true, I'm definitely smarter than your dumb ***. But I digress.....
I really enjoy a bunch of white dudes from Utah (i know some of you are not, and I don't care anyway) spouting off about what a white cop should do when dealing with a black, unarmed kid. It's awesome, really awesome.