Support for him WHY? He has all the power. He's still alive. He gets to go home at night and hug his family. If the past is any indication of the future, "justice" will err on his side. Why does he need support exactly?
Post by Velar Fricative on Aug 20, 2014 11:37:43 GMT -5
I certainly don't expect Wilson's family and friends to not support him while the investigation is taking place. But such outward showings of support show that you support an officer shooting an unarmed man. In and of itself, that's not acceptable and certainly not something to show "support" for.
I support police officers in general for having a really tough job but there are still procedures that officers have to follow. Please show me any police department rule book that shows that it's totally okay to shoot an unarmed man.
I certainly don't expect Wilson's family and friends to not support him while the investigation is taking place. But such outward showings of support show that you support an officer shooting an unarmed man. In and of itself, that's not acceptable and certainly not something to show "support" for.
I support police officers in general for having a really tough job but there are still procedures that officers have to follow. Please show me any police department rule book that shows that it's totally okay to shoot an unarmed man.
They don't see it as shooting an unmenacing unarmed man.
They think MB went for his gun and fractured his orbital socket therefore Wilson had every right to shoot him.
At least that's what I gather from FB, and if those are the 'facts' that they are choosing to believe, the shooting was justifiable.
I certainly don't expect Wilson's family and friends to not support him while the investigation is taking place. But such outward showings of support show that you support an officer shooting an unarmed man. In and of itself, that's not acceptable and certainly not something to show "support" for.
I support police officers in general for having a really tough job but there are still procedures that officers have to follow. Please show me any police department rule book that shows that it's totally okay to shoot an unarmed man.
They don't see it as shooting an unmenacing unarmed man.
They think MB went for his gun and fractured his orbital socket therefore Wilson had every right to shoot him.
At least that's what I gather from FB, and if those are the 'facts' that they are choosing to believe, the shooting was justifiable.
Yes. I have not seen a single thing (besides here and twitter of Antonio French and Ryan Reilly (?) ) that says anything other than the facts are a big scary robber of a thug attacked a police officer and he had no choice but to kill him. Seriously, that's the word on the street everywhere I look. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone sometimes because what I read out there is so different from what's been posted here and the tweets I see from the people at the site.
So they really do think they are supporting an innocent officer who was lucky to avoid being killed by this menacing thug.
Eta: that's not how I see it personally it's just that's what I see on fb (very few things anyway on there) and various news blurbs.
I certainly don't expect Wilson's family and friends to not support him while the investigation is taking place. But such outward showings of support show that you support an officer shooting an unarmed man. In and of itself, that's not acceptable and certainly not something to show "support" for.
I support police officers in general for having a really tough job but there are still procedures that officers have to follow. Please show me any police department rule book that shows that it's totally okay to shoot an unarmed man.
They don't see it as shooting an unmenacing unarmed man.
They think MB went for his gun and fractured his orbital socket therefore Wilson had every right to shoot him.
At least that's what I gather from FB, and if those are the 'facts' that they are choosing to believe, the shooting was justifiable.
Actually, even given those supposed facts, it may not be justifiable. Thought this was an interesting analysis - link.
Did a struggle with the police officer turn Brown into a violent fleeing felon? After all, police department’s account claims Officer Wilson’s face was hit during the altercation and he was treated for his wounds at a hospital.
Not according to Bowman. “If you’re a police officer and I walk up and punch you in the nose and turn around and run away, you can’t pull out your glock and shoot me in the back. You just can’t. The law insists on far more restraint than that from police officers.” he said.
Generally, the law requires more than an altercation to justify the use of deadly force against someone who is fleeing the police, like assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon, or committing a crime with a deadly weapon.
“It’s pretty hard to think of any legal justification for the officer firing at this guy once contact is broken and the guy is moving away,” Bowman said.
Post by sparrowsong on Aug 20, 2014 12:42:05 GMT -5
I wish other police officers and police departments would speak out against this mess and call for transparency in the investigation and a conviction. Surely the good cops, of which we know are the majority, see how this clusterfuck is creating a lack of trust and increased danger to officers across the country. If they move ahead with this coverup, how can we trust any of them?
They don't see it as shooting an unmenacing unarmed man.
They think MB went for his gun and fractured his orbital socket therefore Wilson had every right to shoot him.
At least that's what I gather from FB, and if those are the 'facts' that they are choosing to believe, the shooting was justifiable.
Actually, even given those supposed facts, it may not be justifiable. Thought this was an interesting analysis - link.
Did a struggle with the police officer turn Brown into a violent fleeing felon? After all, police department’s account claims Officer Wilson’s face was hit during the altercation and he was treated for his wounds at a hospital.
Not according to Bowman. “If you’re a police officer and I walk up and punch you in the nose and turn around and run away, you can’t pull out your glock and shoot me in the back. You just can’t. The law insists on far more restraint than that from police officers.” he said.
Generally, the law requires more than an altercation to justify the use of deadly force against someone who is fleeing the police, like assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon, or committing a crime with a deadly weapon.
“It’s pretty hard to think of any legal justification for the officer firing at this guy once contact is broken and the guy is moving away,” Bowman said.
Interesting read. I think that my FB friends would disagree with the part I bolded, the bright legal scholars that they are.
Actually, even given those supposed facts, it may not be justifiable. Thought this was an interesting analysis - link.
Interesting read. I think that my FB friends would disagree with the part I bolded, the bright legal scholars that they are.
I've no doubt they would. Thankfully it's not up to them, though I unfortunately have doubts that the Ferguson prosecutor will be much better. Still, all eyes are watching so hopefully justice will be served.