>

Are you gonna answer the question?
/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You left out the part that at the point when Brown allegedly charged Wilson, he had already been shot by Wilson once (when he had reached into Wilson's car). So the facts are actually that Wilson had very good reason to think Brown was unarmed (because an armed person would not have tried to reach into his car in the first place), left the safety of his car to pursue Brown (meaning he cannot reasonably say he feared for his life at that point, because he could have just stayed in his car and waited for backup if he had), had time to switch to a less lethal tool while approaching Brown and yet didn't, and then shot Brown (who, again, was already gravely wounded) six times when he allegedly charged him
I don't doubt that what Wilson did was technically within the letter of the law and police policies in the US, but I don't think you can seriously argue he was a victim >

Maybe if he were a regular citizen. But police are allowed to arrest you for a crime - so he had a right to try and arrest Brown a citizen wouldn’t have. >

Plenty of people who get arrested get arrested without being shot. Plenty of people who resist arrest get arrested without being shot. Why didn't Wilson switch to a less-lethal method after leaving his car, unless it was his intent to execute Brown on the spot? Moreover, is it not a reasonable assumption, if you have already been shot by a cop and they chase you down with gun drawn, that they are about to execute you on the spot? >

No, that isn't a reasonable assumption. You don't switch to a less lethal method for someone who had just reached for your gun and who already has enough adrenaline that they're still fighting after being shot in the hand. >

Then don't get out of the car to pursue him alone, right? If he's a threat to the life of the officer, well then you wait for backup, surely. >

Let the guy who already assaulted a cop just roam free?

Federal prosecutors questioned Wilson as to why he did not drive away or wait for backup, but instead chose to pursue Brown despite the attack he just described. Wilson explained that he ran after Brown because Brown posed a danger to others, having just assaulted a police officer and likely stolen from Ferguson Market. Given Brown’s violent and otherwise erratic behavior, Wilson was concerned that Brown was a danger to anyone who crossed his path as he ran. >

Yes. You can do that. Drive 10 miles an hour. Give others his location as he travels. Mob him. Don't murder him. >

And when he cuts into an alley? Or into someone’s house or car? >

Then you have his description, a license plate, and or an address. 
Do you think people never get arrested off of descriptions alone? >

So you have a guy who just assaulted a cop and you’re going to let him just wander off? That’s how carjackings and home invasions happen. >


How is this relevant to if Darren Wilson is the victim or not? I always see this referenced, but it always seems not related to the case at all, because it wasn't the reason for the interaction at all.

Because he knew he was fleeing the scene of a Felony Strong Arm Robbery when the officer came upon him.   He's expecting to go to prison off of this encounter and is fight or flight mode.    He chose fight.
The officer, who had no idea he was fleeing from a Felony Strong Arm Robbery, is caught off guard when 'little mike' comes through the window for his gun because he's fighting to stay out of prison. >


comes through the window for his gun because he's fighting to stay out of prison

That wasn't the story that Darren Wilson told.  Wilson drew the gun, THEN Michael Brown goes for it after it's being drawn.  Per Wilson's own testimony, that happened AFTER the fight in the car already started. >

AFTER the fight in the car already started.
So little mike attacked him.     Came through his window.
Drawing your gun to keep the giant coming though your window, beating you, is entirely appropriate. >

I was calling out your misrepresentation of the incident.  "caught off guard when 'little mike' comes through the window for his gun because he's fighting to stay out of prison." implies that he came though the window to take the gun.
Yes, he attacked the officer through the window, I don't dispute that.  I dispute the "caught offguard by ...going for the gun" part.
If you are being assaulted, and draw a gun, I would not be surprised if the person went for the gun to protect themselves.
In short, the cop escalated, and a person ended up dead because of that escalation. >


I was calling out your misrepresentation of the incident. "caught off guard when 'little mike' comes through the window for his gun because he's fighting to stay out of prison." implies that he came though the window to take the gun.

He came though the window to beat that officer.   All bets are off at that instant.    It really doesn't even matter if he was going for the gun intially.

I dispute the "caught offguard by ...going for the gun" part.

Then Amend it to 'caught offguard by a 300lb man beating the shit out of him if it makes you feel better.   Changes nothing.

If you are being assaulted, and draw a gun, I would not be surprised if the person went for the gun to protect themselves.

Cool.   Whatever.  Doesn't matter at that point.   If you are being assaulted, I'm not surprised if you draw your gun to protect yourself.    This isn't a chicken and egg.   Little mike fucked around and found out.

In short, the cop escalated, and a person ended up dead because of that escalation.

Next time you're sitting in your car and a 300 pound dude comes up and attacks you, feel free to let him beat you to death.    Don't expect any other reasonable person to just sit there and get beat to death. >


He came though the window to beat that officer. All bets are off at that instant. It really doesn't even matter if he was going for the gun intially.

If it didn't matter, you should not have made it seem like "he was going for his gun on his belt".  Yes, i'm ignoring the rest of what you said. >

Cool.    Ignore facts and reality. >

I find it intersting that you accuse me of "ignoring facts and reality" when my responses to you have been "This part is misleading at best, and factually incorrect at worst".  Yes, the other things exist.  That doesn't change the fact that you chose to paint a picture that was incorrect. >

I think these sort of arguments (which will include stuff like the Rittenhouse or Zimmerman cases as well) will never really take off, because in most cases the two opposing sides talk past each-other and not placing the threshold of inappropriateness in the same place. 
Even if we put aside the obvious problem of "the official version of events" pretty much always favouring the police (or surviving party) I still think this incident is problematic. For me personally, the basic assumption should be that police officers use lethal force only as a last resort, to protect themselves or others from imminent danger. To me - meaning the way I understand it - that would preclude the wilful creation of circumstances where lethal force becomes necessary, such as pursuing and/or confronting suspects alone. Arguments about actions being "technically correct" or someone being "legally entitled to X" do not really sway me, because they're just very silly in the context of someone being killed. 
I do not think a "event-by-event" accounting of the situation, where each action is sort of measured in a vacuum without context,  makes for good overarching policy either. Yes, it's entirely possible Brown charged, leaving Wilson "no choice", but...Wilson could've just not place himself in a position to be charged, thus never needing to use lethal force. >


I do not think a "event-by-event" accounting of the situation, where each action is sort of measured in a vacuum without context, makes for good overarching policy either. Yes, it's entirely possible Brown charged, leaving Wilson "no choice", but...Wilson could've just not place himself in a position to be charged, thus never needing to use lethal force.

You are blaming Wilson for getting charged by Brown? Lol. Do you also blame women for getting raped? They just shouldn't have put themselves in the situation where they could get raped. >

Wilson is a police officer. He's employed by the state to "keep the peace" - defined broadly - so I'm putting the onus on him to avoid situations where he'd need to use lethal force uselessly. In my opinion, pursuing Brown is not necessary and likely to lead to further escalation. >


In my opinion, pursuing Brown is not necessary and likely to lead to further escalation.

If every criminal decided to run, should cops ever pursue? Should we just decide not to enforce laws as long as criminals try to get away? >

Lethal force should be reserved for circumstances where someone represents an imminent danger . If John Doe steals a pack of smokes and runs away and your two options are litteraly to shoot him in the back or let him go, yes, obviously, you should let him go. >

Well first of all, that wasn't the question. If you are trying to make a parallel here, there were no shots into Brown's back. His options were, chase to try to arrest or let him go. When Wilson attempted to chase, Brown charged Wilson and was only shot in the front while running at Wilson.
But even so, let's go back to my question. If every criminal ran away, should we just not enforce the laws? >

The question is too broad to be useful. "Criminal" encompasses everyone for tax evader to school shooting maniac. That's why I answer with a general standard: Lethal force should be reserved for circumstances where someone represents an imminent danger. 
If "a criminal" runs away and he does not represent a danger, then you shouldn't be using lethal force, even if lethal force is the only thing that could allow you to proceed to an arrest. >

Can you chase a criminal who is running away? Answer this question. >

Can you do so in such a way as to not increase the likelyhood of having to use lethal force? If not, you'd need a very good reason. "I suspect he might've committed a crime" isn't such a reason. >

Well at that point, you didn't suspect he might've committed a crime. He assaulted a police officer. That's a felony. Brown would have faced a minimum of 2 years in prison.
And no, chasing a criminal will always increase the likelihood of using lethal force. So that means you are fine with not enforcing the laws as long as criminals are willing to run away? >


You forgetting about the part where allegedly Brown had his hands up and officer Wilson still fired.

This has been completely discounted. Every witness that claimed this has either recanted, admitted they didn't see the events, or had testimony that clashed with the physical evidence. >

The shots hit brown on the top of his head and shoulders from an angle consistent with his head down and charging at Wilson.
Unless Wilson can levitate 10feet in the air above michael with his hands up, that account is bullshit. >

I'll make no arguments defending that terrible police force, but they do nothing to change that Wilson acted correctly. >

First, Michael Brown was the victim. He committed crimes, yes, but none of the crimes for which he would have been convicted were worthy of the death penalty.  
Second, Darren Wilson acted as judge, jury, and executioner, without due process, in the death of Michael Brown. That does not make him the victim. He yelled over at Brown and the friend, blocked their path with his SUV, and then opened his car door into Brown. At this point, Wilson had made three actions that all served to escalate the situation. That is not his job, his job is to try and keep people safe, by de-escalating situations. Additionally, he radioed for backup, but neglected to wait, even though he did not think that Brown was a threat until after he opened his car door, as evidenced by the fact that he did not have his gun drawn and was making no attempt to arrest Brown, as well as putting himself with arm's reach of Brown.  
Then, when the situation escalated, he chose his gun, rather than a non-lethal weapon, partly because the only non-lethal weapon he had access to was mace, which is not usable in a car. >


First, Michael Brown was the victim. He committed crimes, yes, but none of the crimes for which he would have been convicted were worthy of the death penalty.

Nope, he was the assailant. If he had complied he would've just been facing prison time, but instead he charged the officer and was killed in self defense.

Second, Darren Wilson acted as judge, jury, and executioner, without due process, in the death of Michael Brown. That does not make him the victim. He yelled over at Brown and the friend, blocked their path with his SUV, and then opened his car door into Brown. At this point, Wilson had made three actions that all served to escalate the situation.

Those are all fair points and I've already agreed that those make calling him the victim incorrect.

Additionally, he radioed for backup, but neglected to wait, even though he did not think that Brown was a threat until after he opened his car door, as evidenced by the fact that he did not have his gun drawn and was making no attempt to arrest Brown, as well as putting himself with arm's reach of Brown.

Except he had every reason to believe Brown was a threat and got out of the car to arrest him. >

There is no evidence, in any statement, (including Wilson's) that he told Brown to stop or anything BEFORE he backed the car up and opened the door. What was Brown to comply with? Getting hit by a car? >

That's just false. Wilson's testimony, corroborated by Brown's friend, was he told them to get the fuck out of the street. >

Why discount other testimonies for inconsistencies when Wilson's makes no sense.
Cops lie. Cops lie a lot just like how Darren Wilson did.
Later released video shows Michael Brown leaving a bag at the store he was accused by police of robbing. The same bag that was apparently the target of his "robbery" (and if we're being honest if this had nothing to do with a police shootings we would all be calling it shoplifting).
Darren Wilson's inital testimony was that he was called about a robbery and he confronted Michael Brown on it. Wilson later change his story claiming he didn't know of any shoplifting but they kept that in the public conscious as a character testimony despite it later being revealed that police had the early day footage proving Wilson a liar. 
And knowing he's a liar, his testimony makes no sense:
Why would Wilson testify that Brown was 10 feet from his car when he was shot when he was actually over 100 feet away from the car?
Why would someone who "robbed"(shoplifted) randomly decide to provoke a cop?
Why did Brown apparently pause in the middle of a fight to show off and hand to his friend the item he stole? The one that the cop knew about, but at the same time didn't know anything about. >

OK.  Lets get something out of the way.  Brown, as the person who died, IS THE VICTIM. End of story.  He died.  He gets no second chance, no new career, no opportunity to consider his actions.  He is gone.  Over some cigarillos.
Now to deal with Wilson.  Wilson was caught in a bad situation by doing his job. It remains debatable if he acted in self defense and if he used excessive force.  What we do know is that he killed a man while on duty.  That does not make him a victim in any way.  At best it makes him someone who was doing a job he signed up for, despite knowing the risks and possibilities.  At worst it makes him a murderer.  The truth is somewhere in the middle, but it does not make Wilson a victim, let alone THE victim. >


OK. Lets get something out of the way. Brown, as the person who died, IS THE VICTIM. End of story. He died. He gets no second chance, no new career, no opportunity to consider his actions. He is gone. Over some cigarillos.

Yeah no. Brown is the assailant. It's tragic that he died so young, but that is 100% on him. It isn't over some Cigarillos, that had nothing to do with the shooting, it's over repeatedly assaulting an officer.
I won't argue the rest as I've already conceded against calling Wilson the victim. >

What do you get out of bootlicking this hard?? I legitimately don’t get it 🤔🤔 >


there IS a major issue with police brutality towards POCs in the US

Is there? Or is there a problem with a subculture primarily composed of minorities in which criminality and antisocial behavior is core? For lack of a better term, we could call this "gang culture" - and it's comprised of 85-90% minorities.
So is there a problem with police "targeting minorities"? Or is it just police doing their jobs and focusing resources where it's needed most, which is within these communities? It might surprise you to learn that 81% of Black Americans want more or the same amount of police in their neighborhoods.
In terms of brutality, there really isn't a problem aside from statistically rare stories which are hyper-emphasized on mainstream media outlets, making them appear common (in my opinion, this is propaganda). According to 44 million police-to-public surveys collected over a 9 year period, 98.4% of police interactions did not involve force, or even the threat of force. >

Come on, go read the Ferguson Report. 
Saying minorities compromise a society in which criminality and antisocial behavior is core is plain racist. 
Poverty creates those conditions and centuries of white supremacist laws and policies were aimed at keeping black people impoverished.  Police then over police with "broken window" policing and turn a blind eye when white people do the same criminal and antisocial shit. Go read about Recy Taylor to see how violent white criminals were given free passes. 
Within living memory white supremacy was the law. Brutality from police towards black people was the norm. They were criminalized, targeted, for existing as black people.  
So yes, there is absolutely a problem with police targeting minorities. >

Why are 85-90% of gang members black or hispanic? What are the police supposed to do about that? Not arrest criminals because that's "racist"? >

Why are 99 percent of serial killers white men?
EDITED TO ADD:
No, I am not going to answer the question because this thread has been shut down.
Aside from that I wasn't going to answer because that is completely beside the point I made and a huge shifting of the goalposts.