<p>Frankly, I don’t believe the officer’s account of what went down.>>>>>>>>>></p>
<p>Yeah, maybe there’s a version we haven’t heard yet…Wilson climbed up on something, high enough up to shoot Brown in the top of the head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s the point – that Ferguson PD does not see its mission as serving the black people of Ferguson. At least, their actions are not consistent with that mission. Their actions are consistent with the view that the black citizens of Ferguson are enemy combatants. The point was to send a vivid message of disrespect and humiliation and intimidation to the community.</p>
<p>Public display of the dead bodies of the vanquished is an age-old practice in war. And if you think that’s far-fetched in this case, please give me a plausible reason why Mike Brown was left in the street, without so much as a blanket to cover him, for hours.(Hint – there is no plausible explanation, or it would have been trotted out long before this.)</p>
<p>BTW, “the higher ups were too busy to get to it” is not plausible. How hard would it have been to obtain a sheet or blanket or tarp? Ferguson PD wanted Mike Brown’s neighbors to get a good long look at what they were willing to do. “And we’ll do it again” is part of the message.</p>
<p>
I really do not like the fact that some police really overdoes it for some petty crime (if it is a crime to begin with.) The police may claim the person violates the law. But to me the real reason is likely that the police just has too much need/ego to show that “this is my territory and you shall do whatever I want you to do or else.”</p>
<p>I looked it up. Another male African American victim: walking as a big, black man may endanger himself.</p>
<p>I truly believe what he said about police’s attitude toward him right before he died:</p>
<p>In the video, which was obtained by the Daily News, Garner is seen telling officers, “I was just minding my own business. Every time you see me you want to mess with me. I’m tired of it. It stops today!”</p>
<p>" …Wilson climbed up on something, high enough up to shoot Brown in the top of the head. "</p>
<p>I believe the forensic report indicated that the bullet that entered Brown’s head was due to him running towards Wilson , not from above</p>
<p>Not sure, but I think that was sarcasm. It’s really hard to tell on this thread. Some of these theories are certainly very creative.</p>
<p>Or “due to him falling forward toward the ground after the previous shots”? Hmmm…maybe he was indeed running toward Wilson and got shot dead while running. While he was falling, the momentum caused him to fall forward (since he’s running in that direction.) One of the last few bullets got into his head while he was falling.</p>
<p>I think a bigger problem in our society than the police brutality (this is also a problem of course) is the racial tension. When the whole race are almost always treated much worse than others in their lives (no matter what the reason may be), we would have a problem.</p>
<p>I love your avatar, mcat2. The only thing better than a tabby is two tabbies.</p>
<p>^ Thanks. And my screen name is mcat2 - there are 2 cats in it. LOL. (Hopefully, some CCers will not think it is related to some standardized test.)</p>
<p>“least, their actions are not consistent with that mission. Their actions are consistent with the view that the black citizens of Ferguson are enemy combatants”</p>
<p>I can’t imagine why they’d think they are enemy combatants. Why, it’s not like any of them steal from conv–oh, never mind. </p>
<p>" …Wilson climbed up on something, high enough up to shoot Brown in the top of the head. "</p>
<p>I believe the forensic report indicated that the bullet that entered Brown’s head was due to him running towards Wilson , not from above>>>>>>>>>>></p>
<p>Exactly. He was in a “butting” run, he was going to ram and tackle Wilson, who aimed and shot at the part presented which was the top of his head. People keep ignoring this forensic evidence.</p>
<p>Is this the proper time to point out that Marie Antoinette said “let them eat cake?” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s funny is that she actually never said that. It might have been the first straw man in history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So PG,</p>
<p>Are you saying that all black citizens of Ferguson steal from convenience stores and thus, are justified as being treated as enemy combatants by Ferguson/St. Louis area PDs? Really?</p>
<p>Interesting considering some British authorities before/during the American Revolution made the very same arguments to justify their punitive brutal actions and disdainful contemptuous attitude against American colonists. To spell it out for some, the former had British authorities view American colonists as ungrateful violent criminals who needed to be swiftly put down by military force. Some like British Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton were so efficient in carrying out this policy that his name is still hated in many parts of the south to this day. Ironically, in so doing, they ended up undermining the position, influence, and enthusiasm of American Loyalists for the British cause. </p>
<p>No, cobrat. Pizzagirl is obviously not saying that, hence the fact that she used the word “any” instead of “all.” </p>
<p>And please, just stop with the absurd historical examples. They aren’t remotely relevant, and are leading me to question whether or not you actually understand what “let them eat cake” means, as you are using it inappropriately </p>
<p>Correct use of “let them eat cake” in an analogy: “Telling someone who can’t afford to see a neurologist that they should go to your accupuncturist is so Marie Antoinette of you.”</p>
<p>Incorrect use of “let them eat cake” in an analogy: “You said that maybe we should address systemic racial problems without condoning robbery, assault, or arson. That’s kind of like telling starving people to buy cake.” </p>
<p>apprenticeprof, how do you explain Ferguson’s dismal history of racially profiling drivers? </p>
<p><a href=“Black Residents In Ferguson, Missouri, Are Stopped And Arrested Far More Than Whites”>http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/blacks-overwhelmingly-get-stopped-by-the-police-in-ferguson</a></p>
<p>I’m sorry, LasMa, I’m not sure what post of mine you’re referring to - the Ferguson police seems to have a pretty dismal history in general. I haven’t disputed that, nor do I agree with every aspect of Pizzagirl’s posts - I just don’t think she’s a French aristocrat, British Loyalist, segregationist, etc, and don’t think those are particularly useful analogies to this situation.</p>
<p>Sorry. I thought you were agreeing with PG’s justification of Ferguson PD treating the black people of Ferguson as enemy combatants.</p>
<p>Found this from Justice Scalia’s 1992 opinion in United States v. Williams:</p>
<p>“It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”</p>
<p>That says it for me.</p>
<p>Excellent article, imo, about why police dont get indicted. </p>
<p><a href=“http://m.thenation.com/article/190937-why-its-impossible-indict-cop”>http://m.thenation.com/article/190937-why-its-impossible-indict-cop</a></p>