Posted on 11/27/2014 5:54:17 AM PST by the scotsman
'Pharrell Williams, one of the biggest black figures in the music industry, has spoken out about the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, saying he is 'troubled' a grand jury decided not to indict the white police officer responsible.
But the 'Happy' singer also sparked heated debate by calling Brown's behavior leading up to his August 9 death 'bully-ish'.
Before he was shot dead, Brown was caught on surveillance camera stealing a handful of cigarillos from a convenience store in Ferguson, Missouri, and intimidating the shop owner.
While Pharrell says that was no excuse for Officer Darren Wilson to use lethal force against the unarmed teen, he thinks Brown's actions are being overlooking in the national discussion about the tragedy.
'It looked very bully-ish; that in itself I had a problem with,' Pharrell told Ebony magazine. 'Not with the kid, but with whatever happened in his life for him to arrive at a place where that behavior is OK. Why aren't we talking about that?''
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I wonder what he would say (nothing at all) if Brown had gotten the gun and killed the officer.
Fascinating how the liberal brain short circuits. Mike Brown is “bully-ish” BZZZT “the cop should not use lethal force”
Now I KNOW this guy heard about “The bully” punching the cop in the face and trying to take his gun, but isn’t fascinating how the liberal brain will just create an arc over that information where it is completely ignored?
No, it's not whatever happened in his life, it's the kid.
“Bully-sih?”
Ya think?
Michael Brown was a big street thug. He robbed with impunity then grabbed the guy by the throat and pushed him away when he confronted him about it.
He then assaulted a officer Darren Wilson who simply asked him to get out of the street. Then charged that officer when the officer was able to get out of his car and give chase.
He got exactly what he deserved which were the consequences of his felonious, criminal actions.
I penned the following here on FR on August 21st. It was true then...it is true now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3195460/posts
They have to reconcile their worldview with the facts, and they're not about to give up the worldview.
I'm not cutting Pharrell any slack but if I were him, I'd be darn sure to curb my tongue when speaking out against the newly sainted thug; his livelihood is controlled by those libtards.
Didn’t stop him from injecting the “controversy” in to “The Voice” the other night. When he and his two remaining contestants were singing “It’s A Wonderful World”, he inserted “When justice is unfurled, we’ll have a wonderful world.” at the very end of the song. No doubt in my mind what he was referencing. Guess the new standard op is going to be to back away if a person of color is doing something wrong and just not interfere. No confrontations allowed. What a load of crap. Even heard some guy on Lars Larson yesterday saying he hopes that Darren Wilson gets seriously injured somehow for assassinating mb by shooting him in the head as he lay on the ground. WHAT! Guess facts don’t matter any more. Or just plain ignored.
Self preservation is why he had to say there was no excuse for shooting the bully. Black race hate triples towards a black man who gets off the plantation.
1) “-ish”? No, not bully-ish but down right criminal thuggery.
2) He was not a kid but an adult.
3) A charging bull is not unarmed.
4) The “whatever happened in his life” excuse doesn’t fly. It was his decision to get high, rob the store, assault the store manager, walk down the middle of the street gangsta style, not obey Wilson to get out of the street and attack him.
5) Never heard of Pharrell Williams.
Brown wasn’t being just a bulley in the store, he was committing strong armed robbery, a felony. Theft using force or fear is defined as robbery and that’s a big deal.
Dang! I meant “bully.” Stupid turkey messed me up.
I am pretty sure that no one would have ever heard about it. It only makes news if a white guy does it.
And then there are the eyewitness reports...some of which were shown to be perjured and others which paint GG in a very,*very* bad light.
He’s just ignorant, probably an avid MSNBC watcher.
The strong arm robbery isn’t, couldnt possibly be, a justification for killing Brown. Wilson had no knowlege of it at the time the confrontation took place.
The justification are the assault on Wilson and the attempt to take his weapon, followed by Brown turning and charging Wilson, crossing 25 yards before he fell.
Thats it. Any talk about the strong arm robbery by the Left is just a red herring.
I think the writer (unintentionally) makes a valid point.
The step-dad is an ex-convict gang member who publicly incites people to arson. The mother was just involved in beating up the grandmother (step-grandmother?). It does seem as though the apple didn't fall far. I'd like to see the MSM show just the tiniest bit of curiosity.
There is a little-discussed parallel between the Zimmerman/Martin case and this one. That's the way the presence of a gun changes the dynamic of the situation.
In the Z/M case, Zimmerman believed Martin was trying to get the gun away from him. Once he succeeded, Zimmerman, quite reasonably, assumed he would use the gun on him.
Meanwhile, Martin, presumably, once he saw the gun believed he had no choice but to try to get it away before it was used on him.
So at the moment of the final struggle, each person believed, probably correctly, that his only chance to survive was to use the weapon on the other.
So the presence of that weapon turned what might have been a fistfight into a life or death struggle where each person believed he had no choice but to incapacitate or kill the other.
Same in the Wilson/Brown case. The major reason Wilson "had" to shoot Brown was the possibility Brown would get his gun away from him and use it on him.
Had Wilson or Zimmerman not been armed, the dynamics of the situation would have been entirely different. The stakes for either party would not have been ultimate, so there would have been some possibility of de-escalation. With the guns, that possibility wasn't there.
Absent the guns, either situation could still have wound up with Wilson or Zimmerman dead, but the chance would have been considerably reduced.
Guns are highly efficient ways of killing people. Which is why we carry them. But their mere presence by definition turns every encounter into one of life or death.
That is, IMO, one of the unintended consequences of carrying a weapon for protection.
I fully support 2A rights, but as with every other right, when exercised it may have negative side effects. I think this inherent escalation of the stakes in a dispute is one of the negative side effects of going about armed.
My understanding is that Wilson testified he was aware that these guys met the description of the robbers when he confronted them.
The police chief statement to the contrary a couple months ago was apparently mistaken.
Actually we do need to talk about what led up to the incident.
The “baby daddy”/welfare culture.
Let’s DO talk about that!
Ok, hadn’t heard that.
Even so, that justifies stopping them, not shooting. There’s zero evidence that Wilson shot Brown for any reason other than the violent and life-threatening assault launched by Brown.
The convienience store strong arm remains a red herring that the Left is using to pull the focus away from the assault on Wilson that justified the shooting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.