Posted on 12/17/2014 12:32:00 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In the wake of a New York grand jury deciding not to indict police officer Daniel Pantaleo for the chokehold death of Eric Garner, racially diverse protests instantly erupted across the nation.
White faces could be seen in swelling crowds from NYC and D.C., to Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit and Denver. Their mouths covered with masking tape with the words "I can't breathe" scrawled over it. The righteousness of racial solidarity burning in their eyes as they joined in chanting, "Black lives matter! Black lives matter! Black lives matter!"
This is not to say that there were not White allies protesting over the Aug. 9 shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. They were there shutting down the St. Louis Symphony with a haunting "Requiem for Mike Brown." They were there disrupting a St. Louis Rams football game back in October.
There were even scattered throughout the crowd during the fiery protests that ensued after a grand jury declined to indict former Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in Brown's death. Allowing Wilson, who had just killed a teenager, to leave the scene, go wash Brown's blood off of his hands and place his own gun into evidence is almost farcical -- something one would expect from Shonda Rhimes' How To Get Away With Murder, not the streets of America....
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Actions have consequences. Walk in the middle of the road (possibly in a drugged stupor), disregard an officer who says "get offa da road", grapple with an officer for his gun and you probably WILL get shot.
He WAS a thug because of the way he intimidated, assaulted, and stole from a shop keeper over a trivial purchase. He tried to intimidate the cop.
Whatever happened to "ban bullying"?
If black lives matter, why aren’t abortion murder mills being protested. Why wasn’t there more outcry when Gosnell was cutting up black babies and snapping their necks.
Get back to me when your hypocracy ends.
but when we're talking about known thugs, like gentle Ben, what's a cop to do?....he didn't have rubber bullets....he didn't have bear spray or a fire hose to stop the 300#er....
like little sweet trayvon, gentle ben just went too far to be ignored....
I’ve seen physically abusive cops before. I’ve seen them assault white males, hispanics, whatever. I have not seem them go into assault mode based strictly on skin color nor avoid going into assault mode simply because someone was white.
I’m losing my patience with this.
So, supporting only "good" Black victims won't solve all the problems of the universe. Check!
"All or nothing" fallacy / false dilemma!
Regards,
Their mouths covered with masking tape with the words “I can’t breathe” scrawled over it.
Take the tape off numb nuts and you can breathe....
V/R
White Privileged Guy
If accurate, that's entirely correct.
Officer Wilson is not a dainty little flower. He is a large and presumably powerful man, though admittedly not as large as Brown. It should be noted that much of Brown's weight advantage was pretty obviously fat, not entirely a help in a fight.
Wilson was presumably carrying a Taser and a nightstick or something resembling one.
At the time of the shooting both men were in the middle of the street, with Brown charging Wilson.
And there was nothing at all Wilson could do except shoot Brown?
Would a Taser have stopped him? Could a nightstick have made up the difference in weight sufficiently for Brown to be taken down? If Wilson had not shot Brown, would he have gotten hold of the officer's gun and used it on him?
We'll never know the answer to any of those questions, because Wilson made the choice to use lethal force before Brown could reach him.
I'm not going to sit here and decide it was the wrong choice, because I wasn't there. But I am going to object to claims that Wilson had no choice, because they are objectively inaccurate. He had a number of choices. The choice he made was to use lethal force rather than engage in additional physical combat with Brown.
BTW, the article was interesting in that it implies agreement with Brown being a thug, but claims that this doesn't matter. This varies from other articles I've seen in which Thug status is vehemently denied.
Which is entirely reasonable. Except that it appears the presence of a gun turned what might have been a physical assault with both participants surviving into an existential struggle of kill or be killed. Each participant, accurately, may have believed he had no choice but to gain possession of the gun to potentially keep it from being used on him. Once in possession there was no choice but to use it to keep from losing possession.
IOW, the presence of a highly deadly weapon took options off the board rather than increasing them.
I support 2A rights, but the mere presence of a gun can create a situation in which its use becomes almost imperative.
In each of these cases, is it possible, perhaps even likely, that somebody (cop or thug) would have wound up dead even without a gun being present? Sure, but the gun made it almost certain.
This entire story warrants zero attention on a national level.
The entire media warrants zero attention at any level. Except for Sharyl Attkisson and others like her.
I thought Wilson had no taser because the department couldn’t afford them for all cops; that was my understanding.
Once Michael Brown was close enough to be halfway in the car, Wilson has to use deadly force to protect his gun.
George Zimmerman could well have ended up dead if he did not have a gun. I can deal with that just fine. Thug brings fists to a gun fight, thug loses.
You want a disarmed police force? I’m as disgusted as anyone over police abuse of power, no-knock SWAT raids and the like, but disarming is swinging the pendulum back to an equal but opposite level of crazy.
In both instances the attackers went for the gun and got killed as a result. You’re blaming the gun just as the left does. The blame resides with the attackers who attempted to wrest the gun. No attack, no wresting. No wresting, no shooting.
Behavior.
At the moment he shot, Wilson was not engaged in a hand to hand struggle for the possession of the gun, though he had been shortly before and had reason to believe he would be again shortly.
Looked the Taser issue up. Apparently Wilson chose not to carry his because he thought it too large and awkward.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/26/darren-wilsons-missing-taser-renews-debate-over-re/?page=all
He didn't have a taser because he made the choice not to carry it. Which I suspect he regrets.
Thanks for agreeing.
The presence of a gun creates a situation in which it is MUCH more likely that someone will die.
That’s an unintended consequence of being armed. IOW, it’s part of the price we pay for going about armed with lethal weaponry.
That price may very well be worth paying, but to my mind true conservatism recognizes that such tradeoffs exist. It’s the left that refuses to recognize that essentially all of life is tradeoffs.
Carry a gun, be expert in its use, and the chance of you or someone you’re protecting being mugged or raped goes WAY down. Part of the price for that increase in safety is a considerable increase in the chance that someone is going to die if you are attacked.
Probably the attacker, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a somewhat increased chance of being shot even for the intended victim. Sometimes people lose control of the gun, and if there isn’t a gun on hand the chance of being shot is zero.
Neither will it dissipate black racial crap.
I’m not at all agreeing with you, and this attempt at feigning agreement is disturbing.
“Would a Taser have stopped him? Could a nightstick have made up the difference in weight sufficiently for Brown to be taken down?”
And if those didn’t work?
I’ve been on the receiving end of a stun gun. Shrugged it off and fired 17 rounds into a target.
I’ve studied stick fighting. One right move and now the heavier Brown has a sick to beat Wilson to death with.
Brown already showed intent to kill Wilson. Having failed, having Wilson fend him off once already (suffering debilitating harm in the process), Brown was coming back to inflict more grievous harm.
At what point, in your obviously ill informed view, would transition to deadly force be justified AND practical (and not too late)?
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.