Michael Brown verdict discussion policy

by Simon 254 Replies latest forum announcements

• 

  Fisherman

  "..I feel outraged"

  "murder"

  There is nothing wrong with expressing a feeling. The parents of MB feel their son was mudered.

  Legally speaking, is the cop guilty of murder? That can only be adjudicated in a Court of Law. Did OJ muder his wife? The verdict was "not guilty". Was the verdict right or wrong? This thread is a forum of public opinion not a Court of Law.

  Not legally speaking, murder is a broad term meaning unlawfully killing someone . I cannot decide for what reason the cop shot so many times and killed MB. Did the cop feel hate or anger or was he acting out of fear? Did he feel his life was in danger ?

  In any event, the cop DID kill an unarmed 18 year old boy shooting him many times. There is no question that he did it, only the reaons why.

  Some people feel OJ murdered his wife some people don't regardless of the verdict. Some people feel the cop mudered MB reardless of whether he is charged or tried and found not guilty, others feel the cop was justified in kiiling the 18 year old regardless of whether he is indicted and found guilty.

  Nothing wrong with that.
• 

  sammielee24

  the cop DID kill an unarmed 18 year old boy

  -----------

  The officer shot and killed an 18 year old man.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  This should make for interesting observation.

  On the subject, firsthand and upclose experience tells me that because a person is not carring a fiream does not mean they are unarmed. In this case I think the released retail store video demonstrated Mr. Brown carried and asserted himself as a weapon of force when he wanted to, which sometimes he evidently did choose to do. Whatever the grand jury finds and whatever evidence it used for that finding will be closely scrutinzed and rightly so. I fear this whole episode will go down in history as one more thug whose bluff was called and his gamble ended up costing his life.

  We are not guaranteed tomorrow so we better put today to good use. That is, if we want to be a productive member of society. If we want our children to mature and have a productive life then now's the time to teach them how to improve that potential by doing simple things like takeing care who they hang out with, where they go, when they go there, how they dress, how they conduct themselves, pursuing education etc. If a person grows up playing with fire he's likely to get burned sooner and more severe than the person whose parents taught him or her not to play with fire and made sure of it while they still had a say about it. Asserting your physique in the known presence of a firearm is literally playing with fire! I'm not saying this is what precipitated the shooting of Mr. Brown. But I could easily envision that in my head based on something that is known. The man carried himself as a thug.

  I know a lot of successful individuals. I don't know one who asserts his physique as threat to steal a handful of cigars. A person who does the latter is less likely to live long or grow up to become a productive member of whatever society they live within.
• 

  Simon

  "Thug" and "Boy" are both emotive and designed to portray a character at either end of a spectrum.

  The robbery of the convenience store certainly demonstrates a certain amount of 'thuggish behavior', using his size to intimidate others, as does his fighting with the police officer - not the behavior you would associate with a meek and mild boy.

  As for 'boy', that is less accurate - he was a very large 6' 4", 300lb man. Use of boy is designed to emote the image of a much smaller and more innocent child which both his physical characteristics and behavior suggest are quite innacurate.

  Designs: your comment was removed - we're not going to have completely disconnected beefs about white people pulled into this in an attempt to "balance racial guilt" with lots of "what about xyz, you can't claim MB is guilty if you don't say they are too" type reasoning. Also, attempts to portray an overreaction by comparing the cost of police bullets to the cost of cigars he stole.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I suppose it good to define terms. Then if the shoe fits at least its equally applied.

  My usage of thug refers to: anyone who is criminally violent or threatens criminal violence.

  An objective discussion would have a person refrain from personal preference for sake of personal preference and, instead, use language consistently regardless of personal preference for sake of better communication.

  All criminals break the law but not all law breakers are thugs.
• 

  nonjwspouse

  On those protesting indictement regardless of the judge/jury finding, two wrongs don't make a right. For people to incite anger and violence based on race and environment, not on the facts surrounding these two people, is hypocritical mob violence. Mob violence regardless of the findings will hurt the innocent along with those who might not be. The people and the town of Furgeson will suffer as they already have. How is more suffering, dragging more people down, going to make anything better?
• 

  Paralipomenon

  To be quite honest, I know nothing about his case. I rather glaze over media hyped cases as they are unlikely to be accurately reported on by any news agency.
• 

  Fisherman

  Legally speaking, "thug" could be viewed as defamatory remark. Back in 2008, it was very difficult to sue someone in the US and win -for calling him a thug - because of the right to freedom of speech. Nevertheless, there is a basis for a lawsuit. Things have changed.

  On the other hand calling an 18 year old a boy is a description that highlights 18. Were you ever 18? Do you have an 18 year old child? How do you vew your 18 year old?
• 

  Simon

  'Boy' is both legally incorrect and deliberately designed to mislead by attempting to portray a younger more innocent child than apparently was the case - robbing a store to get supplies for a drug habit and then assaulting a cop is not what boys normally do.

  I think 'thug' is over-used but its hard to describe his behavior as anything other than thuggish although less colorful expressions such as 'criminal' could be used instead.

  I think people object more to the reality than the word used though.
• 

  JeffT

  'Boy' is both legally incorrect and deliberately designed to mislead by attempting to portray a younger more innocent child than apparently was the case

  I think 'thug' is over-used but its hard to describe his behavior as anything other than thuggish

  In any other context calling an African-American man "boy" will probably put you on the receiving end of some thuggish behavior. And if you're that boorish and stupid you probably deserve it.