"Go Ahead nd Shoot Me!"-- Intense Video Shows Militiaman's Final Moments

[Babzidu]

My bad, sorry not to be clear in quoting the important part. Im clear on his position on Michael Brown.

Not your fault, I could have been more clear myself.

- - - Updated - - -

Welcome to Gen-OT. Enjoy your stay.

Its like a train wreck in slow motion that repeats itself every two hours. Frustrating, but hypnotizing.

[Pangean]

Im going to have to agree.

Like there is no avenue to complain about moderation except in this forum? Am I right?

[volkanik]

You're about the seventh guy to ask him his position on Mike Brown in this thread and then to bitch about double standards when he says yes. I haven't even touched the silliness of complaining about a lack of moderation on people making 'didn't do nuffin' jokes, mostly because its yet another mad scramble to race bait in an attempt to desperately catch someone in a double standard.

Which is this entire thread in a nutshell, really.

Nope. Just some equality would be nice. If you're going to infract me for a "didn't do nothing" joke then the next guy should get the same treatment. Why should the rules all the suddenly change?

[Mormolyce]

Endus, was this shooting more or less justified than that of Michael Brown?

Did the cop in the Brown shooting even claim he thought the kid had a gun?

We know this guy had one.

[Ghostpanther]

Hard to tell from the Video. But they were ( the militia ) violating the law there and if when he stepped out of the truck and put his hand inside his coat pocket, they would not know if he was going to pull out a gun or not. So really rests on if he did that move. If he simply stepped out of the truck and not put his hand inside his coat, but was just telling them to shoot him, they did wrong by shooting him.

[Babzidu]

Nope. Just some equality would be nice.

Cool. Any evidence of a lack of it in this thread? Anyone moderated for saying 'dindu nuffin'? No?

Seems pretty equal to me.

I mean assuming that this place has no place to complain about moderation, if equality in moderation was your goal you could just message the guy. Or message the guy in charge of hiring him with your complaints.

[Luxxor]

Did the cop in the Brown shooting even claim he thought the kid had a gun?

We know this guy had one.

This shooting was more than justified.

[Vyxn]

Whether it's justified or not is a binary state. It's like asking if Woman A is more pregnant or less pregnant than Woman B; there are only two options.

The evidence available at this point to the public is far clearer than it was in the Brown case, before the trial, however. We have not one but two videos (rather than zero), the testimony of not one officer but a host of them, and basically no contradictory accounts of events, other than those that can be immediately discarded because they don't match the video.

It's kind of a silly point to raise, though, when I've stated multiple times already that I agree that the Brown shooting was justified.

The point is, I don't think anyone has an issue with Wilson's behaviour in the car, or with the idea that Wilson would draw his weapon after leaving the car. The issue is around his decision to open fire, and whether Wilson was a credible threat at the time. In another earlier thread, I pointed at the Sammy Yatim shooting in Toronto, where Yatim was 1> armed with a knife, and 2> clearly DID move towards the officer (which isn't definitively clear with Wilson), the officer opened fire, killed Yatim, and the officer has since been charged with second-degree murder for it.

If I compare those two cases, I would argue that Wilson should have been charged. That doesn't mean convicted. That's for the trial to determine. But the point remains; an officer needs to be able to justify their use of lethal force, and an unarmed person 25 feet away isn't easily justifiable in that respect, IMO.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...6#post30796176

you forget the internet is forever

I'm sure if i look some more I will find other post from you even after the evidence was presented you make the claim of it being unjustified just like this one

[Endus]

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...6#post30796176

you lie

And yet, that link entirely supports my statement. And an attempt by you to mislead, to boot, since I was referring to the earlier discussions on the Brown case, before the Grand Jury reached a decision, and you're now linking a discussion thread that existed after that decision. I still feel the Grand Jury should have sent it to trial, if just to ensure the evidence was aired in public, and make Wilson's exoneration clear.

Regardless, you've managed to dig up damning evidence of me being consistent on an issue. Really don't have any idea what you think I was "lying" about.

[volkanik]

Cool. Any evidence of a lack of it in this thread? Anyone moderated for saying 'dindu nuffin'? No?

Seems pretty equal to me.

I mean assuming that this place has no place to complain about moderation, if equality in moderation was your goal you could just message the guy. Or message the guy in charge of hiring him with your complaints.

That's my point. He's tossed out infractions in the past for people saying that, but has yet to do so in this thread. I'll give you a hint why. The criminal is white.

They won't do shit. Who are you kidding?

[Babzidu]

That's my point. He's tossed out infractions in the past for people saying that, but has yet to do so in this thread. I'll give you a hint why. The criminal is white.

The complain to the other mods and get his mod privileges revoked if he's moderating in violation of forum rules.
I mean hell personally I'd like to see some evidence lest this be another example of a forumite victim complex, but that's really besides the point, because it won't stop him.

(Personally I suspect, assuming you are telling the truth, that the comments in this thread were humor and the moderated comments in previous threads were malicious, but really its besides the point unless this is supposed to be a 'bitch about mods' thread.)

[Endus]

That's my point. He's tossed out infractions in the past for people saying that, but has yet to do so in this thread. I'll give you a hint why. The criminal is white.

1> I don't generally moderate threads I'm active in, so there's no grounds for people to claim bias.
2> "Dindu nuffin" is a racial slur, the same doesn't apply to any variation of "didn't do nothing". Racial slurs aren't tolerated here. If you said a black guy "didn't do anything", you wouldn't be breaking any rules.

Now please keep the thread on-topic rather than complaining about moderation, when the rules are pretty clear.

[volkanik]

1> I don't generally moderate threads I'm active in, so there's no grounds for people to claim bias.
2> "Dindu nuffin" is a racial slur, the same doesn't apply to any variation of "didn't do nothing". Racial slurs aren't tolerated here. If you said a black guy "didn't do anything", you wouldn't be breaking any rules.

Quoting Urban Dictionary that anyone can edit. Good one.That's not a reliable source.

[Vyxn]

And yet, that link entirely supports my statement. And an attempt by you to mislead, to boot, since I was referring to the earlier discussions on the Brown case, before the Grand Jury reached a decision, and you're now linking a discussion thread that existed after that decision. I still feel the Grand Jury should have sent it to trial, if just to ensure the evidence was aired in public, and make Wilson's exoneration clear.

Regardless, you've managed to dig up damning evidence of me being consistent on an issue. Really don't have any idea what you think I was "lying" about.

your post was made after the grand jury didn't indict after the evidence was presented. read the title of the thread and the link provided that gives the evidence of the case and you still claim quote "I would argue that Wilson should have been charged" so why would you want an officer charged for a shooting now you claim was justified

you have been cold busted in a lie

[triplesdsu]

1> I don't generally moderate threads I'm active in, so there's no grounds for people to claim bias.
2> "Dindu nuffin" is a racial slur, the same doesn't apply to any variation of "didn't do nothing". Racial slurs aren't tolerated here. If you said a black guy "didn't do anything", you wouldn't be breaking any rules.

Now please keep the thread on-topic rather than complaining about moderation, when the rules are pretty clear.

Im going to have to disagree with the 2nd point. Just because its on the internet doesn't make it true. urbandictionary.com isnt going to make me think otherwise. "Dindu Nuffin" is a mock, perhaps even slang, but to claim it's a racial slur such as the n word or other actual racial slurs is preposterous and frankly insulting. Ghetto has no color.

That being said, this has always seemed like a good shoot to me, but it does seem to have brought out the racism in some circles. Some people who are generally supportive of LE seem to take issue because he was white and it involves the feds, and on the flip side, some people who criticize the police anytime they shoot a black person, even when justified, are very happy with this one. Would be nice if situations were judged on the circumstances and not the races (or government) involved.

[Endus]

your post was made after the grand jury didn't indict after the evidence was presented.

Exactly.

And in the part you claimed I was "lying", I was talking about my position before that trial. Hence you being deliberately misleading.

read the title of the thread and the link provided that gives the evidence of the case and you still claim quote "I would argue that Wilson should have been charged" so why would you want an officer charged for a shooting now you claim was justified

Because not being charged at all means people can complain that he never faced justice.

Being tried and found not guilty, on the other hand, settles the argument much more firmly. Which was my point in that thread, if you bothered to read it through.

From my very next post in that same thread;

Calling for Wilson to have been charged and faced trial isn't proclaiming his guilt and demanding he be sent to prison. It's wanting the evidence to be heard and considered, so that his guilt or innocence can be determined.

You're blatantly mispresenting my posts in two threads, now, because the only way you can claim I'm "lying" is to pretend I was saying something completely different from what I was clearly saying.

[Vyxn]

And yet, that link entirely supports my statement. And an attempt by you to mislead, to boot, since I was referring to the earlier discussions on the Brown case, before the Grand Jury reached a decision, and you're now linking a discussion thread that existed after that decision. I still feel the Grand Jury should have sent it to trial, if just to ensure the evidence was aired in public, and make Wilson's exoneration clear.

Regardless, you've managed to dig up damning evidence of me being consistent on an issue. Really don't have any idea what you think I was "lying" about.

here is another

I'm pretty sure everyone's in agreement that Brown was shot once while he was reaching into the vehicle, which is clearly when his blood would have gotten on the weapon. The issue is that we basically have Wilson's word on exactly how those events played out. Really, I don't even have issue with Wilson's account up to that point, it's the justification for the second part of the encounter that I think is up for debate.

ohh it gets better

When there's an immediate threat to themselves or a civilian that cannot be ended short of lethal force.

"Immediate" meaning "if I don't shoot him right this moment". If a guy is standing in the middle of the street with a gun pointed at the ground, that is not an "immediate threat". It's only if he tries to take aim that it becomes one. "Potential to become an immediate threat in the near future" is not the same thing, at all.

Hell, in the thread we had on the Yatim shooting, I was tentatively on the officer's side. It's a much more iffy situation than the Wilson/Brown thing is, IMO.



"Potentially life threatening" is a phrase without meaning. Crossing a street is "potentially life threatening", depending on the scale of the potential you want to consider.

If the situation isn't immediately life threatening, then you should use nonlethal options.

so a guy with gun in hand pointing it at the ground isn't immediate threat not justified for deadly force but a guy leaving his truck no gun in hand raising his hands is and deadly force is justified

you have been thoroughly discredited

so only explanation about why you will call the first two shots justified is solely based on your bias hate for any one on the right it is plain and simple bigotry

[Pangean]

Im going to have to disagree with the 2nd point. Just because its on the internet doesn't make it true. urbandictionary.com isnt going to make me think otherwise. "Dindu Nuffin" is a mock, perhaps even slang, but to claim it's a racial slur such as the n word or other actual racial slurs is preposterous and frankly insulting. Ghetto has no color.

That being said, this has always seemed like a good shoot to me, but it does seem to have brought out the racism in some circles. Some people who are generally supportive of LE seem to take issue because he was white and it involves the feds, and on the flip side, some people who criticize the police anytime they shoot a black person, even when justified, are very happy with this one. Would be nice if situations were judged on the circumstances and not the races (or government) involved.

Which this is a great example of what it takes for that to occur. For the most parts many folks from different political perspectives agree it was a justified shooting (Vxyn doesn't count). What made that possible is the video's. Frankly without them it, due to the lack of trust (which is earned) it becomes people falling back to pre-defined positions based on their bias. Which is why cops need to wear cams and they need to be on permanently. And the more people filming cops in action the better.

[Endus]

here is another

Again, confirms my position in this thread here. At the time I wrote that, we had very little actual evidence to work from, and I wasn't willing to draw a conclusion either way. I waited until we did have that evidence. Shocker, I know, not leaping to conclusions and stuff.

ohh it get better

Again, same thing. Supports my position here.

so a guy with gun in hand pointing it at the ground isn't immediate threat but a guy leaving his truck no gun in hand raising his hands is

Because, in that example, the entire situation was "guy standing in the street holding a gun". There had been no threats, he hadn't attacked anyone, and so forth.

None of that's true here, where Finicum did a great deal to make himself an imminent threat to officers.

you have been thoroughly discredited

No, all you're doing is demonstrating that you'll twist anything beyond reason just to try and manufacture a personal jab at me.

There's still not one thing about Finicum's death that looks unjustified. And you're having trouble accepting that, for some reason.

Maybe take some time and consider the case on its own merits, rather than trying to twist the facts to "stick it" to people you've decided to hate no matter what their position might be.

[Vyxn]

Again, confirms my position in this thread here. At the time I wrote that, we had very little actual evidence to work from, and I wasn't willing to draw a conclusion either way. I waited until we did have that evidence. Shocker, I know, not leaping to conclusions and stuff.


Again, same thing. Supports my position here.



Because, in that example, the entire situation was "guy standing in the street holding a gun". There had been no threats, he hadn't attacked anyone, and so forth.

None of that's true here, where Finicum did a great deal to make himself an imminent threat to officers.



No, all you're doing is demonstrating that you'll twist anything beyond reason just to try and manufacture a personal jab at me.

There's still not one thing about Finicum's death that looks unjustified. And you're having trouble accepting that, for some reason.

Maybe take some time and consider the case on its own merits, rather than trying to twist the facts to "stick it" to people you've decided to hate no matter what their position might be.

When there's an immediate threat to themselves or a civilian that cannot be ended short of lethal force.

"Immediate" meaning "if I don't shoot him right this moment". If a guy is standing in the middle of the street with a gun pointed at the ground, that is not an "immediate threat". It's only if he tries to take aim that it becomes one. "Potential to become an immediate threat in the near future" is not the same thing, at all.

did Finicum take aim at any one? did he even have a gun in his hand? So how is Finicum a "Immediate" threat when he didn't even have a gun in his hand and had his hands raised or in the process of him raising them
because according to you defending the Brown shooting a gun has to be in hand pointed at someone to be concedered "Immediate" threat so to use deadly force
admit it you have been cold busted in your bias hypocrisy and double standard