Michael Brown

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My viewpoint is dictated by what details are verified. Brown running back toward the officer is unverified. Regardless, he was unarmed. Cops have non-lethal ways of bringing people into submission. They also have training to keep cool under duress.

What details are verified exactly? Almost none, and making a decision in such a state of ignorance requires one to rely on faith/emotion, which is a poor way for intelligent beings to behave. You are a prisoner to emotional arguments, such as the "unarmed man" argument that has been prevalent lately. An unarmed man can pose just as much of a threat as an armed one. There is not a single self defense law in the US that requires a person is protecting themselves from an armed aggressor only.

What your saying hinges on the word "if": "IF he was running straight for the officer after attacking the officer...". There are also accounts that Michael had his hands up and have given up. When you run away from someone with a gun, you don't turn around and run back toward them. Not after you've moved 30+ feet away, anyways. That makes no sense.

Yes, there are a lot of IFs out there because there is a great deal about this that is not yet known. I'm giving possible reasons why you should withhold judgment. I am well aware of the extreme state of ignorance all of us are in regarding the situation, and urging you to not make a decision one way or the other until all the facts are out. And if you bother reading the rest of this thread (not really recommended as it's long and boring mostly), you'd see I do the same to people who have already determined Mr. Brown to be guilty of assault and the cop completely innocent.