@NSk8r@Ajsigma@Noheart2011@Mizzqt37@OGbobbyJ
To see any person’s life prematurely extinguished is a tragedy, and will remain so regardless of the individual, or the circumstances surrounding the unwarranted departure. That being said, I see no reason to debate whether or not Mike Brown’s death was justified.
Hitherto, I have not read a single account of the incident that seems very probable -- nor very sensible. On one hand, you have a spate of individuals that hold (quite closely to their hearts) the belief that the officer Darren Wilson not only harassed the two young men (Dorian Johnson & Michael Brown), but also cold-bloodedly murdered Michael Brown during daylight hours, in a public place for all to see. This commonly held position by speculators is usually accompanied by the following tacit, or explicitly outlined opinions:
-
If the officer Darren Wilson was provoked, his life was still not in danger by engaging in a mere physical skirmish. Thus, needlessly, lethal force was utilized.
-
Michael Brown’s conduct, during the altercation with the officer Darren Wilson, was beyond reproach, and above suspicion.
A.) During Dorian Johnson’s account of the events, after officer Darren Wilson ordered he and Mr. Brown to remove themselves from the street, his reply was something to the effect of “Sir, we will be arriving at our destination shortly. Afterwhich, we will no longer be in the street.” Admittedly, this is not a verbatim quote. But, inasmuch as it is not verbatim, if you listen to a recorded recount of the sequence of events Dorian Johnson provided the media, you’ll notice that he is not an individual who is decidedly articulate.
This wordpath, although tactful, and semi-compliant, is what he submitted to the press. This is strange to me. If Dorian Johnson is not overtly selective of his words in any other situation, it strikes me as odd that in a moment where his emotions would probably be near their zenith (as he just moments ago was witness to a strong-arm robbery) he would be so articulate as to choose the perfect reply in that very moment where it counted most. But, that withstanding, the claim that the officer moved forward, and then reversed backwards without any further dialogue is very suspect to me.
Why, unless I was a nigga-hating-nigga-nigga-killin’-KKK-mask-wearing-motherfucker would I progress forward, and reverse my progress? I wouldn’t. I’d continue along my beat. That is, unless of course, I was provoked in someway.
Conversely, I strongly doubt the aforementioned explanation of the events occurred exactly as told. It elicits far too much cognitive dissonance, however; a more sensible explanation could be that Dorian Johnson and Michael Brown did in some fashion aid in the instigation of the officer to return after having already begun to leave. If you concede that is likely, it then would grant you an explanation as to why the officer who wasn’t livid at the conclusion of the first encounter would return with his ira in full-swing.
If he had fully intended to molest the two young men, the opportunity had presented itself. It was also stated that in the process of reversing his vehicle, he came dangerously close to them. If I intend to kill you, or deal you a severe wound, what better way than to hit you with a car? That aside, if the officer stopped, and was within earshot of the two young men, it might be an overlooked point that the two young men might have already been close to the car prior to its departure. Therefore, if I back-up, it is likely I would return to a position not much further than the one I engaged you in the initial encounter.
Still, even when taking this information into consideration, you are left with only conjecture. But, a sensible person would see that if there were absolutely no reason for the officer to re-engage the two young men, he would NOT have re-engaged them. Moreover, if he were truly a cold-blooded murderer, he would likely have shot both Dorian Johnson, and Michael Brown. Yet, Dorian Johnson escaped unscathed. Why? It was explicitly stated that Darren Wilson physically grappled with Michael Brown. Why Brown, but not Johnson? That specifically is curious to me. He targeted Michael Brown.
Moreover, I also am severely doubtful of the policeman’s account. Every officer ever involved in a close-quarter scuffle with a suspect who also happens to shoot, and kill the suspect in question almost invariably issues the declaration of: “The suspect reached for my weapon.” Of course, I personally find this fuckin’ preposterous. What sense does it make for every person ever to fight a police officer to increase their charges from resisting, or evading arrest to attempted murder, and assault? None. It’s nonsensical. Mind you, in this case specifically, it is more than probable that Darren Wilson was overwhelmed physically. Reports later indicate that officer Wilson suffered an orbital fracture. For what reason does it occur to every suspect to tussle with a ever to kill the officer with his personal weapon? It doesn’t.
To me, the claim doesn’t indicate how likeminded all criminals are, but instead is demonstrative of the officer’s uncertainty within himself as to why he shot the suspect in question. This opinion, although contrite, is more reasonable to me. There’s no incentive for the officer to outwardly confess to murder, but there’s definitely a consequence. It would then stand to reason that the officer under question would express that he felt his life was in danger in the most clear way possible: “It was either him, or me. I chose to defend myself.” This statement, while obvious, is not one that is acceptable under the circumstances presented due to how apathetic it is. This, compounded by the fact the media is always far too involved in the suasion of public opinion, only further narrows the officers accused of misconducts options. The officer is always damned if he does, and is surely damned if he does not. To me, this is the source of the far too common claim. Public opinion, and the inevitability of the proceeding trial actually discourages honesty as it will be used as a weapon against the officer where it matters most.
But again, you are only left with conjecture, and nothing more.
B.) I wholeheartedly agree that Darren Wilson used lethal force unnecessarily. I also believe he used it excessively. There was no reason to shoot, nor to shoot multiple times -- let alone after Michael Brown had surrendered himself. This, of course, is predicated on whether or not it can be proved Michael Brown surrendered.
C.) Purely conjecture. It’s an opinion largely accepted due to its conformity with history. Moreover, it’s beside the point to begin with. I’ll offer an exposition as to why it is irrelevant after addressing the final bulletpoints.
D.) Conjecture predicated on the beliefs that the officer’s life was not in danger, and that he’d have more willingly taken a beating from a white man than a black man. It also implies that white on white crime has a more severe punitive consequence than a white on black murder. Neither of the tacit assertions seem very reasonable.
E.) Conjecture yet to be proven.
F.) Conjecture that is exceedingly unlikely.
Now, the only issue at hand that is truly of value (beyond conjecture, and opinion) is the transgression committed against society: excessive use of lethal force by a sworn peace officer on a civilian without an ostensibly justifiable reason. Remember. . . Darren Wilson was completely ignorant of the fact Michael Brown had robbed the store for cigars. He engaged the two young men because they were walking in the street. Jaywalking is a crime. If he wanted to, he could have harassed them on that principle alone. He didn’t. He told them get the fuck off the street, and after that, who the hell knows what happened in reality?
The issue here is public policy. It’s not racism, because I personally would be equally outraged to learn any citizen of the United States was accosted unduly by law enforcement, and murdered. But, that’s not the focus. Instead, the panic ratcheting apparatus that is the media hypes the incorrect response to the issue. We’re talking about justice for a business owner who lost a box cigars being vindicated by the act of an officer who acted brashly, and committed the murder of a young man. How the fuck is that even an arguable point in anyone’s mind? The two crimes are unrelated, and separate events. Was Michael Brown guilty of strong-arming a store? Apparently yes. Dorian Johnson admitted that. Was Michael Brown doing anything at the time of his death, or moments prior to his death that would justify his death? No. Innocence is not an eternal state, and is confined to specific instances in time. Regardless of any of that, it is unconscionable to me to believe that anyone would even raise that point in a conversation as a means to counter the fact a young man died at the hands of a police officer who administered lethal force without provocation.
Admittedly, I cannot prove that Darren Wilson’s life was not in danger. I have no incontrovertible evidence of that. But there’s a whole lot of evidence that would indicate that perhaps he could have made a different choice. The same could be said of Michael Brown. After all, his friend is still alive and well, and they experienced the same thing at the same time.
I don’t know what happened that day. Neither do any of you. Outrage is acceptable. Anger, discontent, and sadness are also appropriate. Ignorance on the other hand is a malady easily assuaged by opening one’s mind. The fact this incident caused such chaos as opposed to cohesion in the black community is an issue intrinsic to our people. If we feel that there should be provisions administered within our law that would curtail the possibility of posterity experiencing like issues, we should take the necessary steps to execute the addendum.
But nah. We’ll riot, loot, and protest for a week. Then, we’ll forget, and wait for it to happen again. Rinse, wash & repeat. The ultimate cycle of stupidity.
Very Sincerely & Respectfully,
Finesse Cool
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
Quote
MultiQuote
