Ferguson- "Big Mike" had just strong arm-robbed a convenience store (PICS)

[thoughtomator]

Your statements on a poor little violent robber

--Thoughtomator


--thoughtomator

Now on the cold blooded execution of nonviolent teenagers.

--Thoughtomator (Ah most of been what was going throught the cops mind....)
--Thoughtomator

--Thoughtomator


--Thoughtomator. (what was that about the "stupidty of Brown" again?

Either you're maliciously trolling, or you are not smart enough to tell the difference between a private citizen defending his own home and a public servant on a public street.

My guess it's the former, but I've yet to come to a firm conclusion.

 

[Origanalist]

Meaning you were trying to neg rep me?? I'm confused...

No, I have been hitting the rep button quite a bit lately by mistake instead of the reply with quote button. I think maybe it's just because of all the different sites I've been on lately. But I usually catch it before I actually send it. :o

 

[klamath]

Either you're maliciously trolling, or you are not smart enough to tell the difference between a private citizen defending his own home and a public servant on a public street.

My guess it's the former, but I've yet to come to a firm conclusion.

No I don't make excuse for executions one way or the other. On this I have respect of AF as he stayed consistent on those teenagers being executed and cops executing someone. Don't matter WHO kills you, you are just as dead.

 

[thoughtomator]

No I don't make excuse for executions one way or the other. On this I have respect of AF as he stayed consistent on those teenagers being executed and cops executing someone. Don't matter WHO kills you, you are just as dead.

There are these things called "inalienable rights" and if you were aware of them, then you would know my arguments in both cases are 100% consistent with them.

It is discouraging to see here an individual like yourself with no apparent regard for those inalienable rights, such as the right to life or the right to self-defense.

 

[klamath]

There are these things called "inalienable rights" and if you were aware of them, then you would know my arguments in both cases are 100% consistent with them.

It is discouraging to see here an individual like yourself with no apparent regard for those inalienable rights, such as the right to life or the right to self-defense.

Self defense was bullshit in the two teenagers case. There was NO longer a threat when he executed them.

 

[thoughtomator]

Self defense was bullshit in the two teenagers case. There was NO longer a threat when he executed them.

So you lost that argument on the other thread, and have been nursing a grudge over it all this time looking to call me out?

If I'd been grinding an axe that long, I'd at least make sure I hit something when I swung it.

 

[klamath]

So you lost that argument on the other thread, and have been nursing a grudge over it all this time looking to call me out?

If I'd been grinding an axe that long, I'd at least make sure I hit something when I swung it.

Nope I won it. Jury agreed with me and the law. Nope didn't even remember your name except when I started seeing statements word for word the same but opposite on this thread and the two teenagers thread, I went back to see who had stayed consistent. What do you know one poster made long and eloquent arguments on the right to execute someone for robbery and suddenly they are trying to use the law to say killing for robbery is not right in this thread.

 

[Warlord]

Kelly Thomas did it to himself.

 

[thoughtomator]

Nope I won it. Jury agreed with me and the law. Nope didn't even remember your name except when I started seeing statements word for word the same but opposite on this thread and the two teenagers thread, I went back to see who had stayed consistent. What do you know one poster made long and eloquent arguments on the right to execute someone for robbery and suddenly they are trying to use the law to say killing for robbery is not right in this thread.

Obviously you didn't win it, if you have been sore about it so long that you're inappropriately injecting it into a completely unrelated issue.

When you can figure out the difference between a private citizen in his own home dealing with home invaders in the commission of the act, and a police officer (public employee who is being paid to follow the law) who approaches a man (who was innocent of any crime to the officer's knowledge at the time) on a public street, you'll have a leg to stand on.

Seriously, that you can't see the difference between the situations is so night and day as to be not comparable in any reasonable way, is disturbing. And FYI if you're trolling my comments you might find the one where I make clear I would have no problem with the shop owner killing Brown to stop the robbery.

So your charge of hypocrisy is a false accusation, and when you get over your ego you will understand that you owe me an apology.

 

[klamath]

Obviously you didn't win it, if you have been sore about it so long that you're inappropriately injecting it into a completely unrelated issue.

When you can figure out the difference between a private citizen in his own home dealing with home invaders in the commission of the act, and a police officer (public employee who is being paid to follow the law) who approaches a man (who was innocent of any crime to the officer's knowledge at the time) on a public street, you'll have a leg to stand on.

Seriously, that you can't see the difference between the situations is so night and day as to be not comparable in any reasonable way, is disturbing. And FYI if you're trolling my comments you might find the one where I make clear I would have no problem with the shop owner killing Brown to stop the robbery.

So your charge of hypocrisy is a false accusation, and when you get over your ego you will understand that you owe me an apology.

The law of summary execution applies to private citizen as well and cops.
hyprocrisy still stands as you tried to tie the crime to the punishment with this statement. What does the law provide for the crime of robbery? Summary execution, right


No law allows the execution of people for robbery when the robbery has been stopped.

 

[thoughtomator]

The law of summary execution applies to private citizen as well and cops.

Please elaborate on the law in question. Be precise, please, because details are definitely going to matter.

hyprocrisy still stands as you tried to tie the crime to the punishment with this statement. What does the law provide for the crime of robbery? Summary execution, right


No law allows the execution of people for robbery when the robbery has been stopped.

How is that hypocritical? I'm not mourning the death of Michael Brown. I'm enraged at the unjustified murder of a citizen by a public employee. In the case you are all worked up about, there isn't even an public employee involved.


As far as my position on the castle doctrine, which isn't even involved here, for the vast majority of the past thousand years in Western civilization my position would have been completely noncontroversial. It is your alternate version that is new and requires justification - you have made equivalent the position of a citizen on the street, and home invaders in the commission of a crime.

If you were looking for hypocrisy, I'd say we just found it.

 

[thoughtomator]

And I can't help wonder if, had the kids involved in the Ferguson accident were the ones involved in the home invasion incident you're all worked up about, if you would be so quick to condemn the homeowner who shot them.

Or if it were the two lily white, photogenic individuals shot in Ferguson, rather than those two boys, whether you would be so quick to seek view the prior robbery as an excuse to gun them down in the street.

Because, as you may not be aware, home invasion - especially repeated, serial home invasion, as in the case you raised - is an incredibly more serious offense than petty theft and the minor assault of pushing the clerk. But you seem to be evaluating the seriousness of the criminal backgrounds in these two cases according to two completely different standards.

I have to wonder, how much of your gripe now is simply because these neither of these two boys in Ferguson were lily white and photogenic and sexually attractive to you?

Pretty, but a violent felon nevertheless and a far more serious criminal, as far as we know, than Michael Brown.

If only these boys had those lovely eyes, perhaps they would have Klamath backing them up as well...

 

[thoughtomator]

Adding two and two together, it seems that the Klamath view is that citizens are actually home invaders and the government is the homeowner - the only basis on which a comparison of the situations makes any logical sense.

Your ball. Were I you I'd just be humble and apologize now, because that hole of yours is getting deeper and deeper.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You people... I swear. Did I say or even IMPLY that it was justified? NO! I am saying the facts are not as the lying eyewitness said they were and the fact that Brown is a violent felon changed everything. If the facts come out that the cop shot Brown while fleeing or shot him with his hands up or anything like that, the cop should be fucking hanged!

Employ some basic critical thinking, for christ's sake.

What do you mean, you people?

 

[klamath]

Adding two and two together, it seems that the Klamath view is that citizens are actually home invaders and the government is the homeowner - the only basis on which a comparison of the situations makes any logical sense.

Your ball. Were I you I'd just be humble and apologize now, because that hole of yours is getting deeper and deeper.

Nice try. Despite his belief they had repeatedly invading his home they never physically harmed the old man. The man could have stopped it but chose to get revenge instead.
Looks don't matter as much as you would like to think it does. And despite all you frantic key pounding you brought up the crime fitting the punishment argument as if the cop witnessed and saw the assault. Remember the store called for help. Had you stuck with the issue of police militarization there wouldn't have been hypocrisy.
Oh and don't be stupid enough to say thousands of years of doctrine. There are thousands of years of doctrine of cops shooting bad guys too. does that make it right.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

As I read more and more reports, it is showing that the officer did in fact shoot Brown from a great distance (after firing the first shot from in the patrol car). If that's the case and Brown was in fact unarmed, that officer is screwed. He shot an unarmed fleeing suspect and should pay for it.

Screwed, is he? Well, we'll just see about that. I think he'll skate through this whole incident completely un-screwed. He might even have to move, in which case, I'm sure all expenses will be covered by the taxpayers in the relocating process whereby he'll be able to resume work unscathed by whatever consequences he should have suffered as a result of killing this young man. Yes, I'm sure the taxpayers will lubricate this process quite nicely, enabling him to enjoy a peaceful, hassle-free move where he can live and enjoy life stomping on the faces of other Americans.

 

[Suzanimal]

Now they're backing off the robbery claim. The officer engaged him for "blocking the road".

Police release name of officer, call Brown a robbery suspect
...
They said a description of Brown had been broadcast over police radio identifying him as a robbery suspect and released security camera photos of the robbery, showing someone they identified as Brown towering over and allegedly menacing the store clerk.

But as more details emerged later in the day, the connection between the robbery and the shooting that has galvanized the nation became more tenuous. Although the simultaneous naming of Brown as a suspect and the video’s release had suggested that the officer stopped Brown because of the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson later appeared to reverse himself, saying at a second news conference that their confrontation “was not related to the robbery” at all.

In fact, Jackson said, Brown was stopped because he and a friend “were walking down the street blocking traffic. It was related to blocking the road.’’

Asked why police felt compelled to release the robbery photos if they were unconnected to the shooting, Jackson said it was because the media had asked for them. He then abruptly ended the news conference and was hustled away.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...49f-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?hpid=z1

 

[phill4paul]

Screwed, is he? Well, we'll just see about that. I think he'll skate through this whole incident completely un-screwed. He might even have to move, in which case, I'm sure all expenses will be covered by the taxpayers in the relocating process whereby he'll be able to resume work unscathed by whatever consequences he should have suffered as a result of killing this young man. Yes, I'm sure the taxpayers will lubricate this process quite nicely, enabling him to enjoy a peaceful, hassle-free move where he can live and enjoy life stomping on the faces of other Americans.

I'm going to have to go with this assessment^^^^ regardless of how it comes down.

 

[amy31416]

Now they're backing off the robbery claim. The officer engaged him for "blocking the road".

The officer is just as much of a criminal, probably moreso, than Brown....at least that seems to be how things are shaping up.

 

[amy31416]

Now they're backing off the robbery claim. The officer engaged him for "blocking the road".

The officer is just as much of a criminal, probably moreso, than Brown....at least that seems to be how things are shaping up.