ADVERTISEMENT

New Darren Wilson video - board's conservatives chance to step up.

TheOriginalHappyGoat

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
70,366
46,385
113
Margaritaville
So, there's this short video out there of Darren Wilson behaving like an officer who doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. He doesn't kill anyone, or anything, and it's not the most outrageous cop behavior out there, but he clearly threatens to arrest a Ferguson resident for having the nerve to record him, which is an example of an officer who would prefer to go outside procedure and ignore the rights of individuals.

There are a number of conservatives on this board - most of them, really, although COH, dave and VPM stick in my mind - who were insistent that Michael Brown's behavior as a possible petty thief and pot smoke was supremely relevant when it came to how he behaved in his conflict with Officer Wilson. I'd like to hear those people also tell us that Wilson's past behavior is supremely relevant when it comes to how he behaved in the conflict.

EDIT: Let me be clear. I'm not asking you to condemn Wilson. I'm just curious if you have the ability within you to take your previous method of judgment - that past behavior affects future behavior - applied against Brown and also apply it to Wilson, or if that only applies in your mind to one side in this incident.

goat

This post was edited on 11/19 12:45 AM by TheOriginalHappyGoat

Link
 
Doesn't change my mind

The kid was going to be a drag and terrible influence on society.
 
Step up to what, goat.

Let's assume there is no identity problem here*; do you really think a video taken in the fall of 2013 about the use of video recording is relevant to the excessive force claims?

Do you think this incident establishes Wilson's character? Do you think character evidence is admissible to show a defendant acted in conformity therewith?

Even if you answer those questions in the affirmative, they have the weight of Wilson making a mistake about a vehicle stop.
I don't know how much you learned about evidence and trial procedure in law school, but I can assure you that any judge will not allow into evidence every complaint the public has posted about Wilson on YouTube for the last several years. Also I am unfamiliar with the "supremely relevant" evidentiary standard. Evidence is either relevant or not relevant. Yeah, I do think Brown's violent conduct minutes and seconds before the confrontation and shooting are relevant and if I were representing Wilson I would emphasize that evidence in his defense. If you are prosecuting Wilson, you can counter with an unrelated video incident of 10 months prior, if the judge would let you, but I think most jurors would laugh at your argument.

All I can say about your blockbuster piece of evidence here is meh, feh, yawn, shrug, eh, ???, and DILLIGAS.

*Why would Wolf Blitzer even talk about this when what happened to Malaysian 370 is so much more interesting and newsworthy.
 
"*past* behavior affects *future* behavior"


I'd say the convenience store video of Brown's robbery and assault was an example of PRESENT behavior... as it was mere minutes before the encounter with Officer Wilson.
 
"behaving like an officer who doesn't give a damn about the Constitution"

Paint the whole fence with one broad brush stroke much?

And the store video did not show a petty theft - it showed an assault against a innocent store owner during a theft minutes before the same guy chose to disobey a cop and then attack the cop and struggle to get his gun. (What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that scenario?)

There's is only one relevant question - was the officer in fear of his life when he fired?

He was in a high crime area.
He was alone.
He was looking for a perp who had broken into a home.
He encountered a man who acted irrationally when told to get out of the middle of the street.
(Wonder what the protestors would say if Michael Brown had been killed by a car screaming down the block trying to outrun cops after a strong-arm home burglary?)
He was (at least) punched in the face and struggled with for his weapon.
He then had a few seconds when the guy was moving away, and then maybe a second to decide whether to shoot after the same guy headed back at him.
The cop will not get convicted.

To your other point - sure, cops need to adjust. They are gonna get recorded. Citizens have that right in most non-exigent circumstances, and cops need to be respectful and deal with it. That can be handled by training.

But who is gonna train the public?
When a cop is at a traffic stop or called to a domestic violence event or is called to look for a guy on the run from a crime, they REASONABLY react differently than in a non-threat circumstance. Until they are assured you aren't the guy who will try and kill them, or run, etc., you need to follow orders. Keep your hands where they can be seen. Etc.

Common courtesy and respect both ways and Michael Brown is still alive.
Period.

Perfect storm of "you ain't the boss of me" and the armed guy wins almost every time.

This case isn't the big deal everyone makes it out to be. In almost every circumstance where a citizen disobeys a cop who is looking for a criminal, punches the cop, and tries to get his gun - the citizen is going to get shot, without regard to the race of either.







This post was edited on 11/20 1:44 PM by MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
 
The NFL's recent concerns about concussions and their side effects should also play into Officer Wilson's defense.

If, as the evidence suggests, Wilson was punched in the face/head by the 300 lb. "unarmed gentle giant" during the encounter, Wilson was probably a bit disoriented... and deserves the benefit of the doubt for anything after that particular moment.

Case closed.
 
Whoa Nellie!

If being "dazed and confused" becomes a license to shoot, all us conservatives are in trouble.

Every ditzy Dem will mistakenly buy a gun and start blasting.

snark yuk guffaw
(I'll be here all week - don't forget to tip yer servers!)
 
That's a well-thought out post

More so than my original, in which I was certainly hyperbolic at least.

But you did kind of skirt around my point, which would have been better stated like this:

1. A fair number of this board's conservatives seemingly enjoyed going out of their way to share every single piece of information they could come across that made Brown look bad, even if it was irrelevant to the question you recognize as paramount - whether or not Wilson was in fear of his life when he actually killed Brown.

2. Here's something that makes Wilson look bad.

3. Seems to me the unbiased members of the group mentioned in #1 would be all over this just as much as they've been all over Brown.

goat
 
The only way to

filter bias is to follow the law of evidence. That is why we have rules of evidence.
 
Re: I'm not looking for legal relevance.

I heard that Wilson picks his nose and eats his buggers too.
 
Sigh...

I went to bed at like 8 pm last night, and made that post when I woke up in the middle of the night and browsed the news feeds. I don't think I explained myself very well in that state. See my reply to MTIOTF above, but in short, yes, the booger-eating is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people went out of their way to joyously highlight every terrible thing they could find about Brown, even when those things were entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Just wondered if they'd give Wilson the same treatment.

goat
 
The conservatives were all over the evidence

You've engaged in hyperbole in virtually every post you've made on this topic. You've tried to convict the cop in the court of public opinion because there isn't a chance in hell that he'll be convicted in a real court. As a law school graduate, you ought to be embarrassed, but your blinded by your crusade to prove that every conservative is a racist.
 
Please don't mistake my disdain for you as disdain for Wilson

I have been on no crusade to convince anyone Wilson is a racist. Or even that he should be convicted. I took part in a very long and detailed discussion with other lawyers on this board about the legal test for when officers can use deadly force. Based on all the evidence we know, Wilson may or may not pass that test. I suppose we'll have a better idea soon.

No, my crusade is to highlight a problem on this forum that has been building for years, and concerning which I have been getting more vocal, and will continue to get more vocal until Doug tells me to stop or I have a heart attack. Namely that many of you, not Officer Wilson, are the racists. The apparent joy you had in pointing out every possible thing you could about Brown's life that would portray him in a negative light, even if it had nothing to do with the case at hand, points to a distrust, and even disgust, of young black men that you should be ashamed of.

And I use "you" here in the plural. If ever there was a time that I wish English had carried from German the plural second person pronoun, it is now, because this is a problem that infects numerous conservatives on this board, as has been evident, in truth, ever since our nation had the gall to put a half black man* in the Oval Office.

goat

* Or, "Mulatto," as Accuro would say.

This post was edited on 11/19 9:16 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
 
Goat, seriously. . .

You could find a video of Wilson saying "I'm gonna kill a black kid today" and you won't get one of these guys to change their mind about what happened in Ferguson that day.

Michael Brown smoked weed and stole cigars. . .the next logical step is to attack a police officer and try to kill him with his own gun. Duh.
 
The video couldn't confirm it was Wilson. Let's say it was. Are there times

when a person isn't allowed to video tape an investigation? What was this scene that was recorded? The news said this man who did the filming was arrested on other charges. What were they? This story leaves a lot of information out. Now let's say this was Wilson, and he was wrong on his interpretation of the Law. This doesn't mean he is a criminal does it? Does this mean he is a racist cop who shoots black people because he hates them? This is what was portrayed at the beginning of the Brown story. Brown was said to be a great student, and kid who never did anything wrong. But we found out later that he had just robbed a store and shoved the keeper for some swisher sweets. Goat, I'd like to know Wilson's complete job history with the police. Has he been charged with any kind of wrongdoing as a cop before? That would tell us a lot about his state of mind during the night of the Brown shooting, if you want to portray him as a bad guy.
 
Two things

1. SCOTUS hasn't clear it up, yet, but courts seem to agree that you always have a right to videotape police on public property, and on private property if the person who has rights (either owner or tenant, or authorized guest/user) is cool with it.

2. I'm not trying to paint Wilson as racist or guilty. I specifically edited my post to make that clear. But a number of you seemingly got off on pointing out Brown's failings. so I wanted to give you the chance to rail on Wilson's failings, as well.
 
Meh...

I have claimed that Wilson acted well within reason, and would use MTIOTF posts below as evidence. Whether Brown was white, black, red, yellow or purple would not affect my thoughts on this. But...according to you, I am a racists because Brown was black.
 
No.

I don't think you're a racist. But then, I don't recall you ever going out of your way to post every little sordid detail of Brown's life like it's your fetish. Others on here did. They are the ones I was criticizing, not you.
 
Who made you the race political officer conrad.


It looks like two wrongs don't make a right to me. The only comments I have made about Ferguson is the militarization of our police forces. Racism is an equal opportunity employer.
 
Did I call you a racist? No.

I can't recall anything about your response to Ferguson to criticize. That's why I kept using terms like "some," "many," and "several." Some, many and several of our conservative posters have behaved reprehensibly about this issue. But not all of them. And, FWIW, those of you who have not behaved reprehensibly have actually behaved admirably, taking the time to discuss the issues intelligently.

It probably sounds arrogant that I even take the time to say something like that, but there it is. I do it because some of your brethren on this forum are unapologetic racists, and I'm sick and tired of it. And quite frankly, so should you be.

goat
 
I don't think Holder will get too excited and withdraw his resignation over this "new" evidence.
 
Reading Comprehension 101

Read the post. I said you were on a campaign to make every conservative out to be a racist. You toss the race card out at every opportunity. If Doug does anything, he ought to stop your incessant race baiting.
 
Here's what I find funny. You didn't mention race a single time. . .

In your original post, yet the conservatives first response is "I'm not racist!"

Like coming home a little late from work and your wife/girlfriend says "Hello, honey. You had to work a little late I guess" and your first response is "I wasn't out cheating on you!". Well, what's the first thing she's gonna think when you give that response?
 
You lie

Most of the conservatives didn't mention race at all, and the ones that did did not mention it first.

Actually, you mentioned it first.
 
I don't read it the way you do....


Perhaps use of the term "the board's conservatives" is too strong, as not all of the board's conservatives have behaved the way that goat has described, and his posts indicate that he realizes that.

The missing two words on this topic (and goat went out of his way to use them), as is often the case when we talk about each other, are "some of", and think that we would all be well-served to start adding those two words, and sometimes even "most of" as a qualifier when we talk about people of the opposite political persuasion.

It is too easy for many of us to respond to the broad brush with a broader one.

As to goat challenging the folks regarding Brown/Ferguson - I have no problem with it. I do notice that many of the folks that his original post was aimed at did not respond, although two did. I think that is the point he is trying to make anyway.
This post was edited on 11/20 7:56 AM by DougS
 
To answer your original question.....

I can certainly understand why Wilson, or any cop, or anyone really, would not want to be videotaped. I have only watched the clip you provided once so I may have missed something. I don't know why he didn't want to be taped. Was he being unethical? (That is kind of the built in assumption on the part of the viewer - 'why don't you want to be taped unless you're doing something wrong?')

It does seem to me, however, that he had no difficulty abusing and misusing his power as a cop to intimidate someone who was not, as far as we can tell, doing anything wrong.
 
Not really, Doug. . .

I said conservatives, one of which I am not.

IUJIM's first response was "I don't care if he's pink or purple blah blah blah". That = "see, I'm clearly not racist" in response to a post that doesn't mention race.

RBabbit's first response was "you just want to prove we're all racist" or something to that affect.

Rockport asked Goat about being the race police or whatever.

Yeah, not really, Doug.
 
I have not read every post about the Wilson case

but WTF are you talking about? I haven't seen anything anywhere about Brown's life that could portray him in a negative light, let alone, seeing that negative background on the cooler. As far as I know Brown's public life began when he grabbed that shop owner by the throat and threw him aside. That was minutes before this incident and is certainly relevant no matter what Brown's race is.

"[M]any of you, not Officer Wilson, are the racists." Thanks for clearing this up. Your posts are much more understandable when I understand what you really think of "many of us".
 
"death penalty for J-walking"

is the only racist comment I've seen about this case on the board. That comment comes straight from the race hustlers all over Ferguson and is obviously aimed at race and only race; not about the facts or the law.

"ome of your brethren on this forum are unapologetic racists,". Glad that you have taken your metric from "many" to "some". Notwithstanding, you are still knee-jerking conservatives as racists. As I said, thanks for clearing that up.
 
Fair enough

Challenging people is one thing and I don't have a problem with it either. You can't deny that he routinely tosses out the race card and implies that conservatives are largely racist. With the exception of one, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that anyone here is a racist. He doesn't know anyone here well enough to draw that conclusion.

If he's going to be allowed to call people out as racist, then I'll counter by saying that he's a self-righteous elitist prick.
 
He doubled down on it Doug

His original post could be read two ways. After I responded lawyer to lawyer with rules of evidence, Goat eschewed that approach and wanted only to talk about race. Goat's whole point in this thread is about race. He's a race baiter and has admitted as much with his "many of" and "some of" remarks.
 
Doug's right. Your post is false.

You said, "conservatives first response" when none of those guys were the first conservative response. You also were the first person, conservative or otherwise, to post anything regarding race. You may actually have provoked the posts you refer to with your post bringing race into the picture. I'll be charitable - if you didn't know that your post was entirely inaccurate you were merely mistaken, and not actually a liar.

Edited to take out charactarization of your post as lying because it's possible you didn't know that your post was false.
This post was edited on 11/20 1:43 PM by Aloha Hoosier
 
Yes really.....

All of the posts you mention were made after your first response to goat, which means that you, not the conservatives, were the first to broach the topic of race.
 
I didn't think your origninal post was about racial bias.

It didn't cross my mind that you were talking about racial bias. I thought you were talking about conservative bias - and notably leaving out liberal bias - as a factor in how people see the case. My thought was that generally conservatives are biased toward law enforcement and that shaped most conservatives' opinions on this. I in fact think that if Wilson was a dark skinned Hispanic or a black person, conservatives would still generally support his version of events over Brown, whether Brown was black or not. I think they'd generally be consistent. On the other hand, I think many liberals wouldn't even care about the case if Brown was white, no matter what race the police officer was. I could be wrong about that and possibly could be persuaded otherwise, but that's my initial opinion. I haven't engaged in the threads about it because I really don't feel strongly either way on it. These cases aren't especially interesting to me because it predictably falls into a pattern of emotional posts back and forth between the liberals and the conservatives. While I'm admittedly a little more biased toward law enforcement, I know that, and I prefer to hold my horses and wait until most of the facts are known. As with the Zimmerman thing, that means I'd rather wait until the case is determined by the justice system, and I admit that I don't always believe they got it right, but usually they do. I also prefer to wait because initial reported information on any case is often incorrect and often what's reported in the media as the situation develops remains incomplete and, frankly, biased one way or the other.

Now, based on this post, I'm thinking I was wrong and you were engaging in the exceptionally tiresome "consevatives are racists" campaign that way too many liberals engage in. I hope I'm wrong and it was really about conservative bias (not racist bias). It should have been less one-sided and been about conservative vs. liberal bias - again not about racial bias. Maybe that's not possible.

This post was edited on 11/20 9:24 AM by Aloha Hoosier
 
Again - I don't read it the way you do.....

and I also have not seen him doing a lot of race-baiting elsewhere.

His point here is not about race, it's about people who seem to go out of their way to defend only one race.

There is a difference.
 
Confused

Doug,

Since I'm very sensitive about the "lie" word, I'm trying to understand your post.

SHF made his original post at 11/20 at 5:17 a.m. When challenged he referenced 3 posts:

1) RBabbit's post was 11/20 at 1:22 a.m.
2) IUJIM's post was 11/19 at 11:25 p.m.

He might be stirring things up, painting with a broad brush, etc., but I'm not sure why you're so insistent he lied and claiming his post was first....?
 
That wasn't his first post

His first post was yesterday evening before any of the 3 posts he mentioned here were made.

this was
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R

I’m not happy about, but…

Replies
31
Views
3K
TheHoosier.com IU Hoop Forum
PhyloeBedoe
P
C

Latest Trump/Biden poll from NH

Replies
140
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
DANC
D
S

Zuzalu? Rhode Island? No than you . . . .

Replies
16
Views
1K
The Water Cooler
CO. Hoosier
CO. Hoosier
C

The assault on New College

Replies
99
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
Sope Creek
S
A

New Year's Eve

Replies
27
Views
510
The Water Cooler
dr.jb
dr.jb
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back