KillingtonZone.com

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168179- ... ael-brown/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missou ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The media is eager to fan the flames of racial tension. Regardless of what happened before the shooting - it sounds as if the officer went too far in shooting the teen to death.

This new information coming out today in the form of Madhatter's pictures don't help the deceased cause. It does look like a strong arm robbery. I'll believe the cop before the thug's partner in crime. If a guy tries to overpower the cop the cop should be able to shoot him especially if he was going for his gun. However, the cop shouldn't empty a clip into the kid once he's been stopped. Again, Obama comes out with a statement which I agree with for the most part, but when he said the police over reacted he was wrong (to the riots and protests).
Sharpton jumped the gun before all the facts were in saying this was racially motivated and the deceased was a good citizen. Good citizens do not commit strong arm robberies. The lawyer for the family (Travon Martin's lawyer) is a race baiting ambulance chaser.

"He was a good boy" but he got caught steeling from a store and bullying the little guy. Leave that as that.

Report states officer received injuries to his head and face prior to the shooting. Rumor has the officer being pushed back into his car and someone fired his gun INSIDE the car, prior to the shooting. Time will tell, but no matter what the evidence, these people will riot in the streets.

If you follow the story sooner or later there is a black man in California that has it right. sh*t will continue to happen until the Black, Hispanic and any other minority changes their attitude as to what they need to do to change things.

Regardless of events prior to the shooting, if a person stops and raises his arms in surrender, he has no business being shot.

Bubba wrote:Regardless of events prior to the shooting, if a person stops and raises his arms in surrender, he has no business being shot.

If he was shot at close range with his hands in the air there will be evidence of the gun shot on the underside of his arms. If there was a gun shot in the car there will be residue in the car. I disagree about events prior to the shooting. If he was involved in a violent crime the police are not and should not treat him the same way as if he was a J walker. Also, this guy was huge so if he did lunge at the police he is going get shot faster then a wafey little girl.
If he did in fact have his arms in the air I agree he should have not been shot.

His companion said the cop shot him in the back while they tried to run away. Gun wound in the back will be seriously incriminating, but if it does not exist, well sounds like a BS story along with most of the other crap.

Any articles about the shootings in Chicago the past few weekends? Riots in the streets due to gang violence or kids being murdered? Didn't think so.

Bubba wrote:Regardless of events prior to the shooting, if a person stops and raises his arms in surrender, he has no business being shot.

Has this fact (he stopped and raised his arms in surrender and was shot after that) been established, or is it an unsubstantiated statement from the same source(s) as "He was a good boy" and "he was just Jay walking"?

I have a lot of trouble doubting the cop after it is determined that 1) Brown was involved in a robbery immediately before the incident and 2) there was a struggle where the cop was shoved into his car by Brown, and then Brown reached for the cop's gun, with spent casing(s) being found inside the cop car, and 3) other eye witness accounts have already been shown to be wrong, if not untruthful.

Robber reaches for cop's gun = very little you can fault the cop for. Without strong evidence he showed every intent to surrender, what's left to talk about? I read where in many states shooting a known violent robber attempting to flee is justified based on future risk to the community.

The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee vs. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger says, "they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."

I have a hard time believing a cop (who had a clean record) shot someone who had surrendered. Especially in the day with witnesses. Maybe that is what happened, but I won't believe it until there is evidence. Good post Mister Moose.

Dr. NO wrote:Any articles about the shootings in Chicago the past few weekends? Riots in the streets due to gang violence or kids being murdered? Didn't think so.

This.

freeski wrote:I have a hard time believing a cop (who had a clean record) shot someone who had surrendered. Especially in the day with witnesses. Maybe that is what happened, but I won't believe it until there is evidence. Good post Mister Moose.

People make mistakes all the time in the heat of the moment. Perhaps as the suspect turned and raised his hands, the cop thought he was turning with a gun. We don't know. My point is that the events leading up to the shooting do not, in and of themselves, support shooting a suspect if, in fact, he had his hands raised.

Mister Moose wrote:

Bubba wrote:Regardless of events prior to the shooting, if a person stops and raises his arms in surrender, he has no business being shot.

Has this fact (he stopped and raised his arms in surrender and was shot after that) been established, or is it an unsubstantiated statement from the same source(s) as "He was a good boy" and "he was just Jay walking"?

I have a lot of trouble doubting the cop after it is determined that 1) Brown was involved in a robbery immediately before the incident and 2) there was a struggle where the cop was shoved into his car by Brown, and then Brown reached for the cop's gun, with spent casing(s) being found inside the cop car, and 3) other eye witness accounts have already been shown to be wrong, if not untruthful.

Robber reaches for cop's gun = very little you can fault the cop for. Without strong evidence he showed every intent to surrender, what's left to talk about? I read where in many states shooting a known violent robber attempting to flee is justified based on future risk to the community.

The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee vs. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger says, "they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."

The police report itself says he was not stopped as a suspect in a robbery but was stopped for walking in the middle of the street. At least one witness said he had turned and raised his hands. As for the events that occurred in between - the scuffle at the car - those details are unclear.

The one "witness" was his friend whom he was walking with. That witness also stated they both ran and the cop shot Brown in the back. If that is proven, via autopsy, then the cop has a problem. If that is not true, that "witness" will probably be arrested for false statements.

The Justice Dept. did not want to release the video of the deceased robbing the store. The local chief should be commended for not listening to them. The video is an important piece of the puzzle. The DOJ did not want the residents to see the video because they would not be able to handle the truth and it would cause unrest (they were right there were more riots last night). The State Police Capt. who was brought in because he is black also did not want to release the video. Looks like he was not ready for the riots because a lot of property was destroyed. He should have been ready to stop the riots before they started. Par for the course with the Feds just releasing what they want you to know to create a false record. It's not a very transparent way to run a democratic government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/us/fe ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the article below there is a picture of a policeman dressed like he is in a war zone. He is pointing what looks like a sniper rifle at a peaceful crowd. I agree with some of the points being made by opponents of militarizing the police. Pointing a weapon in the manner shown is only going to p!ss people off. I don't object to the police having armored vehicles, but there should be strict rules on when they can be brought out. I can see them being used here after the rioting.
http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-wants ... itics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;