Right on schedule:
Additional information came out Wednesday that suggests [Michael] Brown’s death was anything but a murder. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson confirmed the still unidentified officer who shot him was serious injured by the teen. The “side of his face was swollen” after Brown struck him, Jackson confirmed, though he did not offer specifics regarding the officer’s condition. Police did, however, offer some insight into the events leading up to the shooting. According to reports, Brown was with a friend at an apartment complex when the officer attempted to get out of his cruiser.
The teen reportedly initiated an altercation, pushing the officer back into the vehicle and struggling to retrieve his weapon. A fatal shot was then fired within the car, police confirm. While some onlookers claim Brown had his hands raised just before he was shot, the confirmation that the officer sustained facial injuries suggests there was, in fact, an altercation prior to the incident that sparked widespread anger in the community.
The more we find out about this incident, the more Trayvon-esque it becomes.
And beyond:
In a news conference Sunday morning, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar provided more information on the investigation so far. He stated that around Noon, a Ferguson officer encountered two teenagers on the street. As he was exiting his police car, one of the two teens allegedly shoved the officer back into the cruiser and assaulted him. Chief Belmar says there was struggle over the officer’s weapon and at least one shot was fired inside the car, hitting no one. After the initial alleged assault, they exited the car. Belmar says the officer then fired at the teen or teens as they ran away. One teen was shot multiple times and died at the scene.
Sure sounds like Mr. Brown and his friend ambushed the police officer and tried to kill him, doesn't it? Now did the assaulted officer overreact by firing multiple shots at the "teens" as they fled? I dunno. Presumably he could have radioed for backup if he was unable to pursue them. Most likely he was in the adrenaline-fueled moment and reacted on instinct. But who initiated the incident? Who attacked whom? Seems pretty clear that that was Mr. Brown and friend.
Which leads one to wonder how it has gotten into the heads of "black America" that it's a good idea to assault cops. I can't imagine where that notion could have come from....
....can you?
-Hard Starboard Radio
-American Daily Review
-Constitution Radio
1 comment:
So much for waiting for the facts prior to formulating a conclusion.
Ferguson PD can't make up their mind whether the kid was involved in a Robbery or not.
That is a red herring. The issue is reasonable force to take the kid down.
In this case, the witnesses seem to be saying that kid was shot, put his hands up & police continued to fire.
It's the continuing to fire that is the issue. Is there any reasonable explanation for 10 shots into an unarmed man?
We shall see - but the officer does have some explaning to do.
I see may "conservatives" saying the man got what he "deserved". This concerns me - as it is not for the Executive to exercise the Judicial function. A judge and jury should be ascertaining Brown's conduct - Not a cop whose lost it.
10 rounds to restrain an unarmed man?
I am further troubled that there was not one 2nd Amendment hero on-scene or even on-line who is willing to stand up against tyrannical government. The police are part of the Executive - and by any analysis, they have gone too far.
Post a Comment