New Evidence in Michael Brown Case

Semantics....

I'd like to hear why shooting an unarmed person multiple times then finishing up with two head shots is justified. You said "That isn't why he was killed", so why was he killed?
So what you think happened is this: Cop gets call about kid stealing from store, cop pulls up seeing nearest black person and unloads in him. Is that about it?

Kid got killed because he tried to hurt the police officer, period.
 
I'm not trying to be a jerk but does stealing warrant an extra judicial execution by someone that swore to uphold the law? No it doesn't and when people dismiss the law and have the attitude that it's OK kill because it was some black thief it only emboldens the cops to continue their oppressive and often illegal activities.
No but trying to take a cops gun is the quickest way to get shot
 
game over at that point.
Buck in this case you are going to end up looking like a chump if you keep defending Brown

i'm simply stating what four independent eyewitnesses stated they saw, which is what is in question.

you are the one arguing about irrelevant shit.
 
i'm simply stating what four independent eyewitnesses stated they saw, which is what is in question.

you are the one arguing about irrelevant shit.
Already leaked out 8 eyewitness for Wilson And a autopsy report.
It doesn't help that the main witness in defense of Brown is not credible
 
Michael Brown attacked the officer because he figured the police were after him for the strong arm robbery. The media and the Brown lynch mob keep bringing up the fact that Michael Brown was unarmed like it really matters.
 
It figures that you right-wing idiots would defend the sadistic pig. He should not have shot the kid, no matter what pigshit you believe.
 
Back
Top