JFK was shot from the front

 

He was?

So he reached for the officer's gun? If that's true, it shouldn't be a debate. You reach for an officer's gun, you normally get shot. Agree or disagree?

 

It can't be that simple . Reaching for the gun or punching the officer doesn't then give the officer free shots with no consequences.

 

I say that with no clue , like everyone else, as to what really happened. I'm simply saying the reaching for the gun does now by itself allow the officer to kill the guy. It depends on what else happened.

 

Some reports say that after the scuffle at the car the kid separated himself from the officer and there was about 20 feet between them. IF (key) true then the scuffle or the reaching for the gun would NOT be an excuse. It's what happened after that that matters.

Clizzy is that man.

Saw an interview with a witness that said 20 feet or so away - shot a few times - dropped to his knees and then was shot a few more times including the shot to the head.

 

THAT is what some will say deserves punishment. Their theory is that the victim dropping to the ground meant he was done. He was no longer a threat. Therefore, the shots to the head were excessive.

 

Can you expect a prosecutor to go after the officer for that? I'd say he will not.

Saw an interview with a witness that said 20 feet or so away - shot a few times - dropped to his knees and then was shot a few more times including the shot to the head.

 

THAT is what some will say deserves punishment. Their theory is that the victim dropping to the ground meant he was done. He was no longer a threat. Therefore, the shots to the head were excessive.

 

Can you expect a prosecutor to go after the officer for that? I'd say he will not.

 

 

 

In the video of the guy that went after the officers with the knife it appeared that the officers continued to shoot after he was on the ground as well. There was a very distinct pause between the first volley of shots and the final 2. I don't question the use of force in that case but I can see where it could be an issue. I don't think it works have mattered as it appeared that he had already been shot enough that he wasn't going to survive but it didn't appear that the officers let up as he was going down or when he was on the ground.

So he reached for the officer's gun? If that's true, it shouldn't be a debate. You reach for an officer's gun, you normally get shot. Agree or disagree?

 

I agree. If a person is brazen enough to go for an officers gun, he going to use it on the officer if he gets it. It's a life of death situation.

So he reached for the officer's gun? If that's true, it shouldn't be a debate. You reach for an officer's gun, you normally get shot. Agree or disagree?

 

How can it be proven he went for his gun? Why is that report taken as fact and others aren't when there is nothing to support either allegation?

How can it be proven he went for his gun? Why is that report taken as fact and others aren't when there is nothing to support either allegation?

 

To be fair, he said "If that's true"

 

But it wouldn't have anymore validity than other unsubstantiated reports.

How can it be proven he went for his gun? Why is that report taken as fact and others aren't when there is nothing to support either allegation?

 

I'm just saying if that's true...

To be fair, he said "If that's true"

 

But it wouldn't have anymore validity than other unsubstantiated reports.

 

The one thing that is bothering me about everyone accepting the officer's friend's accounts of what happened: In that account both Dorain Johnson and Michael Brown struggled with the officer with Johnson trying to get his gun. Why wasn't Johnson charged? If that's what happened why was he not charged?

Excuse my ignorance on this situation as I was out of the country for several days when the story broke , and several days afterwards . And the press coverage has been confusing at best . Assuming Brown beat the hell out of the officer to the point of orbital fractures ( is that confirmed ??) why is it some mystery or shock that the officer shot him ? The best I've been able to piece together the story, the guy robs a store , physically threatens or strong arms the store employee , then in the process of being questioned beats up the cop , he is high on weed , runs at the cop after whipping him , cop shoots him. I know there are legit questions about when/how the shots were fired but when you beat on a cop then turn back around like you are going to come back for more shouldnt a reasonable response be that the cop shoots the person ? Is my timeline off ? Am I missing some point of contention ? How many witnesses actually saw the event take place ? I heard one say for sure " he doubled back on the cop "

Excuse my ignorance on this situation as I was out of the country for several days when the story broke , and several days afterwards . And the press coverage has been confusing at best . Assuming Brown beat the hell out of the officer to the point of orbital fractures ( is that confirmed ??) why is it some mystery or shock that the officer shot him ? The best I've been able to piece together the story, the guy robs a store , physically threatens or strong arms the store employee , then in the process of being questioned beats up the cop , he is high on weed , runs at the cop after whipping him , cop shoots him. I know there are legit questions about when/how the shots were fired but when you beat on a cop then turn back around like you are going to come back for more shouldnt a reasonable response be that the cop shoots the person ? Is my timeline off ? Am I missing some point of contention ? How many witnesses actually saw the event take place ? I heard one say for sure " he doubled back on the cop "

 

A source for CNN said there was not a fracture. That contradicts the other source used by other outlets.

 

How do we know he was high on weed?

 

The rest (runs at cop/dropped to his knees before being shot in head) is a mystery. Too many different stories out there.

The one thing that is bothering me about everyone accepting the officer's friend's accounts of what happened: In that account both Dorain Johnson and Michael Brown struggled with the officer with Johnson trying to get his gun. Why wasn't Johnson charged? If that's what happened why was he not charged?

I don't know if it is being anymore accepted...but she is repeating a story third hand, not sure every detail is going to be exact. I didn't read that the second guy was also struggling with him, but I easily could have missed it there has been so much on this.

 

The one thing that is bothering me about everyone accepting the officer's friend's accounts of what happened: In that account both Dorain Johnson and Michael Brown struggled with the officer with Johnson trying to get his gun. Why wasn't Johnson charged? If that's what happened why was he not charged?

 

I didn't hear it that way but maybe I miss heard it.

I don't know if it is being anymore accepted...but she is repeating a story third hand, not sure every detail is going to be exact. I didn't read that the second guy was also struggling with him, but I easily could have missed it there has been so much on this.

 

I may have misread but I thought I read in "Josie's" account that Johnson grabbed for his gun as well.