Cop who shot Mike Brown won't go back to policing because “ something terrible would happen to him”


1 Like

No it wouldn’t - because if you gun down a white cop in America, there will be an indictment.


What kind of terrible thing would happen to him?

Being shoot like an animal, being unable to defend himself, being executed in the middle of the street?

That would be terrible. WOULD IT?


yeah, that would be pretty terrible, and I say this without sarcasm

I don’t know how to roll back the encroaching police state, but I feel pretty confident that private citizens engaging in vigilantism, is not a step in the right direction. Police officers playing at Judge Dredd is also not a step in the right direction. I don’t know what the right direction is, but not this


the part that got me was him saying his conscience was clear? Really, you took a human’s life and you are fine with that?



Also, the fact that he’s been paid about a million dollars (about $500,000 in donations and $500,000 from ABC for his interview) for gunning down an unarmed teenager probably makes the decision a bit easier.


Soon he’ll be on Fox News. He’ll be fine. He’s a sociopath and a murder attempting to be a martyr. And for some white people, it will work.


I saw that $500K for the interview, but I also saw it contradicted. Is there a solid source for that one? I googled a bit to try to find a reliable source, and about half my hits were pieces from 2011 when ABC promised that they would no longer pay interview subjects.

ABC is officially denying that it paid anything, and is the only source I can find on the other side.

I don’t think they’re “officially” denying it. A CNN media reporter tweeted that he has an ABC source on the record denying it. On the other side you have Gotnews, citing sources at NBC. I don’t trust either of them.

The bottom line is that kids are dying in the street for stupid reasons. Doesn’t matter who they are or how the situation panned out with the police. The police never should have even shook that kid down for such a low level crime. WE SHOULD NOT BE PITTING COPS AGAINST PEOPLE FOR PETTY STREET-LEVEL CRIMES. For both the safety of the police and the people. THE SO-CALLED FREE MARKET CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WE THINK MANY OF THE THINGS WE HAVE CRIMINALIZED ARE CREATING, WE DON’T NEED POLICE TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS, THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO USE VIOLENCE, THAT BEGETS VIOLENCE. IT IS TOO DANGEROUS. WE NEED TO DECRIMINALIZE SOCIETY.

The officer should have never been authorized to come up on that kid and even start a situation in which violence could occur, not for such a stupid crime. Once we stop criminalizing everybody people will generally will not feel the need to act violently to get whatever it is that they are after, regardless of whether you think they are in the right or wrong for going after those things, and people will innovate ways to keep safe and avoid violent situations, whether that means tolerating some theft, drug use, prostitution, what have you, or developing technologies that prevent these things from happening or fix the associated problems. The violence is not worth what we think we are gaining by policing the streets so heavily. In fact, I strongly believe we will ultimately become a stronger and more robust society once we stop relying on police authority to solve these problems and let ourselves freely adapt.

In the case of convenience store robberies, the stores will put up plexiglass or build touch screens so that nobody can get to the product to steal it, and so nobody can use a gun on them while they are at the counter. In the case of drugs, we will license professionals to distribute clean drugs in a safe way, control how they are administered and where they are used, screen people for mental health problems, and pay to fix the problems they create. In the case of prostitution we will regulate the industry, make sure people are getting tested for std’s, make sure sex workers have a away to get out without being trapped in by their pimp. We can innovate to solve these problems we don’t need police activity in the street where problems can get out of hand, and we can incentivize people to get the dangerous activities out of the street.

I think you may have missed the part where the officer is clearly afraid that he might get done to him as he has done to others. I did not see @Ashen_Victor’s statement as an endorsement of violence at all.

1 Like



I guess two people can read the same text and get different meanings out of it. I took the terminal “WOULD IT?” to mean that in Ashen_Victor was conveying that it’s an open question as to whether it would be bad for Darren Wilson to be gunned down in the streets. I don’t know how you’re reading it - maybe you’re assuming that “would it” is equivalent to “wouldn’t it”?

1 Like

I read it as a challenge to figure out if we’re a Brown or a Wilson.

You wish the policeman had the stones to plead guilty. Be generous, assume Michael Brown did grab the gun, punch Wilson in the side of the head, and that Wilson overreacted to those provocations. It wasn’t premeditated but it is voluntary manslaughter. Show remorse, get an appropriate sentence, eventually be able to move on in life. What kind of future is Wilson going to have protesting innocence other than as George Zimmerman’s roommate?


Unofficial, black market solutions arise in the vaccum left behind by an official, rational, fair system. True in drug dealing, immigration (coyotes) and in justice. The only way to combat vigilantism is for the system to be fair, and remove that vaccum.


A cop worrying that “something terrible would happen to him”? Why ever be a cop in the first place? It’s like a sailor quitting out of fear of drowning.

The smell of BS surrounds the statement,

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.