Watch Capt. Ron Johnson’s amazing Michael Brown speech

[natina]

Watch Capt. Ron Johnson’s amazing Michael Brown speech

FERGUSON, MO (KTVI) – The new leader of the policing effort in Ferguson, Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson, opens the unity rally at Greater Grace Church with a rousing speech. It brought down the house.
He starts by talking to Michael Brown’s family. He says, “I am sorry. I wear this uniform and I should say that I am sorry.”
“This is my neighborhood. You are my family, friends. And I am you. I will stand to protect you. To protect your right to protest. I came in here today and saw people cheering and clapping. This is what the media needs to put on TV.” said Captain Ron Johnson.
He goes on to say, “The last 24 hours have been tough for me. I did an interview last night and the reporter said, something is wrong, your tone has changed. Are you tired or is something bothering you? I said my heart is heavy. Last night I met members of Michael Brown’s family. They brought tears to my eyes. “
He then talks about the story of Peter and Jesus in the Bible .”When this is over I’m going to go into my son’s room. My black son. Who wears his pants saggy, his hat cocked to the side, got tattoos on his arms. But, that is my baby. ” said Captain Ron Johnson.
He continues, “And we all ought to be thanking the Brown’s for Michael. Because Michael is going to make it better for our sons to be better black men. Better for our daughters to be better black women. Better for me so I can be a better black father. And, our mothers, so they can be even better than they are today. Lets continue to show the nation who we are. But, when these days are over and Michael’s family is still weeping, still on their knees praying. No matter what positive comes out, we still need to get on our knees and pray. We need to thank Mike for his life. We need to thank him for the change that he is going to make in America. I love you, I stand tall with you and I’ll see you out there.”
A loud, standing ovation filled the auditorium at Greater Grace Church.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/17/watch-...-brown-speech/

[buttslinger]

Is this Natina or Bryant Gumbel?
This is different for me than Trayvon Martin, because Trayvon was just walking home bothering no-one, but it's pretty clear to me that Michael Brown was going down the road mad at the World and just waiting for someone to get in his way. Unfortunately, that someone was a Cop who gave him an order he didn't like. When a Black Father gives his Son "THE TALK" it's not about the birds and bees, it's about the Po-lice, right?

I am 100% White Bread, and I look at this case through The Law, which is hard to do, because the Ferguson Police Dept was in way over it's head on this one. It should be interesting to hear the cop's side of the story. It's telling that we haven't yet.

[notdrunk]

Is this Natina or Bryant Gumbel?
This is different for me than Trayvon Martin, because Trayvon was just walking home bothering no-one, but it's pretty clear to me that Michael Brown was going down the road mad at the World and just waiting for someone to get in his way. Unfortunately, that someone was a Cop who gave him an order he didn't like. When a Black Father gives his Son "THE TALK" it's not about the birds and bees, it's about the Po-lice, right?

I am 100% White Bread, and I look at this case through The Law, which is hard to do, because the Ferguson Police Dept was in way over it's head on this one. It should be interesting to hear the cop's side of the story. It's telling that we haven't yet.

Don't believe that "THE TALK" bullshit. There is no special talk between every black father and his child about the police. I got the feeling that Michael Brown thought he was caught because he did "allegedly" (it is on camera) committed a crime that used violence and intimidation before his interaction with the police officer. So, it won't be shocking that he might of acted in a hostile matter. It won't also be the first time that somebody decided to fight the police; however, this interaction rose to the level of deadly force.

The only true thing we know is Michael Brown wasn't shot in his back while running from the police officer.

[broncofan]

The problem is that in the George Zimmerman cases there were many possible factual reconstructions and some of them were helpful to Zimmerman and some of them harmful.

In this case, even if we can't pin down one version of what happened, I can't imagine anything that would help the officer. Brown was unarmed, he was not within arm's length when he was shot, he was shot six times....witnesses claim he was surrendering when he was shot.

If Zimmerman supporters want to look like they said they thought he was innocent out of genuine concern for due process and not animus for African-Americans, this would be a great opportunity to explain the difference in the facts between these cases (while acknowledging this officer looks guilty as hell at this point). Because unless some really powerful new information comes to light, I can't imagine this shooting falling within any of the variations of the doctrine known as self-defense.

[broncofan]

Another difference is that a whole variety of factual scenarios were pulled together in the Zimmerman case without eyewitness testimony. Here, the facts are more damning for the officer and are supported by several eyewitness accounts. They were not in an inside struggle when a single shot was fired.

I know there are preliminary claims at this point about another eyewitness version but so far nobody has come forward claiming Brown was bullrushing the officer (a friend of the officer regurgitated this dubious version as hearsay).

Anyhow, let's see if anything develops...because right now the eyewitness accounts look bad for the officer.

[notdrunk]

The problem is that in the George Zimmerman cases there were many possible factual reconstructions and some of them were helpful to Zimmerman and some of them harmful.

In this case, even if we can't pin down one version of what happened, I can't imagine anything that would help the officer. Brown was unarmed, he was not within arm's length when he was shot, he was shot six times....witnesses claim he was surrendering when he was shot.

If Zimmerman supporters want to look like they said they thought he was innocent out of genuine concern for due process and not animus for African-Americans, this would be a great opportunity to explain the difference in the facts between these cases (while acknowledging this officer looks guilty as hell at this point). Because unless some really powerful new information comes to light, I can't imagine this shooting falling within any of the variations of the doctrine known as self-defense.

One of the main witnesses that claimed Michael was surrendering is a friend of Michael and he was "involved" in the crime that Michael committed before the interaction. So, his credibility is out of the window. Witnesses are an awesome tool in investigations; however, they can be full of shit at times.

Again, the only true thing we know is he wasn't shot in his back. Michael was facing the police officer when he died. There are instances when deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed. Investigations help determine if the shooting was legal or illegal.

[broncofan]

One of the main witnesses that claimed Michael was surrendering is a friend of Michael and he was "involved" in the crime that Michael committed before the interaction. So, his credibility is out of the window. Witnesses are an awesome tool in investigations; however, they can be full of shit at times.

Again, the only true thing we know is he wasn't shot in his back. Michael was facing the police officer when he died. There are instances when deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed. Investigations help determine if the shooting was legal or illegal.

His friend's credibility can be questioned at trial but his testimony is not disqualified. There were also two other witnesses and nobody has identified with the police officer's version (as told through a friend who was not present).

Deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed, but it would have to be a very unusual situation. The person would not just have to have a subjective belief that they were in imminent and life-threatening danger, it would also have to be reasonable (this is the objective component).

One of the possible scenarios in the Zimmerman case that in my view convinced the jurors that Zimmerman acted in proper self-defense was the image of a person being straddled and beaten on concrete pavement. If that is what happened, it is a compelling image and someone might have a reasonable belief in that scenario that if they don't act they will be killed. I think we've already heard from two witnesses they were not in close proximity to one another. There wasn't a struggle. There wasn't anything that looked like a gun that justified a mistake on the part of the officer or six bullets, one to the top of his head.

If the witnesses are to be believed (two non-parties I think), then I really think he's in trouble. And so far the witness's story sounds much more plausible than the police officer's.

[Ben in LA]

Don't believe that "THE TALK" bullshit. There is no special talk between every black father and his child about the police.

Unless you're black, speak for yourself. My parents game me that talk at an early age and reiterated it as I got older. They should know about racial problems since they were raised in the deep south during the 50s and 60s.

When a Black Father gives his Son "THE TALK" it's not about the birds and bees, it's about the Po-lice, right?

You'd better believe it.

[trish]

...this interaction rose to the level of deadly force.

It rose quickly and unilaterally to the level of deadly force, as only the police had the means to raise it to that level.

Btw: My father had That Talk with all of his children and most my friends report the same.

[Stavros]

Deadly force can be used when a person is unarmed, but it would have to be a very unusual situation. The person would not just have to have a subjective belief that they were in imminent and life-threatening danger, it would also have to be reasonable (this is the objective component).

To me this is an argument in jurisprudence that has no connection to real life. It has happened so many times before in the USA and also in the UK where the policemen allowed to carry guns have to have special training before they are allowed to go on a mission.

It seems that no matter how many armed policemen are confronting one man, in too many situations over the years they are unable to use their training to disable the person but must instead kill him, and not with one shot, but multiple shots, often with one entering the head. From where I am sitting, this was quite simply murder, and it is not good enough to say a policeman 'panicked' when policemen are trained not to panic in dangerous situations. Armed police in London managed to shoot, disable and arrest the two men who murdered Lee Rigby and they were armed with knives and guns, were determined to kill as many as they could and did indeed run toward the police with that intention, so it is not impossible in the most critical of confrontations to make an arrest.