Where's The Outrage?

[smitty]

I'll say again:  Where's the outrage?  Anyone heard about this one?  I guess obama will send holder to get to the bottom of this like he's going to in Ferguson.  Thoughts?

 

http://www.kltv.com/story/26290978/police-identify-officer-involved-in-fatal-longview-shooting#.U-_z5JEDbiI.facebook

[bullets13]

Was Wagner unarmed? I didn't see it in the article.

[tvc184]

Was Wagner unarmed? I didn't see it in the article.

 

One article said an "exchange" of gunfire. I think that implicates a shootout. 

[bullets13]

If that's the case, I'm not sure where the outrage should come from.

[tvc184]

If that's the case, I'm not sure where the outrage should come from.

 

Nowhere.

[smitty]

If that's the case, I'm not sure where the outrage should come from.

Well, how about the the cop automatically being guilty without knowing the facts like in Ferguson.  Just trying to find consistency here. 

[thetragichippy]

Nice try Smitty.....but apples and oranges

[stevenash]

I know all of the facts have not been determinded in the Ferguson Missouri case. However, if we find out that the individual, did, in fact, assault the policeman and attempt to take possession/control of the policemans weapon, would we then be comparing apples to apples? I am assuming that both policemen have the same rights when it comes to defending themselves whether the threat is a gun or some sort of physical violence.

[thetragichippy]

I know all of the facts have not been determinded in the Ferguson Missouri case. However, if we find out that the individual, did, in fact, assault the policeman and attempt to take possession/control of the policemans weapon, would we then be comparing apples to apples? I am assuming that both policemen have the same rights when it comes to defending themselves whether the threat is a gun or some sort of physical violence.

 

I think gun fire exchange is a little different that hand to hand.....I don't think there would be as much outrage if Michael would have fired a gun during the exchange.....so, apples and oranges

[stevenash]

Is that assuming that if Michael went for the policemans gun, he only wanted to control it and had no intention of using it?

[thetragichippy]

Is that assuming that if Michael went for the policemans gun, he only wanted to control it and had no intention of using it?

 

I think we are having two different conversations.

 

I do think Michael went for the cops gun or was attempting to attack him.

 

All I am saying is when two people shoot at each other it is hard to be "outraged" if both parties shoot back.  The old saying it takes two to tango.

 

THIS situation has an armed white cop and an unarmed black man (he was not a child)...only one gun by one person was fired......some people are "outraged" because the unarmed black man did not have a weapon.

 

Please tell me you can see the difference

[stevenash]

I can see the difference. I also see sensationalism in one instance and virtual non recognition in the other. When you refer to the "armed white cop" it would appear that there was a chance that said cop was possibly on the verge of becoming the "unarmed white cop" and potentially being fired at(with his own gun) by the "armed crminal" (if the criminal had been successful at acquiring the policemans gun)

[tvc184]

Is that assuming that if Michael went for the policemans gun, he only wanted to control it and had no intention of using it?

If Brown tried to get the officer's gun and briefly walked away a few feet and then came back at the officer then in my opinion deadly force is justified. It is just as a jury ruled in the Zimmerman case when Martin was "unarmed" and just like a grand jury ruled when the off duty officer in Orange shot the "unarmed" man.

That has not been shown yet.

Unfortunately there are many people that do not know the law and/or do not care about the law as long as a political agenda is met.