Jump to content

Andrew Brown Shooting


thetragichippy

Recommended Posts

Thoughts?

-No public explanation from Sherriff.....

-Brown Attorney claims he was shot in the back of his head.....

They were trying to execute a felony warrant, and he was in control of a vehicle that could cause the police harm. Even his attorney say he was backing up while some of the shooting occurred. 

 

CNN is not asking, but were the cops in fear of their lives thinking he would run them over.....or someone else?

 

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Hard to say with how little information is out there.  I'm suspecting it might not be good with their unwillingness to release the video they have of the incident, but who knows.  

Givin the times I don’t think it would matter.

case in point makia Bryant case.  That cop ; though video proof will exonerate him, but in the public eye he s a murderer. His life will be hell now.

look at how media and the so called know it all’s have came at him.

in there eyes he s white she was black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Givin the times I don’t think it would matter.

case in point makia Bryant case.  That cop ; though video proof will exonerate him, but in the public eye he s a murderer. His life will be hell now.

look at how media and the so called know it all’s have came at him.

in there eyes he s white she was black.

I don't disagree, but A LOT of people stood up for the cop in the Makia Bryant place, and I've seen a lot of African Americans who supported his actions as well.  This was due to the release of the bodycam.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Thoughts?

-No public explanation from Sherriff.....

-Brown Attorney claims he was shot in the back of his head.....

They were trying to execute a felony warrant, and he was in control of a vehicle that could cause the police harm. Even his attorney say he was backing up while some of the shooting occurred. 

 

CNN is not asking, but were the cops in fear of their lives thinking he would run them over.....or someone else?

 

This is the hidden content, please

It’s really incumbent upon what is uncovered with the bodycam video and interviews with the officers and any witnesses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Hard to say with how little information is out there.  I'm suspecting it might not be good with their unwillingness to release the video they have of the incident, but who knows.  

I believe it is against North Carolina law to release that video. I bring this up in various forums from time to time but freedom of information depends on the laws in that particular state. Texas has fairly restrictive freedom of information laws. There are some things that must be released, some things that have an option to be released but cannot be demanded and some things that absolutely cannot be released.

I believe in North Carolina they need an order from a judge in order to make something public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baddog said:

LIVE UPDATES: Andrew Brown Jr. deputy-involved shooting under FBI civil rights investigation

 

This is the hidden content, please

 

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at

This is the hidden content, please

That just means the FBI is also investigating the case. I have been investigated by the FBI for civil rights violations in the jail. This was about 30 years ago and fortunately there were cameras. In another similar case but not by the FBI, I had a complaint of abuse filed by a prisoner while being brought into the jail. Again the camera exonerated me. The prisoner got out of the car and purposely fell on his own kneecap, crushing it on the concrete. Not knowing that it was on camera, he blamed  me for crippling him.

We don’t have to go too far back to the Michael Brown case and the claimed hands up, don’t shoot. The FBI spent several million dollars in a year to agree with the DA who said almost immediately  that the shooting was lawful. Well, the FBI did not find it was lawful. According to the then US Attorney General, they just could not prove the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I believe it is against North Carolina law to release that video. I bring this up in various forums from time to time but freedom of information depends on the laws in that particular state. Texas has fairly restrictive freedom of information laws. There are some things that must be released, some things that have an option to be released but cannot be demanded and some things that absolutely cannot be released.

I believe in North Carolina they need an order from a judge in order to make something public.

Man, I’m just posting news bits. Thanks for the analysis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I believe it is against North Carolina law to release that video. I bring this up in various forums from time to time but freedom of information depends on the laws in that particular state. Texas has fairly restrictive freedom of information laws. There are some things that must be released, some things that have an option to be released but cannot be demanded and some things that absolutely cannot be released.

I believe in North Carolina they need an order from a judge in order to make something public.

That's my understanding as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

That just means the FBI is also investigating the case. I have been investigated by the FBI for civil rights violations in the jail. This was about 30 years ago and fortunately there were cameras. In another similar case but not by the FBI, I had a complaint of abuse filed by a prisoner while being brought into the jail. Again the camera exonerated me. The prisoner got out of the car and purposely fell on his own kneecap, crushing it on the concrete. Not knowing that it was on camera, he blamed  me for crippling him.

We don’t have to go too far back to the Michael Brown case and the claimed hands up, don’t shoot. The FBI spent several million dollars in a year to agree with the DA who said almost immediately  that the shooting was lawful. Well, the FBI did not find it was lawful. According to the then US Attorney General, they just could not prove the case.

Thanks for the analysis. It still got through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a cultural thing.  When "our" girl (white, unarmed,conservative) got shot by the Captiol police in January during the riot, practically EVERYBODY that fits her description shrugged and said "ummmmm.... she kinda had that coming."

When a violent black drug dealer attempts to run over police officers while evading arrest (a felony in and of itself) when they are attempting to arrest him, Ben Crump and the rest of the sweaty-faced suits show up to cry about "it was an execution!  He was just trying to get away!!!"  Until the black community decides to address it's own responses to law enforcement, the whole thing is just going to keep happening. 

If you resist/flee from an arresting officer, you are accepting all possible outcomes, which include getting shot.  Period.  It's that simple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

It's a cultural thing.  When "our" girl (white, unarmed,conservative) got shot by the Captiol police in January during the riot, practically EVERYBODY that fits her description shrugged and said "ummmmm.... she kinda had that coming."

When a violent black drug dealer attempts to run over police officers while evading arrest (a felony in and of itself) when they are attempting to arrest him, Ben Crump and the rest of the sweaty-faced suits show up to cry about "it was an execution!  He was just trying to get away!!!"  Until the black community decides to address it's own responses to law enforcement, the whole thing is just going to keep happening. 

If you resist/flee from an arresting officer, you are accepting all possible outcomes, which include getting shot.  Period.  It's that simple. 

Definitely......gonna take a collective bunch or someone with a huge following to get that ball rolling.

and be ready for the name calling and backlash and media attacks and falsehoods

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

The judge just declined to release the footage.

This is the hidden content, please

 

There is a balancing act and both sides have good points. There is the desire (not right) to know what the government is doing. I see comments such as, it is my tax dollars so you have to tell me! Uhhhhh....   no you don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

The judge just declined to release the footage.

This is the hidden content, please

 

There is a balancing act and both sides have good points. There is the desire (not right) to know what the government is doing. I see comments such as, it is my tax dollars so you have to tell me! Uhhhhh....   no you don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Realville said:

 

An automobile is a very deadly weapon and lethal force can be used by police. Ask the POS in Beaumont at the Jack-In-The-Box, who was wearing his bullet-proof vest at the time, what cops can do when you attempt to run them over. Never mind, that POS Is dead too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for the record, if you protest by saying "hands up, don't shoot," you are a moron.

It's been proven over and over that it never occurred in the Michael Brown justified shooting.  Yet every time you see the clowns walking around chanting... "Hands up, don't shoot!"

 

Your battle cry is actually a complete lie... that should tell you something. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
×
×
  • Create New...