*sighs and gives him a hug...

note later...

V.

Nothing to say to this except that I'm here and listening and angry too.

I had to quite literally take a chill pill after hearing that news.

Sorry, I can't agree with you, this has zero to do with racism. This is a guy beating the hell out of a cop, then coming back to finish him off. Hell, I'd have shot anyone, regardless of race or creed, who was trying to kill me.

Don't want to get shot? Don't maul a cop. That easy. I grew up in a neighborhood WAY rougher than that, it's called South Dallas, specifically Pleasant Grove and Oak Cliff. I went to predominantly black schools. No one there was DUMB enough to pull a stunt like that. Shiv each other in school? Happened all the time. Shootings in schools? Often enough that it wasn't even news. But beating the hell out of a cop? Dude, was he suicidal or something?

No. Not racism. This was Darwin calling his own.

I completely disagree that Brown was 'beating the hell out of' the Officer Wilson. I haven't seen any evidence that corroborates this aside of Wilson's own testimony, which to me seems inconsistent. Having said that, this is why there should be a trial. I don't know what happened that day, not for sure, but I have my suspicious. With regard to racism, what about the guy killed holding a toy gun or the boy shot while holding a toy gun who later died from his injuries? What about the guy who shot up a theater in Colorado who was taken ALIVE while having multiple guns in his possession while Brown, unarmed (and I'll give you that it was against a singular police officer) was shot to death?

If Officer Wilson was put on trial and found not guilty, I would be upset, yes. I believe that he murdered Brown. But the fact that he's not going to be charged at all upsets me greatly. This, plus Travyon Martin and all the numerous other cases, some publicized and unpublicized, lead me to believe that I should be afraid for my life in any, ANY encounter with any police officer.

How about the documented evidence of bruising all over the cop's head, including on the back of the head? What is inconsistent? His buddy claims Brown was running away. So why was their GSR *ON HIS FRONT*? This clearly indicates that Brown was up in his face, a distance of INCHES from the gun when fired, which directly contradicts his buddy's claim. So... hard evidence versus his buddy's story... yea, I'm going to go with science on this one.

That is not the first incident of a kid being killed because he was stupid enough to jump in front of a cop with a toy gun. This is why, in many states, toy guns are required to have markings that make it clear that they are fake. If the kid tapes or marks over it to make it look 'cooler' (i.e. more realistic) and jumps at a cop with it... don't be surprised he gets plugged, regardless of race. White kids as well as black have been killed doing that. It's again not a matter of race, it's a matter of doing stupid things.

Cops have a rough job. They get to patrol the streets and be in risk of getting attacked every moment they are in uniform. It's even worse than being downrange. And attacking a guy with a gun and the license to use it? Not the smartest move.

You want to not be in fear of your life around a cop? Don't attack them. It isn't that hard.

As far as Treyvon Martin? I'll just leave this here:

A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

Again, don't jump someone with a gun. This has zero to do with race.

You know what is racist? Black man shot by white man. Before any facts are addressed, before any evidence is filed, it is automatically a racially motivated incident. Within moments of the incident happened, it was all over that it was because of race. No trial, no jury, he is guilty of being racist until proven so, with no chance of being permitted to prove otherwise. That is racist.

I don't give a damn who the person is, black, white, hispanic, oriental... take your pick. Anyone jumps a guy of any race with a gun. What do you think that guy with a gun is going to do? Me? I'm going to pull the trigger. The attacker's race is immaterial. My life is at risk. If it is a choice between my life, or the life of my family, and an assailant? It won't be me or mine going away in a body bag. I promise. That's not racist, that living to see another day. Not even if the guy who jumped me just happens to be black.

I'm not going to fight you about whether or not Brown actually fought Wilson. Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent as well. I, personally, don't believe Wilson's story. There are pictures of him with bruises, yes, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them "all over his head." But all of this is beside my original point, my central point: Darren Wilson should have gone to trial, and all of this should have been brought up in a trial. I don't think the prosecutor did his due diligence in trying to secure an indictment. He should be in court, and on charges, because the points where you and I differ are exactly the sorts of things that should be handled in a court of law. As an officer of the law, Wilson should be DOUBLY made sure to uphold it in all instances, especially since he has the power to end the life of another as a part of his standard-issue uniform.

And yes, I believe this was a racially motivated incident. To do so otherwise is to live in a fantasy land, where there hasn't been years upon decades of history of these things being racially motivated. I don't accuse Darren Wilson of being a racist, but I decry a system that is against me.

Eyewitness testimonies are ALWAYS inconsistent. They are the most notoriously unreliable piece of evidence allowed in court. Look up the term 'confirmation bias'.

I wish there had been a trial too, if only to exonerate him. As it stands, he's lost his job on the mere accusation of being racist and defending his life.

We're going to have to agree to disagree that this was a racially motivated incident. As soon as a black guy is attacked, it's automatically racist. Heck, there were some incidents that went local where a black guy was crying racism... only to discover that his assailant was, in fact, hispanic. Surprising how quiet that went and how deeply it was buried when they found out his attacker wasn't white.

I do agree that officers should be held to a higher standard due to their standing in society. However, this is part of his job. He is issued a gun and is expected to use it in the defense of lives. In this case, the life was his own. Internal Affairs crawled all over him, do not doubt that for a moment. However, that was an investigation the public never got to see.

I suppose that I could say something about this, but there is another kitty that made a more succinct argument, with the power of song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_NV61OC42g

That being said, I think that I can (as I often do) employ an engineering analogy here.

American Airlines Flight 191 was a scheduled flight from Chicago O'Hare International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport. On May 25, 1979, the flight, carried by a McDonnell-Douglas DC-10-10, crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 258 passengers and 13 crew aboard, and two on the ground.

It was immediately clear what the proximate cause of the crash was: During throttle-up and takeoff, the port engine mount failed, allowing the engine to flip up and over the wing, tearing out fuel and hydraulic lines in the process. Due to the loss of hydraulic fluid, the slats on the port wing retracted, and the unequal lift caused the aircraft to roll sharply to port. With no chance of maintaining control, the plane impacted shortly beyond the end of the runway.

It would've been easy to simply look at the fractured engine mount, blame component failure, and call it a day. However, that is not how engineering works; there is a Root Cause Analysis, or RCA. Why did the engine mount fail? Was it not designed with sufficient strength? Was it not made to print, improperly installed, or made of an improper material?

Turns out it was the maintenance procedure used for removing and remounting the engines, a procedure that was approved neither by McDonnell-Douglas or General Electric, the engine manufacturer. Shortcuts were taken in the removal procedure, allowing the engine to hang from the rear mounting pin, causing stress deformation and cracking in the rear engine pylon. Over a period of many takeoffs and landings, the microscopic cracks continued to grow, as the stress of the engine straining at maximum thrust was repeated. Finally, the hidden, underlying stress could no longer be contained within the damaged component, and it failed, catastrophically, resulting in the worst aviation accident in US history.

Perhaps nobody really thought of the maintenance procedure as being all that dangerous. I doubt that anybody did anything to deliberately damage an aircraft. After this was revealed, the entire fleet of DC-10s was grounded and engine pylons checked for cracking and denting; many were found to be damaged, and were replaced before more critical failures could occur.

This particular component failure was not just a fluke, a single, isolated incident. It was the result of months, perhaps years of improper procedures that built up to a singular tragedy.

If only life were as simple as engineering.

Would certainly make my life easier, yes. Unfortunately, there are too many people (such as the commenter directly above) who seem to react to the engine falling off with a shrug, then continue on their way, as if there is nothing that could've been done to prevent the original occurrence, or a repeat.

I'm also reminded of an observation from my Congressman, Bill Foster (D-IL). Trained as a physicist, he is a former project director at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, as well as an inventor and entrepreneur, designing and building theatrical lighting equipment and starting a company with his brother. Upon arriving in Washington after winning a special election following the mid-term resignation of Dennis Hastert (nothing like a Republican to force the state to spend a few million dollars it didn't have to), he remarked with surprise at the number of people there believing statements that are simply wrong. Not differences of opinion, mind you, but factually incorrect, directly disproven by evidence.

To use another engineering analogy, this time to demonstrate some political arguments: It is perfectly valid to argue that the piers of a bridge should be made of structural steel, or of concrete. Those are differences of opinion that can be supported by fact, evidence, and logic. To say that the piers of a bridge should be made of Camembert Cheese is not a valid opinion, it is simply nonsense, and anybody who would claim it is a legitimate opinion, worthy of attention, is downright delusional.

As you can probably tell by now, I could never make it in politics.

*also gives purry bro-snuggles*