PHYSICALLY GRABBING someone is not "initiating violence," but resisting the grab is? In terms of physical acts, which came first (i.e. was INITIAL)? In other terms, which was offensive, and which harmful? Trying to avoid physical captivity already initiated is "initiating violence"? The OED defines violence as "Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:" What such act did Garner EVER commit, "initially" or otherwise? He resisted such an act, but saying that justified additional ones is like a husband screaming, "WHY DO YOU MAKE ME HURT YOU?!" as he beats his wife to death.

The chief said cops EXITED THE VEHICLE before warning Rice THREE TIMES, yet the video shows the car was still moving when the cop opened fire. How certain are you he warned the kid by PA outside the car THREE TIMES before it stopped moving? The video also shows he was shot BEFORE raising his shirt, which he did with BOTH hands (i.e. none was free to grab anything else.) All told, the video physically contradicts FIVE THINGS COPS SAID, including all their "justifications" for the shooting: Whom should we believe, the cops, or our lying eyes?

The root of this particular case is probably the local force hiring a cop his academy instructor said was unfit to handle a firearm and probably always would be. But he was not legally incompetent even if emotionally so, and remains as legally liable for shooting any innocent person as everyone without a badge is. And outrage at a cop gunning down an innocent child does not make anyone a Klansmen ("inappropriate and emotionally charged words" indeed. )

Trying to regain ones feet while being clubbed by a group of people is neither offensive nor threatening. Where was this "self-hating white beta male liberal" crap when I was defending the Confederate battle flag despite people (even a close friend) implying that automatically made me racist? This does not (or should not) have a darned thing to do with politics, but with morality and public safety, both of which are brutally violated by half a dozen cops brutally beaten an unarmed men nonstop for several minutes.

As you say, we do not know either way, but the burden of proof is on his attacker to justify attacking him, and casing houses is not illegal even if Martin WAS doing it; it certainly does not justify phsyical assault.

Ooooh, Zimmerman "only" followed Martin through his neighborhood, continued after cops told him to stop, left his car and attacked him within sight of Martins house; STALKING is COMPLETELY different: How, exactly? Martin did not have to "circle around" and attack someone who had literally followed him all the way home; all he had to do was wait for Zimmerman to close in, which the record shows did not take long.

Why would Zimmerman being pinned to the ground make SYG any less applicable? Once Zimmerman attacked Martin, anything and everything Martin did in "self-defense" was legally justified, whether or not necessary to defense. That is, had Zimmerman lacked a gun and Martin bashed his skull to mush on the pavement, Florida law says that would have been 100% legal; he might have been arrested, as Zimmerman was, but just as assuredly never charged with a crime: Because he would not have committed one, "only" killed a man who was no longer a threat to him.

Again: So what? All that proves is that Zimmerman is a lousy fighter; it certainly does not suggest MARTIN attacked anyone. Zimmerman stalking him for several minutes, continuing even after the operator told him to stop, and angrily muttering into his phone about "these assholes" DOES suggest Zimmerman attacked HIM. Inserting racial epithets into the mouth of a dead kid who cannot defend himself does not change that; that is another one of those "inappropriate and emotionally charged words." Frankly, calling slain children bigoted Klansmen in the false belief defaming them absent evidence exonerates their killers is reprehensible.

Please support this or just admit you are full of shit. Seriously dude the physical evidence as well as all the credible eyewitness that Brown was not fleeing but coming back at the officer. It really isn't even close and believing otherwise puts your on the same level as holocaust deniers in terms of self induced ignorance to protect a deeply held prejudice.

Joel this argument is so stupid I have to suspect you are just trolling unless you really believe a police office does have not only the right but he responsibility to pursue a man who had just robbed a store and then attacked and attempted to disarm him. If you truly are that completely discounted from reality I suggestion getting meds and a good in patient program because of the many stupid argument I have seen on this issue that make them all seem rational.

Sure a cop is obligated to pursue a fleeing suspect: A cops BULLETS are not. Lethal force is only justified to resist lethal force; grammatically garbled ad hominems about my sanity cannot change that. If you think Brown fled from but then charged a cop who was already shooting at him, maybe I am not the one who needs meds.

See that part of Cannolis post where he concedes instances of police brutality? Not hypothetically, as an unfortunate but necessary evil pointless to protest because one can NEVER identify a concrete example, despite acknowledging it in theory: ACTUAL SPECIFIC EVENTS where cops assaulted and even killed unarmed innocents, which he has the grace to condemn as such. Why is that so impossible that in EACH of the many cases cited on these boards you CONSISTENTLY excuse the cops? This is what I meant by saying your arguments in this thread make Cannoli look like the voice of moderate compromise--and he spent some of the thread rationalizing the murder of abortion doctors; think about that....

Okay, hit me: What did "poor decision" did the SLEEPING CHILDREN maimed and killed by cops make that "led them to that"? Choosing to be born in a country so hopelessly divided along racial lines that NO ONE cares about INDISCRIMINATE police brutality except when they happen to share a particular victims race?

I will grant leftist cheerleaders this much: As much as it disgusts me to hear people say cops nearly killing infants and sticking the impoverished family with a million dollar medical bill is "not police brutality, because the cops admitted it," at least they do not automatically and INVARIABLY DEFEND CRIMINAL COPS just because of the victims race. Just as an exercise, are there ANY cases you unreservedly agree were police brutality against someone who happened to be black? Is the "liberal media" just consistently and inexplicably picking all the "worst victims" among blacks, despite unambiguously innocent ones? Or are blacks somehow just as inexplicably immune to the same brutality you concede cops have committed against whites?

Whatever your OWN political agenda obligates you to accept, yes, my "mommy" told me a great deal (but only within the very limited legally allowed extent) of what she learned working for both the Texas prison system and attorney generals office long enough to retire with full benefits. Race does not make a darned bit of difference except insofar as disproportionate minority poverty and common Southern racism allows immoral law enforcement officers an even freer hand to indulge the same sadism they just as gleefully inflict on white citizens when they can. Again, that does not implicate all nor even most officers: It simply necessitates far greater accountability for those who ARE complicit.