While the case was handled poorly, I'm not so sure we could make such a judgement about how Brown was shot without the appropriate context, including how police there are trained to handle such situations, the nature of the confrontation, etc. As a police officer, Wilson could have been in the clear to shoot, but that will be decided by the legal system (or not).
This explains the rioting, but doesn't condone it.
I think most of us agree that the shooting was unfortunate and, for Brown, undeserved. However, I don't think it's irreverent to criticize Brown for the actions he took prior and during the shooting. He did take some questionable actions which should be addressed for what they are if we want an intelligent conversation about this.
The fact that the handling of the situation was criticized at state and federal level speaks to me that, at the very least, policing in Missouri state is too decentralized and lacks oversight. I have no idea whether this is true or not. What does anybody have to say about how policing is regulated in the United States? Do local officials have too much power in their own hands?
Also, can anybody give a knowledgeable discussion about what McCulloch did and what alternatives were available? What are arguments in favour and against the way he managed the grand jury? What does the grand jury usually do given the same context of a police shooting?
* I'm not a police officer, but a confrontation like that doesn't just up and turn into a shooting. I think Wilson followed most of the police protocols but the situation escalated into a confrontation too quickly, and deadly force was invoked quickly under dubious circumstances. "Fearing for his life" is a very convenient mechanism that is subjective enough that the person can invoke it and not suffer any reprisals. Maybe he did truly feel his life was in danger, but he didn't really have a legitimate reason to feel that way, as an unarmed teenager doesn't pose much of a threat. And it would have been obvious to Officer Wilson that if Brown had a weapon on him, he would logically have used it before getting fired upon by Wilson. Wilson probably assumed that the kid was a ********** and probably armed and that misconception/racial stereotype contributed to the confrontation.
* It doesn't condone the rioting, but it does shed light on why people would do it. And, it shuts up the crowd using racial bias in calling the rioters thugs, looters, vandals, etc. simply for what they look like. Like the pictures making the rounds on Facebook, twitter, other forms of social media, etc., the ones suggesting the rioters are all poor inner city black folk looking to cause trouble. That's exactly the problem, believe believe it and it only perpetuates these stereotypes and misconceptions people have about one another. Nobody is really condoning the rioting. They're also not really doing anything about the propagating of racist stereotypes against the rioters.
Brown was probably unnecessarily confrontational with the police, and he did steal the cigarillos from the gas station prior to the altercation. But, lets remember that the rift between the inner-city african american community and the police goes back quite a long time. So if anything, pre-concieved notions of race from both Brown and Wilson contributed and combined to make a deadly combination here. But the difference is that the kid is the one who's dead. And most of the attempts to highlight Brown's own actions here has given way to full-on demonization and dehumanization in order to paint Wilson in a more sympathetic light.
There is a difference between the case being racially motivated and reactions to the case having racial motivation. The former is unproven, the latter is definitely true. Still, since there's no hard evidence that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown because he was black racial reactions are simply hearsay.
Before this incident, how many years of spotless service did he have? One incident does not mean he is a bad cop. Also, it's very easy for us to judge from our armchairs and rationally state that "cops should do this, cops shouldn't do that" in a life or death situation. The fact is these situations are not calm or rational and how many human beings, police officers or not, would have acted calmly and coolly in them? Very, very few. So few that you could not make a department, unless you want to start hiring RoboCops. Your expectations of people reacting in life or death situations are unrealistic, law enforcement or not. They're small town cops, not navy seals.
As Kanzler already said, perceived injustice does not excuse violent mob behaviour. I haven't seen anyone here, in this thread, say white people don't riot or that it's acceptable for them to. I HAVE seen people here saying it's okay for blacks to do so because their reasons are so much more morally justifiable. The point is that throwing molotov cocktails and tipping over police cars is wrong, period.
You run a debate section and you cite social media as a source? How many people believe that **** and how many are just trolling to get others riled up? Social media is not a reliable indicator of anything, although if you want to use it I'm sure it's also possible to dig up plenty of dirt on the people who support Michael Brown, but that would just continue the **** flinging contest, wouldn't it?
That's the thing about race, racially-motivated instances inspire racially-motivated reactions. It's not like entire communities of people are intentionally making it all up.
Frankly, previous years of service, no matter how pristine, mean nothing when you shoot and kill an unarmed teenager, for whatever reason. That's like saying "Well, Bernie Madoff was a great lawyer until we found out he stole everyone's money". Get a clue. Police need to be able to make rational, tough calls under duress. That's part of the job, simple as that. They don't need to be "Navy Seals" to do so.
Ans yes, the rioting, looting and continued acts of violence are wrong and only perpetuate the cycle of violence and misconceptions between the involved parties. But, lets at least try and understand why someone would feel that violence is the only option - when the justice system has supposedly failed you. Only giving an explanation, you inferred the rest yourself.
I didn't cite anything, I simply made a statement on the commentary coming from people weighing in on the case, on social media and in other mediums. Just because somebody tweets about Ferguson doesn't mean their thoughts or insights are fundamentally invalid simply because it was posted on twitter.