who is being racist here? please explain

They deserved to be fired upon cuz they publicly threatened to resist the officers and said on TV that they didnt respect their authority. IF ever there was a chance to show who was in charge that was it, but instead they somehow found a peaceful resolution but the Ferguson protestors are introduced to the departments new military grade weaponry.. The inconsistency, again, is the real crime IMO

Actions speak louder than words though and in the end they did not attack or act in an aggressive manner towards the police. A little bit much saying they deserved to be fired upon though, especially as that would of basically created a warzone and who knows how it would of panned out. The way the Ferguson protests were handled was wrong though I will admit that, but the fact that homes and businesses were raided and destroyed in 'honor' of Mr. Brown doesn't make me believe the peaceful part. I'd imagine that is what caused the reaction they got, along with the protest potentially causing more sinister issues like I stated before.

Also, Darren did not respond to a robbery call, he did not know what Mike was doing yet Mike somehow ended up assaulting him? I think it just goes to show what kind of violent person Mike was, unless people are trying to claim that Darren randomly decided to shoot some dude on the street for absolutely no reason?

They pointed their weapons at the officers and at one time a protest sniper said he could easily take out four of the officers. The officers also decided not to use their riot gear as that was considered too provocative and might inspire an attack ,. Why are inner cities not policed like that? Why are unarmed people considered more of a threat than a sniper who is in the process of pointing his rifle at the officers? Why is riot gear used on unarmed protestors but armed protesters it is considered provocation? Why is there not the same amount of consideration given to insighting protestors in inner city area? The double standard is the problem. IMO

From the reports that I've read say that Mike Brown was shot in the back 3 times (indicating that he was running away) and that Darren Wilson and The Police tried to make out that Mike Brown charged at Darren Wilson and that's why Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown, the evidence showed though that Mike Brown had been shot from long range.

This whole case sounds strange to me, I don't agree with what The Looters did, but the original message from the pieceful protesters is spot on imo.

And one good thing that does come out of the looting is that no future dodgy cases like this will be getting a slap on the wrist for awhile.

The autopsy proved that he was not shot in the back. and it also proved that he tried to grab the officers gun.

It had been proven that he was shot from long range though.

And even if Mike Brown was going for Darren Wilson, why did he have to shoot him 12 times? A lot of robbers try to physically attack The Police and they don't get shot that many times.

why does it matter how many times the cop shot him? he's dead, why does it matter if he was shot once to kill him or 12 times to kill him?

I don't understand how the number of shots that killed him matters at all.

It means that there was intent.

If his already dead why would you shoot him that many times.

of course there was intent. a large thug attacked him and he was trying to kill the person who was a danger to society before he hurt anyone else. no one has disputed that.