The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Where I disagree about Ferguson

    By Flavius on Mon, 12/01/2014 - 10:52pm |

    and where I don't

    I disagreed with  trashing  Florissant street. That wasn't protesting, it was rioting.

    "        "          with a woman on the web today shouting that the police were killing  "our babies" Michael Brown was not a baby.But

    I agree that the  police who shot the 12 year old  Tamir Rice in Cleveland were killing a baby. 

    I disagree with the criticism of  Darren Wilson for telling Michael Brown to move on to the side walk

    I  agree  Wilson should not have shot -and wounded- Brown when he was running away

    I disagree he  did that  because he was afraid Brown  would attack others. That's cant. He shot  Brown because  Brown disrespected  him and then hurt him in their struggle.

    I  disagree  with Wilson that Brown was "charging" at him. Brown was wounded and knew that he needed medical assistance, and needed Wilson to get it for him.

    I disagree with the prosecutor for not indicting Wilson. 

    Comments

    1) 12 jurists, reviewed the evidence and exonerated Wilson. 

    2)

    …..as Tamir walked toward the still-moving car. Tamir lifted his shirt, reached for a black handle sticking from his waistband and Loehmann shot, according to Cleveland police's account of the shooting.

    Fred Loehmann said his son did not know the gun was fake or that Tamir was 12 years old. One of the officers radioed back to dispatchers describing Tamir as possibly 20 years old, recordings show.

    "'I was right there and he went for the gun,'" he recalled his son saying. "'I had no choice.'"

    Father of Cleveland cop who shot Tamir Rice says his son ...


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 7:32am

    I've seen the video over and over. He was a kid.


    by Flavius on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 7:31am

    Maybe you had plenty of  time to see baby teeth (?), but the first officers on the scene, were focused on someone with a gun.

    Baby Face Nelson

    First rule of GUN CONTROL:  Don't be waving real or toy guns around and when the police say hands in the air.  OBEY

    (When the authorities tell you to get out of the middle of the road, OBEY) . 

    Being obedient to the Superior Authority begins at youth. 

    (When your mother of father says, don't talk back.  OBEY)


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 7:50am

    The child was shoot two seconds after police arrived.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 8:41am

    If obedience to the Superior Authority is the rule, wasn't the Revolutionary War a disobedient action? It defied the Superior Authority of the King of England.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 9:52am

    We know that the jurists exonerated Wilson--that is the problem. Over a dozen witnesses said that Brown was standing a good distance from Wilson when he was shot(some say he had his hands up). The guy who was with Brown denies that Brown was throwing punches, which is supported by the photographs which show Wilson without any bruises.

     Parts of Wilson's story would be unbelievable even if they weren't contradicted by witnesses. This unarmed man charged a cop who was holding a gun on him? Why would he stick his hand in his shirt if he didn't have a gun? There should have been a trial.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 7:41am

    The strong armed rrobbery of the store clerk, showed the propensity of Brown, to use violence when confronted, 

    If I was a jurist, that was one dahming piece of evidence.  

    Then when it was reported; he refused to get out of the road as commanded by a police officer. it added further evidence, of someone confrontational, who had already shown, a violent tendacy/ likelihood. 

    Police discrimination does not excuse people from their sins.

    Let the Superior authority of the Federal Government decide the issue of Police discrimination.

    Not the agitators/ rioters who want to blur the lines.


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 8:21am

    Sorry, Resistance, but stealing cigars and failing to walk on the sidewalk don't merit the death penalty. Cops are not entitled to shoot perps who are unarmed and standing a good distance away from them. The district attorney claimed that some witnesses told a different story, but when you have a large number of witnesses describing an unlawful killing, there should be a trial.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 8:27am

    Did I ever say the punishment for thievery is death?

    Brown wasn't killed for stealing cigars; he was killed by someone with the Badge, representing the Authority; who felt threatened by an assault. 

    Wilson had no idea who he was approaching; accept the information that a man with Browns description had just committed a possible Felony. 

    Anyone with common sense knows Felons react differently than law abiding citizens.

    Felons have already shown they have no respect and would disregard laws; civil society has written as safeguards. 

    Even Officer Friendly, may have turned into Officer Unfriendly, when face to face with a confrontational felon.

    What is wrong with societies whose members looks upon thievery as a minor offense and then blame an officer for confronting a combative thief? 

     When approached by the Authorities, your demeanor should be nonthreatening.


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 1:21pm

    You are factually wrong as usual. Do not refer to Michael Brown as a felon as he has been convicted of absolutely nothing. 

    The small time crime of shoplifting is not a felony, it's a damn misdemeanor, and that is something Michael Brown was also NOT CONVICTED OF, because you know, he's dead. And Michael Brown is dead because ultimately that cop was a chickenshit, above all. All he could think of was to shoot, he doesn't carry a taser because they are bulky, well that is his excuse, but I suspect the real reason he doesn't or didn't carry a taser was because he is a chickenshit and thinks he has the right to shoot anyone he wants, and that means you too. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 1:40pm

    You are factually wrong as usual

    It is you that can't read or understand 

    I wrote 

    had just committed a possible Felony. 

    I guess bias blinds some people  that M Brown may have known he could be charged with a felony if arrested by Wilson. 

    As opposed to impossible that M brown would ever rob a store and rough up the store owner. 

    I have yet to see M Brown's juvenile record, to determine if he was a saint; as many want to portray him as.


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 2:05pm

    Shoplifting isn't a possible felony, it is a misdemeanor. Throughout your diatribe you referred to Michael Brown as a felon. Both statements are factually wrong, as is your usual.

    Let me quote you:

    Anyone with common sense knows Felons react differently than law abiding citizens.

    Felons have already shown they have no respect and would disregard laws; civil society has written as safeguards.

    Even Officer Friendly, may have turned into Officer Unfriendly, when face to face with a confrontational felon.

    Three separate times you referred to Michael Brown as a felon, which is factually incorrect. Once you referred to the crime as a felony, also factually incorrect. But you don't care, you need to make him a felon so that killing that teenager feels Okay to you, well it isn't okay with me and Officer Wilson is and was a chickenshit. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 3:11pm

    You want to ignore the act of shoplifting (misdemeanor) escalated into a felony assault of the store clerk; whether the suspect was caught or not.  

    What Officer Wilson didn't know at the time and soon discovered, was a suspected shoplifter who could be arrested on the misdemeanor charge, resorted to attacking a police officer to resist being charged with a misdemeanor?

    The escalating of a misdemeanor, into another Felony assault of Police officers. Propensity? Mindset?

    Why would it be just store clerks and Police officers beware?  

    A Grand jury determined the credibility of the officers account of fearing for his life was to be believed, because the jury; relying not just on the officers account, but the additional store video footage supported their conclusion.  M Brown wouldn't hesitate to assault others, if he could escape prosecution, as the video clearly showed 

    That is a mindset problem of M Brown. 

    I never said suspect M Brown was ever convicted of a Felony, because I haven't seen the juvenile record.

    You may think it okay to call Wilson names, just as I would believe he would call those who can’t see the similarities between the two conditions and the mindset of felons.

    One who would commit a felony act and get caught; and One who would commit a felony act and NOT get caught, as being ignorant 

    The mindset of those who would do felony acts, whether caught or not, is still the same mindset; the only difference being, one is caught the other, not yet. 

    As I wrote before, you can't' read without distorting the viewpoint expressed.


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 6:06pm

    I think I answered this already. Wilson did more than confront a thief; he killed a man who was probably not threatening him. And the guy who was with Brown said Brown wasn't combative.

      You say you don't regard theft as meriting death, but you keep using Brown's offense as a rationalization for the killing.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 2:01pm

    who was probably not threatening him

    Probably?  

    From your perspective it better the officer die, than M Brown and this would satisfy your concerns of justice?

    So burn down the town, overturn and burn police cars, loot steal from innocent store owners 

    because F*** the law.

    Maybe not a far stretch for some law abiding jurists to conclude, a person who would assault a police officer had the same mental attitude.  F the law. 

    Why not, expect that disrespect for authority leads to confrontation because that is what is instilled into the community. 

    Lame excuses: If the police are not to be trusted then why respect the laws?  

    Do you want everyone in society deciding what is right or wrong according to how each individual feels? A lawless society because ?


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 2:24pm

    You treat it as an established fact that Brown was a threat to Wilson when Wilson killed him. We have a number of witnesses say otherwise. A trial was needed to resolve this matter. There were plenty of grounds to indict Wilson.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 3:08pm

    A trial was needed to resolve this matter.

    Don't you mean a "show trial"? 

    Show Trial 

    Better one white officer be fed to the wolves, to keep things calm?

    Supporters of M Brown screaming punish the officer

    The crowd screaming   "Give us Barabas", not caring an innocent man was to be punished 

     

    Putting political considerations ahead of Truth?.  

    It is why some agitators in the community, were so upset, when the store video was released disproving the lies and perception being generated to honor M Brown as some saint.

    Propaganda intended to sway public opinion against the officer. M Brown being an angel and his preparing to go to college. Reinvent and divert attention from the real facts.

    Reinvent M Brown in the image of just the average good kid, minding his own business and about to go to college as an attempt to make him appear as the angel and Wilson the big bad devil harassing the angel. 

    Of course the wolves wanted their (Pilate) political hacks fearful of the crowd.

    The crowd trying to influence and control the outcome; not trusting 12 jurists and a judge who they couldn't control by exerting political pressure.

    " Vote to punish the WHITE OFFICER or risk losing the votes of the supporters of M Brown" 

    As I wrote before; there  were members of the community who would never accept the verdict rendered, unless it was what they wanted.


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 6:35pm

    A trial would have allowed evidence from defense and prosecution to come in. The prosecutor acted as defense attorney. A show trial is what happened with the murder of Emmitt Till and Medgar Evers. Real trials are what happened with Jordan Davis, Renisha McBride, and Trayvon Martin. There was no conviction in the Martin case and Zimmerman was free to harass other citizens. A trial for Darren Wilson would have addressed the rational concerns of the community. There were holes in his testimony before the Grand Jury. Trials are about the community, not about individuals. There is no trust in the community of anything controlled by the Ferguson police, Mayor, or prosecutor.

    People were disappointed by the Trayvon Martin trial, but the verdict was accepted. Trials belong to the public. The community is the public. The Ferguson prosecutor abused the system.

    Darren Wilson came from a police department that was disbanded. We have a video of Darren Wilson arresting a man after violating the man's first amendment rights. The arrest was nullified. We had several Ferguson officers caught attempting to commit perjury after beating up an innocent man. These officers tried to get the man to pay for their soiled uniforms and committed perjury in doing so. Ferguson police may have to be disbanded just like Wilson's first department.

    There are rational reasons to distrust the prosecutor, police, and Darren Wilson. The only show trial was the farce perpetrated by the Ferguson prosecutor before the Grand Jury. He ignored unorthodox crime scene procedures


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 6:57pm

    Well said, rmrd.
     


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 7:15pm

    Thanks

    A Grand Jury is not a trial. The set up of this Grand Jury was never done before by the prosecutor. If every person who went before the Grand Jury had a prosecutor acting as defense attorney, there would be no indictments.

    A new prosecutor could call a new Grand Jury. Because a Grand Jury is not a trial, double jeopardy does not apply (according to attorney Lisa Bloom on All In with Chris Hayes tonight)


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 8:18pm

    Can the People, Appeal the Decision of a Grand Jury to a higher court if the people feel there was a sufficient violation of Due Process? 

    If they can appeal, STOP the rioting and proceed to the next level in redressing grievances.

    Or is the next level of review under suspicion too?

    Maybe those who want too impugn the integrity of the Grand Jurist who ruled on the Ferguson case, could find jurists to side with their wishes for an indictment?   

    BTW  Are charges going to be filed against the step - father who incited the riots?

    Police asking: Did Michael Brown's stepfather intend to spark riots?

    I see probable cause to indict what say you?.

    Or will the community erupt again, but this time, in defense of someone who felt justified to create mayhem and destruction affecting innocent people. 

    Wilson used the emotion of fear and the stepfather used the emotion of anger. Or will there be a double standard?


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 8:38pm

    It is legal if another prosecutor decides to call another Grand Jury. It is unlikely that a new Grand Jury will be called.

    If the prosecutor finds enough to put the stepfather before a Grand Jury he can fell free to do so. We would want equal application of the law, so we would expect that the Ferguson prosecutor would use the same techniques he used for Darren Wilson. We would expect the prosecutor to act as defense attorney for the stepfather.

    If a new Grand Jury is called, Black protestors are not responsible for Black looters.You said that you might "understand" why someone would dislike Obama, but should not take responsibility for the guy who ran into the White House. Protesters are not the looters.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 9:37pm

    The irony of it is, both Michael and Louis Head (Stepfather) were videotaped in their wrong doing. 


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 11:30pm

    You have stated that the death penalty is not the penalty for theft, but yet you allow that image to blind you to the unusual nature of the prosecutor's action. He had never done what he did in any other Grand Jury case. Does that concern you?

    The jury instructions regarding the actions that a police officer can take on a fleeing suspect was Unconstitutional. The jury instructions were void as of 1985. Does having an unconstitutional law read to the jury bother you?

    The prosecutor's actions are open to question agreed?

    The theft has no bearing on shooting an unarmed man

    The stepfather's outburst has no bearing on shooting an unarmed man.

    To summarize, the prosecutor rigged the Grand Jury. The prosecutors presented an unconstitutional law to the Grand Jury. The rest is distraction.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 11:59pm

    Prosecution did not mislead Grand Jury

    A straw man argument.

    Wilson did not need §563.046, arrest powers, did not rely upon it’s arrest power provisions, and indeed he never even mentioned them.

    All Wilson needed was §563.031, self-defense, and no error is claimed there.  Period.


    by Resistance on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 12:16am

    Reading is fundamental. Your legal eagle admits the wrong instruction was read to the jury. He then makes a unilateral decision that it did not matter. There was no judge agreeing with him. Thus he gives us an opinion. Not a statement that has been determined to be a court approved point.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 7:58am

    That Legal Eagle's argument and opinion is better than anything I've seen you offer. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 8:33am

    See below


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 8:34am

    unusual nature of the prosecutor's action. ,,,,,,,, Does that concern you?

    NO !!!  the prosecutor recognized, the supporters of M Brown were going to exploit and abuse the Grand Jury system.

    The Exploitation of Ferguson 

    The prosecutor was not going to be their pawn.


    by Resistance on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 12:44am

    You nailed it, the prosecutor acted for himself and not the people. Thank you for agreeing that he abused his position. He stacked the deck in his Grand Jury presentation.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 8:00am

    Resistance, I know that this thread is about Ferguson, but I just want to show you this cut & paste that I got from TPM about the 12 year-old child shot and killed by police in Cleveland.  I am not in any way a knee-jerk anti-police-person.  In fact, I think police should generally get the benefit of the doubt.  Most are good, honest, and competent.  We all have our own preconceptions of people.  But the death of this child seems horribly preventable to me.  I would like to see what you think:

     

    The Cleveland police officer who fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice on Nov. 22 had "dismal" handgun performance during training, the news website Cleveland.comreported on Wednesday.

    During Officer Tim Loehmann's brief tenure with the Independence Police Department, he was characterized as "distracted" and "weepy" during firearms training, according to a Nov. 29, 2012 letter obtained by Cleveland.com.

    The letter was written by the police department's Deputy Chief Jim Polak.

    "He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal," Polak wrote.

    The letter also recommended that the department disassociate with Loehmann, who eventually became an officer with the Cleveland Division of Police, Cleveland.com reported.

    "I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies," Polak wrote, according to the website.

    The Cleveland police department was investigating Loehmann's actions in the shooting of Rice, who was playing with a toy gun when he was fatally shot, according to the news site.

    The Independence Police Department released Loehmann's personnel file on Wednesday, which showed he resigned after six months, the website reported. During his time with the IPD, Loehmann reportedly suffered from personal problems, which were outlined in his file and affected his performance.

    Loehmann was reportedly hired by Cleveland police in March.

     

    Who would hire someone in the field of policing with a history like this?  This was an accident waiting to happen.  I hope he gets what he deserves.

     

     


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 6:25pm

    And I disagree that Michael Brown was a "gentle giant". Tell that to the clerk who tried to stop him from stealing some cigarillos. But neither did that make him a  "thug". Many  kids shop lift at least once. I did. Maybe " Morning Joe" did. Chances are it was Brown's first time, sadly it was his last..

     

    .


    by Flavius on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 7:29am

    Officer Friendly can ask someone to get off the sidewalk or Officer Wilson can tell someone to get the f**k off the sidewalk. The two statements set off two different reactions. Wilson came from a police department disbanded because of abuses. There are questions about the usual format used by the prosecutor in the Grand Jury. Darren Wilson faced no cross- examination in his testimony before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was legal but did not serve justice.

    In the case of Tamir Rice, the police pulled up next to him and the child died within 2 seconds of their arrival. There would seem to be little time for Rice to have heard put down the gun three times and reach for his waistband according to the Cleveland police. The veracity of the police is in question.

    Police cameras to record interactions with the public may resolve some issues of possible abuse, but the police need to make the effort to seem more like a protector and less like an occupying army. We also need to question if a militarized police force is a positive or a negative.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 8:26am

    The Cleveland killing was a clear example of a reckless cop with no training, no brains, no policy guidance, no patience, no respect for life and quicker to draw and fire than the Sundance Kid.

    The cop even claimed the 12 year old was 'about 20'. Any policy that does not recognize that some cops are idiots, fools and hotheads and need written instructions and accountability to follow them, on typical cases (kid with 'gun' in park for instance) will not work.

    As I said before, CALEA the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, says 'how' law enforcement is done = 'procedures used are entirely up to the local chief'. CALEA certified Cleveland PD in 2012.


    by NCD on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 10:02am

    Police unions are a major stumbling block against reform. Police unions often get police officers who were fired for abuse reinstated.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-ke...

    In addition, local police departments are telling Congress that they need the armored vehicles.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/02/the-swat-lobby-bats-awa...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 10:30am

    While Republicans are Benghaaaaaazing in Congress, there is not even a requirement for police departments in America to report how many people their cops kill. Apparently it's over 1000.

    If no one in Congress or the White House cares how many get shot by police, it seems unlikely they care about reducing excessive use of deadly force. The police are basically unregulated and unaccountable. Free cameras for cops who want to use them won't solve that problem.
     


    by NCD on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 10:59am

    The overreach of the NSA needs to be addressed, but we are not taking care of a glaring problem staring us in the face. The police are the major face of the legal system, and many citizens do not trust the police. Not trusting the police means little trust in the legal system.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 11:18am

    I'm just listening to the D. Rehm show and a guest who is professor of Criminology says he has been trying FOR DECADES to get mandatory reporting on police use of guns/shootings, and nothing has been done.

    He says the data will help spot the good cops and the poorly trained cops, and the racial disparities in use of force across the nation.


    by NCD on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 12:24pm

    I agree with pretty much everything you say, Flavius.

    I disagree that Wilson shot Brown while he was running away. All the wounds were from the front, no bullets entered Brown's body from the back. Brown had turned around by the time that Wilson shot at him. We do not know what was going on in Brown's mind when he turned around, despite the cries of the tea-leaf-readers to the contrary, and in my opinion it is useless to speculate. Wilson had already bought into a confrontation that was unlikely to be resolved without gunfire.

     


    by erica20 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 11:52am

    Wilson was only brought into "a confrontation that was unlikely to be resolved without gunfire" when he pulled his gun out, and particularly when he exited his vehicle, with gun. Wilson put himself, bystanders and possible fellow officers at risk by exiting the vehicle with gun, when the 'huge strong' suspect might have overpowered him and gained possession of it.

    Pulling the gun, and leaving the protection of his vehicle, were voluntary and unnecessary actions on his part. He didn't bring a taser which was standard equipment and available to him, he didn't drive his vehicle down the street and observe the suspect from it, and he didn't wait for back-up.

    He had a gun and used it, in a 'if you have a hammer, all problems need a hammer' display of a limited mental capacity for how to 'keep the peace'.


    by NCD on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 12:39pm

    Bought in, not brought in. That was my point.


    by erica20 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 12:51pm

    limited mental capacity for how to 'keep the peace'.

    Obeying the laws, keeps peace officers from pursuing law breakers? 

    "Thou shall not steal"  who doesn't know that law?  and wouldn't expect Peace Officers to respond when called ? 

    Communities don't hire Peace officers; to just sit in their cars and avoid contact with law breakers. 

    Communities would be overrun by lawlessness.


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 2:38pm

    Ferguson police officers are liars and will file false complaints after assaulting innocent people.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-w...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 2:46pm

    Resistance keeps knocking down straw men. Nobody here is saying that cops shouldn't respond when called, or that they should stay away from law breakers. We are saying that Wilson didn't have the right to murder this kid. The balance of evidence indicates that this was an unlawful killing(and the credibility of the district attorney's assertions is questionable).


    by Aaron Carine on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 5:23pm

    I think many people fear for their lives when confronted by police.

    For good reason

    ​
    The police hid the video from a second police car that exposed abusive police officers attacking a man, manically yelling that he was trying to take their guns. There are too many holes in Darren Wilson's story and there are reasons that bullets were frontal if Brown turned to surrender. I think police lie routinely.

    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 2:41pm

    I wrote that Wilson shot and wounded Brown while he was running away. I withdraw that based on your statement that no bullets  entered Brown's body from the back and will edit my post.I  still believe  Wilson shot at him while Brown was running away as I think some of the witnesses said..If I'm also wrong about that I will have to substantially withdraw my criticism of Wilson.And I will.

    Thanks.

     


    by Flavius on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 4:29pm

    Yes, I was just about to post that. Shot and shot at are two different things.  The majority of witnesses claim that Wilson was shooting at Brown as he fled. Also Wilson fired about twice as many bullets as struck Brown. All the bullets that hit Brown hit in the front. Wilson missed several times.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 5:53pm

    Thanks, Flavius.

    ​From a practical perspective, it does not matter whether Wilson shot at Brown while he was running or only when he turned around. I think NCD and I are correct in our analysis that the critical moment came when Wilson made the decision to leave his vehicle to attempt to subdue a suspect whom he couldn't subdue without resorting to using his gun. (Even though NCD misread my "bought in" as "brought in," I believe we agree on this point.)

    Whether Wilson first shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing or after he turned around, however, does matter from a legal perspective, as demonstrated by the newest dispute over the use of the Missouri statute on LE deadly force (later replaced with no fanfare by the correct federal one). I suspect we have not seen the last of this case.

    Either way, I think you can go ahead and criticize Wilson. He'll never know, and at this point I think he's probably realized that maybe he could have approached his thought process differently, although he really can't come forward and say so....


    by erica20 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 1:13pm

    Good summary.  Wilson is clearly a total idiot, in a profession which assuredly has too many just as insensitive, dumb, careless and incapable of sound judgments. Something to remember if you get stopped by a cop.

    Critics of Brown seem to ignore that Wilson was the 'highly trained' uniformed professional, and even the lame former cop shills who run CALEA, which certifies Public Safety Departments says keeping the peace is among the the highest objectives. Unarmed Mr. Brown was the sort of high/dumb/deranged guy cops run into all the time.  Good cops manage with expert action to bring these types in without killing them.

    As I mentioned above, the lack of any required reporting to the FBI of cop use of guns on the job in America is (...not) surprising, it is surprising that AG Holder never even rhetorically mentioned that at some future date when sanity prevails in the nation and we want to improve policing, such data might be collected and used to improve cop training on 'best practices'.

     


    by NCD on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 2:02pm

    I don't think Wilson's a total idiot. But he was definitely untrained/unsupervised in the conflict resolution/minimum harm skills that police officers need.

    And yes, I think good police supervisors are starting to understand that if they want to be respected by the public and avoid constant confrontation, they're going to have to cull the cop herd.


    by erica20 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 2:03pm

    Returning  from working in the UK -where the police were unarmed then-I told a friend ,whose father was the local police chief ,that  the Brits had far fewer police killed in the line of duty .

    He said, "Yeah, it's a safer place for the cops and the criminals.".

    At the time I thought he'd bested me in the exchange , as he usually did. But with what the French call  the wit of the straircase ,  I should have said "Nothing wrong with that".

    I can understand how Wilson could have felt that he had a duty to stop  the guy who had just tried to take his gun. But that's one more reason why he shouldn't have been armed. You can't misuse a weapon if you're not carrying one.  

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 3:48pm

    Flavius, you've been spending entirely too much time abroad. Next you'll be telling us that an armed society is not a more polite society, and that a well-ordered militia doesn't need the services of every sociopath who can fog a mirror.

    Crazy, crazy stuff.


    by erica20 on Thu, 12/04/2014 - 11:10pm

    You're right.

    I'll try harder to conform. Maybe I'll start watching wrestling . Plenty of  violence.None of it real.


    by Flavius on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 4:23am

    If he's not a total idiot, he's 99%. His conscience is clear anyway. He said so as he went into hiding.

    Just a look at his vacant stare in the post-incident photos says dumb as........perhaps a product of Missouri Ozarks hillbilly inbreeding......


    by NCD on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 4:49pm

    I thought it was interesting that he said "clean", not "clear"---which is the usual. My immediate thought was, yep, he cleaned his conscience.  


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 5:22pm

    Show trial


    by Resistance on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 6:34pm

    Yeah, that is my take!


    by Richard Day on Tue, 12/02/2014 - 6:50pm

    Politicians and irresponsible groups came like vultures on a roadside carcass to exploit the situation.


    by Resistance on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 12:39am

    Resistance, Sheriff Clarke doesn't  help your case. Guilt by Association (black panthers, etc.) rather than  convincing is either  an indication the speaker doesn't have a valid argument or , to be fair, that he is so emotionally involved that he is unable to appreciate that it will be seen that way.

    Replay the tape. Listen to how he deals with Holder's testimony  about having himself been subjected to racial profiling .Since Clarke can't deny it he instead  attacks Holder for bringing it up.

    Which of course rather than disproving it ,merely indicates his bitterness  that Holder refused to join the enforcement community's united front..Of lies. .   


    by Flavius on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 6:06am

    Flavius, I disagree 

    Eric holder did go to Ferguson and his words did incite. 

    As Sheriff Clarke pointed out; Eric Holder had an opportunity most blacks never have. 

    Holder a Federal prosecutor at the time didn't fight for the cause against such abuse and now he comes to give comfort and aid to the agitators? 

    Guilt by association 

    EH: Yo, bother panthers, etc; the system is against us, I know; I was a victim too  (but I when I had the ability to address the issue, I didn't do anything, to prevent other victims) ( It might have ruined his career?)

    Now EH can grandstand and take advantage of a tragedy, along with his new associates, the New Black Panthers who love to hear such testimonials from those who are in high places, giving aid and comfort to the stokers of racial tensions.

    (BTW this was before all the facts were in)

    Browns Stepfather: Burn the B. down   EH: I was a victim too, I hear you brother 


    by Resistance on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 7:53am

    Sheriff Clarke has reason to be upset with Eric Holder. In another case of police abuse, Sheriff Clarke's department faces a Federal lawsuit for ramming the car of an innocent women causing neck injury. Videotape points out that a deputy lied about his actions in the case.

    http://fox6now.com/2014/07/07/fox6-investigation-prompts-a-lawsuit-crash...

    Sheriff Clarke is not an unbiased individual


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 8:21am

    Response to Resistance regarding Legal Eagle

    Given the holes in your previous arguments, the fact that you find the wingnut lawyer guy credible reinforces my negative analysis. 

    Sheriff Clarke should be attending to abuse problems within his own department 

    Here are Holder's words on the violence in Ferguson 

    Calling 18-year-old Brown's death a "tragedy," Holder said it "sparked a significant national conversation about the need to ensure confidence in the law enforcement and criminal justice processes" and exposed rifts that "must be addressed -- by all Americans -- in a constructive manner."

    Holder condemned the looting and destruction that took place around Ferguson last week, saying it was "deeply unfortunate that this vital conversation was interrupted, and this young man’s memory dishonored, by destruction and looting on the part of a relatively small criminal element."

    Holder said that "acts of mindless destruction are not only contrary to the rule of law and the aims of public safety; they threaten to stifle important debate, 'adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars,'" referencing a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "They actively impede social progress by drowning out the legitimate voices of those attempting to make themselves heard. And they are not consistent with the wishes of Michael Brown’s father, who asked that his son be remembered

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/eric-holder-ferguson-michael-br...

    You are using a wingnut lawyer and a Townhall favorite as sources?

    BWAHAHAHAHI 

     


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 8:49am

    The Staten Island Jury looking at the Eric Garner choke hold case has decided not to indict the involved officer

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/grand-jury-said-to-bring-no-c...


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/03/2014 - 3:09pm

     Abuse of Grand Jury  System -  Rockford Files

    A good television program worth watching, to see how the Grand jury system is abused.


    by Resistance on Thu, 12/04/2014 - 3:10pm

    I'm not sure why you are posting a TV show from a subscriber network to document Grand Jury abuse.

    Are you implying that real world Grand Jury abuse is fictional in your mind?

    Here are some non-fictional Grand Jury abuses for your viewing pleasure 

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/worse-than-eric-garner-...


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/04/2014 - 4:03pm

    Its all part of the craziness of tv, movie, video saturation. When people spend 5, 6, 7 hours everyday watching tv it begins to seem like real life. And so people think Grey's Anatomy is an accurate portrayal of how a hospital, the doctors and interns, works. They think Law and Order is really how the justice system works. I've no doubt that some people think Orphan Black is a scientifically accurate show about cloning. Is it really any surprise that res thinks the Rockford Files actually shows how a grand jury works?

    The sad fact is that many, if not most Americans, are entertaining themselves into a stupor where hyper-dramatized fantasies about the world have taken the place of real factual knowledge about the world.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/04/2014 - 4:37pm

    I wrote  "to see how the Grand jury system is abused"

    You write  Are you implying that real world Grand Jury abuse is fictional in your mind?

    NO,  I AM NOT 

    Clearly not only can you not read, but you lack understanding of what I wrote.


    by Resistance on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 1:10pm

    I could not understand what you wrote because you associated your comment with a fictional event. There was no connection to a real Grand Jury not functioning properly. I am not the person who is confused, you are. You do not understand the meaning of what you write.i don't understand what you wrote because your meaning is unclear.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 2:53pm

    What is next? Perp Garner? to officer: "Stay back"  Don't approach and arrest me officer, Just let me walk away; I have asthma and if it causes me a problem requiring medical attention I'll sue you in court and if I don't, my survivors will. 

    "I think your already too close officer  Get back"  

    I don't need a gun to resist arrest; I have asthma?


    by Resistance on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 1:25pm

    This nonsensical writing proves that you are heartless and a toady for the police state that you say you dislike.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 2:55pm

    There was an innocent, unarmed man, Akai Gurley, killed by NYPD in Brooklyn. The first call made by the involved police officers was to the union representative and not for an ambulance or a supervising police officer. As the man lay dying, they are figuring how to cover the behinds. Even other police could not reach the pair for six minutes. A neighbor failed 911.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/exclusive-texted-union-rep-...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 12:07pm