Patterico's Pontifications

8/18/2014

The Relevance of the Michael Brown Robbery Video — A Reply to Ken White

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:49 am

It isn’t often that I disagree with Ken White of Popehat. In the rare case where I do, I guess it’s not much surprise that the disagreement revolves around the criminal justice system. After all, I am a prosecutor (speaking as always on behalf of myself and not my office), while Ken is a defense attorney (albeit a former prosecutor).

Here, however, I seem to be having an easier time seeing the defense perspective in a criminal case than Ken does — and Ken seems, in my opinion, to be a little dismissive of one particular criminal suspect’s likely arguments. That suspect is a police officer: Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Ken has a post on the relevance of the Michael Brown robbery video. He sets forth the applicable standards for how the admission of that evidence would be handled in federal court, where Brown’s shooter could face civil rights charges. I have no quarrel with the way Ken sets out the standards; in fact, I recommend his post as a clear exposition of the rules at play. He recognizes and sets forth the best argument for the admission of the evidence:

Here, the robbery may be relevant to state of mind. At least as I understand the facts, it’s not relevant to Wilson’s state of mind, because he didn’t know about the robbery when he shot Brown.2 But it could conceivably relate to Brown’s state of mind. Wilson might argue that Brown resisted him because Brown thought he was being arrested for robbery, and that Wilson’s story that Brown forcibly resisted arrest is more credible if Brown had a motive to resist.

You see that the bit about Wilson’s state of mind has a footnote (I love blog posts with footnotes!). Here’s the footnote:

This is still a bit cloudy. Ferguson PD’s public relations strategy is terrible and the information has leaked out bit by bit, sometimes in inconsistent ways. If Wilson knew there had been a robbery, and only realized Brown was a suspect sometime during the encounter, then what Wilson knew could be relevant to his state of mind, because his evaluation of the treat of violence posed by Brown would be relevant. But only what Wilson knew — not the videotape — would be relevant under that theory.

So far I am in full agreement. This is the analysis and those are the potential areas of relevance. It’s when it comes to predicting the admission of the evidence that I diverge from Ken’s analysis:

Were Wilson a normal mortal, I’d give this a 50/50 chance of being admitted in evidence. Since he’s a cop, and he wants it to come in, and cops generally get special treatment, I’ll give it a 75% chance of getting in. The judge might limit the evidence to reduce potential prejudice; for instance, the judge might only allow the government to introduce a summary of the robbery rather than the video.

Is the potential admission of this evidence really so controversial? Brown is alleged by the cop (as I understand it) to have wildly overreacted when contacted for jaywalking by a police officer. The witnesses against the cop portray Brown as not wildly overreacting, but rather being shot by an out-of-control cop. Clearly, a critical issue in any trial would be whether Brown behaved like a perfect gentleman or — well, like a potential robbery suspect with a reason to resist. In what world does evidence of a robbery that happened that day get excluded?? And if it were excluded, wouldn’t every fair-minded person be screaming from the rooftops about the injustice of it?

This doesn’t seem like a close call to me — and I’m surprised by Ken’s seeming implicit suggestion that the evidence really might not have significant probative value, but is likely to be admitted because (Ken says) the justice system tends to favor cops. Yes, it would be more likely that this evidence would be introduced in a trial of a police officer than of a random citizen who happened to shoot Brown. But that’s because Brown would be more likely to resist an officer with violence — because an officer is more likely to arrest him for what he just did. That’s not a pro-cop bias talking; it’s just common sense.

I’m even more puzzled by Ken’s next section, titled: “The Alleged Matter Shouldn’t Matter To How We Value Mike Brown’s Rights.” I’m fully on board with the sentiment expressed in that title. I love Michael Connelly’s books about Harry Bosch, whose motto is: “Everybody counts or nobody counts.” I believe in that philosophy and try to apply it in my own work, which often involves handling cases where a murder victim was a gang member. Whether Michael Brown did a robbery that day or not, if Officer Wilson shot him without a lawful right to do so, Brown’s rights were violated, and Officer Wilson should be held accountable.

But then, in the first paragraph of his analysis, Ken shifts the argument without acknowledging he is doing so, by saying:

But [t]he fact that Mike Brown allegedly robbed a convenience store shouldn’t matter to our analysis of whether it was acceptable for Darren Wilson to shoot him. The fact that it does matter is nearly everyone’s fault.

Wait a second. Of course the fact that Mike Brown allegedly robbed a convenience store matters to our analysis of whether it was acceptable for Darren Wilson to shoot him! We just got through analyzing why that is. Whether it was acceptable for Darren Wilson to shoot Mike Brown hinges on whether Brown posed a deadly threat to Officer Wilson. The fact that Brown might have thought Officer Wilson was arresting him for a recent robbery is directly relevant to whether Brown resisted Officer Wilson with deadly force. So it’s wrong to say that the alleged robbery “shouldn’t matter” to the analysis. It’s central.

Now, Ken goes on to explain that many people will discount Brown as a person because of the robbery, and to argue that such an attitude would be wrong. I agree with Ken here. But there is an attitude out there that the only reason anyone brings up the robbery, or alleged pictures of Brown throwing up gang signs, is to smear Brown, so that he will be seen as a person with less worth — and, who, consequently, “deserved” to be shot. Here is a tweet from Dave Weigel that prompted a few in response from me:

That’s not the point. The “gang signs” issue is a little different from the robbery, but Ken portrays people who publish the pictures as “people gleefully digging through Mike Brown’s life to find things to dirty him up,” so I think it’s worth discussing for a moment. The pictures showing someone appearing to be Brown throwing gang signs do not, on their own, prove Brown was a gang member. But they could be relevant to such an analysis — and if an expert presented other evidence of gang membership by Brown, the pictures could well be quite convincing. Moreover, with proper expert testimony, gang membership could well be relevant to issues like motive — because, believe it or not, some gang members actually consider it a badge of honor to commit violent acts on peace officers. They gain notoriety that way. It’s not as likely a motive as evading arrest for a robbery, but it could be relevant.

Let’s get back to the main point. Whether Brown is a gang member, or just robbed a convenience store, does not change how we “value his rights.” But someone who just robbed a store doesn’t get to be treated the same way as a law-abiding citizen in every respect. For example: a guy who robbed a convenience store should be arrested, while a law-abiding citizen shouldn’t. Disparate treatment!!!!! You bet: and that’s exactly what we want cops doing. Cops should respect a man’s constitutional rights, whether arresting him for robbery, or contacting him for jaywalking — and nobody should be shot and killed in violation of the law. But robbery suspects don’t get treated the same, even if we “value their rights” the same — because they may have committed a crime, and people validly suspected of a crime are subject to treatment (like being arrested) that law-abiding citizens aren’t.

In the same vein, someone who shoots a robbery suspect should be held accountable to the same laws as someone who shoots a law-abiding citizen. But that doesn’t mean the two situations are exactly the same in every respect — and I’m not talking about the value of the victim’s life here, but about the facts that lead up to the shooting.

It matters that Brown just robbed a store before this shooting. It’s almost impossible to see how it couldn’t. And the people pointing this out are not racists, or people trying to trivialize the worth of Michael Brown’s life. They’re just applying common sense.

135 Responses to “The Relevance of the Michael Brown Robbery Video — A Reply to Ken White”

  1. I got a gang sign for Weigel…

    …………………./エッ/)
    ………………..,/ッ../
    ………………./…./
    …………./エッ/’…’/エッッ`キク
    ………./’/…/…./……./ィッ\
    ……..(‘(…エ…エ…. ッ~/’…’)
    ………\……………..’…../
    ……….”…\………. _.キエ
    …………\…………..(
    …………..\………….\

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  2. Oh, I like Weigel. I have differences with him sometimes, but I like him.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  3. I agree. And more. We don’t know what the “prosecution” will introduce in court. Right now, in the court of public opinion, it has put Michael Brown’s character into evidence. Painting him as an innocent angel. About to start “technical college”. With Exhibit A a picture of him as a seventh grader. The”prosecution” is trying to prejudice the “jury”. The “defense” is entitled to rebut that.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. Popehat:

    Here, the robbery may be relevant to state of mind. At least as I understand the facts, it’s not relevant to Wilson’s state of mind, because he didn’t know about the robbery when he shot Brown.

    That actually seems to be wrong, and might be related to confusion on the part of the Ferguson chief of police, when he started to release of information,.

    I am afraid that because of the protests and everything, he (or other people in the ferguson police department) had a strong bias toward the innocence of Michael Brown.

    The facts seem to be that when Darren Wilson initiated the (first) stop, he did not know more than they were walking in the middle of the street, but he did learn about the robbery before it was all over. Both named (the Ferguson police chief) and anonymous (close to Wilson) sources seem to agree on that.

    But it is not too relevant to Wilson’s state of mind, because knowing, to a high degree of probability, that someone forced his way out of store with a box of cigars, would not indicate that a person would be extremely violent.

    What is relevant is what Wilson did then.

    A recently completed robbery would make it more likely he would do all sorts of crazy things. It does not establish what he did, but it reduces the improbability of him doing something extreme. It may almost be necessary to know that in order to believe that.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  5. The fact that Michael Brown committed the robbery, by the way, is now undisputed.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/darren-wilson-identified-as-officer-in-fatal-shooting-in-ferguson-missouri.html?_r=0

    Mr. Johnson has admitted being in the convenience store with Mr. Brown and told investigators from the F.B.I. and St. Louis County that Mr. Brown did “take cigarillos,” Mr. Johnson’s lawyer, Freeman Bosley Jr., a former mayor of St. Louis, told MSNBC.

    I suspect Dorian Wilson’s lawyer told him it’s not a good idea to tell what could turn out to be a provable lie, to the FBI. so he admits to being present at the robbery.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  6. “Everybody counts or nobody counts.”

    Somebody else got shot (and I think killed) the other days during all these protests, and npbody seems to care, beyond the fact that a policeman did not do that.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  7. I’m curious how the fleeing suspect analysis applies to your reasoning. As I understand it, the officer did not know about the robbery when he approached Brown. But assuming the officer did (authorizing force incident to arrest), I don’t think that gets one all the way to deadly force. TN v Garner 471 US 1 (1985) says the officer can’t shoot unless there is a threat of serious harm. Not sure how the video itself shows that a later interaction did or didn’t have such threat.

    Perhaps the fact of the robbery is relevant in court, but it seems like the video is aimed at the court of public opinion, not the court of law. One hardly needs the video to prove that Brown committed a strong-arm robbery, especially with appropriate stipulation. Cf. Old Chief, 519 U.S. 172 Shouldn’t appeal to the biases of the public be be fair game for criticism?

    TimS (f4e1fd)

  8. I agree. And more. We don’t know what the “prosecution” will introduce in court. Right now, in the court of public opinion, it has put Michael Brown’s character into evidence. Painting him as an innocent angel. About to start “technical college”. With Exhibit A a picture of him as a seventh grader. The”prosecution” is trying to prejudice the “jury”. The “defense” is entitled to rebut that.

    I think that you are right that Brown’s defenders are putting his character at issue in the court of public opinion. If I am reading Ken correctly, he is saying that it is a mistake for Brown’s defenders to do this, because it really doesn’t matter whether Brown was a good guy or a bad guy. If the officer shot him without justification, that’s a bad thing regardless of whether Brown was a robber, a gang member, or an innocent kid headed to college. So I understand your analysis regarding the court of public opinion, and I think Ken is just saying: “Objection! Relevance!”

    I don’t mean to speak for Ken here. I’m just trying to interpret what he has already written.

    Patterico (a2fd5b)

  9. Patterico: For example: a guy who robbed a convenience store should be arrested

    I have a question:

    The policeman doesn’t know that he robbed the store, only that he very, very probably did.(because a lot of things match up, not just carrying cigars very near and very shortly after the robbery, but his clothing and very general description, and the fact that two men are together and they both seem to match the rough descriptions.)

    What is the proper thing for the police to do?

    Should he be taken to the complaining witness for identification? Or is that a bad thing to do, and he should not see him until he is put in a lineup with similarly looking men? Or does that depend on the degree of certainty? If very highly certain, wait for a line-up, if more uncertain, take him to the witness?

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  10. I don’t follow some of the logic here, but that doesn’t surprise me because I don’t have a background in law. For that reason I can’t directly speak to how relevant this information would be if used in court. For the purpose of this article I’m willing to take that stuff at face value — however, does the tape being released to the public have anything to do with that? As far as I understand it, the video tape would not have to be publicly available in order for it to be used in court, and the arguments you’re making would be just as valid.

    Making the tape public now doesn’t make any kind of legal argument. It’s a PR move, and in that light Dave Weigel’s tweet is spot on. The Feguson police aren’t making a case before a judge right now, and they’re not making a case before a jury right now. They are implying, without actually coming out and saying, that the officer was justified in shooting this kid because he’d stolen a bunch of cigars and was therefore dangerous enough to die. You can tell that’s the argument they’re trying to make without actually saying it by watching how increasingly uncomfortable the police chief got during that press conference, and how he eventually backed away from it when he said the officer didn’t know anything about the robbery when everything went down.

    What it looks like to me, if it’s actually part of any official legal strategy, is an attempt to taint the jury pool. I don’t know if that’s an effective tactic or not, but now is the time that the people defending the cop can make all the irrelevant appeals to prejudice and emotion that might be barred from an actual courtroom. Show a kid flashing a gang sign (and really, for people who listen to rap that’s not much different than a guy who listens to heavy metal making a “devil horns” sign) and people who see the picture will make assumptions and drift toward a particular conclusion, even as they sincerely tell the court during jury selection that they believe they can make an unbiased decision.

    That said, I’m not a lawyer. What do I know?

    Christopher B. Wright (69c106)

  11. Sammy,

    You missed the point. The robbery doesn’t point to Wilson’s state of mind, but to Brown’s state of mind. We still don’t know what happened. If the Fergusson police department had spent money on a dash or body camera instead of military gear, we might know what happened.

    I also object to what the media is doing with photographs of Brown. Instead of showing recent photos, they show a photo of a younger brown with headphones on, giving the impression of an innocent young boy who likes to listen to music while studying for college. This is the same thing they did with Travon Martin.

    I don’t know if Brown was the aggressor or if as some say he was innocently standing still holding his hands up (though the testimony of his friend belies that notion) while Wilson in cold blood shot him because he is a white racist. We just don’t know.

    We do know that the violent actions of the “protestors” are wrong, though I’ve read some liberals who think their violent actions are justified.

    I do know that I’m afraid of a para-military police force and simply don’t know what happened that night, other than Brown was killed.

    Tanny O'Haley (f5a155)

  12. It appears that preliminary autopsy results support the officer’s claim that Brown was charging him when he fired. He was shot 6 times in the front, which directly contradicts the eye witness testimony claiming that Brown was shot while running away. The fatal shot entered the top of his skull, making it entirely possible Brown was charging with his head down when he was killed.

    Edoc118 (c37322)

  13. I’ve deleted a long post twice.

    There is a lot to point to abnormal hyperaggression in Brown. And a perfectly plausible set of possible facts, in light of the robbery and other behaviors, that point to the kid continuing to act in a way that was abnormally aggressive, without full appreciation of his own vincibility.

    Long story short, I think he was on something psychoactive as a last hurrah with his homies before buckling down, or getting dragged to, whatever, the technical college Mom and Dad had picked out.

    SarahW (267b14)

  14. Toxicology pending. We shall see.

    SarahW (267b14)

  15. “Everybody counts or nobody counts.”

    The purveyors of identity politics, the higher education apparat, and large swaths of the legal profession believe no such thing.

    Making the tape public now doesn’t make any kind of legal argument. It’s a PR move, and in that light Dave Weigel’s tweet is spot on. The Feguson police aren’t making a case before a judge right now, and they’re not making a case before a jury right now. They are implying, without actually coming out and saying, that the officer was justified in shooting this kid because he’d stolen a bunch of cigars and was therefore dangerous enough to die. You can tell that’s the argument they’re trying to make

    No. You. Can’t. Tell. That.

    He’s been presented as a harmless adolescent. He was not, and the security camera footage shows he was not. This has an effect on how credible are the witness accounts re the shooting.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  16. Oh, I like Weigel.

    You like that Journ-O-Listic poseur? What’s your assessment of Damon Linker, who kept up the charade for four years?

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  17. It appears that preliminary autopsy results support the officer’s claim that Brown was charging him when he fired. He was shot 6 times in the front, which directly contradicts the eye witness testimony claiming that Brown was shot while running away. The fatal shot entered the top of his skull, making it entirely possible Brown was charging with his head down when he was killed.

    That particular pathologist is a veteran hired by Ben Crump (80 years old, still working). If I understand correctly, he’s not offering an assessment of the precise position Brown was occupying when shot, but did say that the two shots to the head were the last two shots. The previous four were to Brown’s right arm. It does discredit Dorian Johnson definitively (whose tale was incredible to begin with).

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  18. Might as well use Missouri’s rules of evidence, https://law.wustl.edu/SBA/upperlevel/Evidence/Aiken/Evidence-Aiken3.pdf, although they’re all pretty much the same. Character is (mostly) not admissible. Other crimes are not admissible to show character, but are admissible to show intent, plan, motive, or identity. So, even in court, “Officer, why would this young, angelic, reincarnation of Mother Teresa want to charge a police officer?” “He had robbed a convenience store and may have thought I was after him for that”. Like Patterico said in the first place.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. 13. SarahW (267b14) — 8/18/2014 @ 8:38 am

    Long story short, I think he was on something psychoactive as a last hurrah with his homies before buckling down, or getting dragged to, whatever, the technical college Mom and Dad had picked out.

    That is what it is reported (by someone who called the Dana Loesch show and claimed to be close to or a member of the family of Darren Wilson) that Darren Wilson thought.

    One thing – if he let himself be arrested, he was not going to be able to show up for school. Milhouse has said he was awaiting trial on some other offense, which means he was probably out on bail (or no bail) and that might get revoked now.

    Now it is reported that the family autopsy claimed that Michael Brown had 6 bullet wounds, 2 in the head.

    It is quite possible that Darren Wilson had no confidence in his ability to arrest Michael brown him, once there had been some initial resistance and an attempt to grab his gun. Now tgaht doesn’t mean that he had no choice but to kill him. We haven’t got his story.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  20. I also object to what the media is doing with photographs of Brown. Instead of showing recent photos, they show a photo of a younger brown with headphones on, giving the impression of an innocent young boy who likes to listen to music while studying for college. This is the same thing they did with Travon Martin.

    The Administration and the media have been different facets of the same nexus since day one. Unco-operative reporters (e.g. Sheryl Atkisson) get fired.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  21. The short being:

    11.47am Brown chokes then shoves clerk steals merchandise flashes gang signs
    11.51am Call goes to 911
    11.52am dispatcher broadcasts alert
    12.01pm Officer confronts brown
    12.02pm Brown assaults officer Brown is shot 6 times 4 in arm 2 in head – facing officer
    12.03pm first lies get told to police and twitter

    EPWJ (8f5c4e)

  22. Sammy continues to amaze.

    The point in considering the fact of the robbery is that it gives us the reason that Brown was not happy to see that the police officer had an interest in him. Knowing what he did, the police contact would only lead to bad things: arrest and probably prosecution and maybe even a stay in a penal institution of some kind. The officer, not knowing of the robbery, only saw a stupid kid walking in the street, disrupting traffic.

    The officer was not shooting to apprehend a dangerous felon and thus protecting the public from future probable harm, he was shooting to protect himself from probable great bodily injury or even death at the hands of an enraged giant. From the data available it appears the officer was giving away 100 pounds to the assailant. (As illustration, consider you, a normal sized person for purpose of argument, squaring off with any of those guys you watched performing on the NFL channel the past few days. Yeah!)

    Yes, death. When the armed officer is rendered unable to protect himself from the blows administered, the assailant has the option of becoming armed… with the officer’s weapon. Death often results in those situations.

    Gramps, the original (32da3f)

  23. Former Republican Independent Senator James Jeffords has died.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  24. I agree completely with your presentation, but:

    It matters that Brown just robbed a store before this shooting. It’s almost impossible to see how it couldn’t. And the people pointing this out are not racists, or people trying to trivialize the worth of Michael Brown’s life. They’re just applying common sense.

    Applying common sense to the intersection of politics, race, and the law?

    INCONCEIVABLE!

    sam (e8f1ad)

  25. Weigel is JuiceBox Mafia, sua madre può essere concubina di Satana.

    Colonel Haiku (384bf5)

  26. I have a question:

    The policeman doesn’t know that he robbed the store, only that he very, very probably did.

    I am no criminal attorney, but I think what you’ve described there is probable cause. And I believe that, in general, a police officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony has the authority to arrest the person without a warrant.

    A.S. (23bc66)

  27. A police officer has the authority to detain a person, pat him down for weapons, and question him, based on articulable suspicion, suspicion that is, I say suspicion, that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. Isn’t the state of mind arguement irrelevant if Mike Brown, as accused, attacked the cop and went for his gun? the argument is on the basis of a mindset where this attack hasn’t happened.

    Doesn’t the assault constitute a felony, and the fleeing then make him potentially violent to others under the standards of Garner?

    If Wilson knows post facto about the robbery, it even indicates a pattern of violence which helps.

    Hawkins (1fc204)

  29. The fact that Brown violently attacked a man a few minutes earlier is certainly relevant to whether he was likely to have assaulted officer Wilson. Not just because of his state of mind regarding being a robbery suspect, but — get this — whether he was going around assaulting people. I think there’s an “on a rampage” exception to the rule that character evidence is inadmissible.

    They’re digging into officer Wilson’s disciplinary record, right? What’s the reason, other than to prove through prior acts that he’s a racist psychopath? I bet if he had mowed down a group of NAACP conventioneers while wearing Klan robe a few minute before shooting Brown, Holder would find it slightly probative.

    Average Joe (df82bb)

  30. My understanding is that what was stolen is commonly used by emptying of tobacco and putting pot inside.
    Had he already been smoking some pot with PCP and was going for more supplies that would make sense.

    My 2 cents, just like in Treyvon Martin, once “they” put out the story of a young angelic child being shot down in cold blood by a mean non-black racist, “they” have made the victim’s character a question, and additional information to confirm or dispute the original claim is a responsibility of those who have info.

    I didn’t hear whether or not the claim was he was shot in the back, but that obviously was not the case.
    I did hear his hands were supposedly raised. It will be interesting to know whether or not the wounds allow for that possibility or not. If not, that is the clincher that the co-robber’s testimony is not reliable.
    Of course, we await whether new “witnesses” will pop up or not, and what they will claim.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  31. I automatically ignore anything the begins with @daveweigel, unless I’m in the mood for mindless bulls*&t, which is never.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  32. My God! I’m DIZZY just reading through the article…not to mention following the logical argumentation! Good stuff.

    What came to mind at first was MORAL RELATIVISM (…AND: only when it is to the benefit of one side)…as in “it’s irrelevant what was in X’s mind” or “in Y’s mind” or “what was X’s motivation” or “did Y know about ABC?”.

    IT’S ALL ABOUT RATIONALIZING AWAY FACTS to arrive at a desired end: BLAME/KILL WHITEY.
    The Left must be eradicated. In. Every. Form.

    Kauf Buch (fa5aee)

  33. There’s another reason the robbery video (and the gang sign photos, and his juvenile record) matters. Even if it’s not relevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified, it’s very relevant to how we should feel about it. Let’s suppose, for a moment, that the shooting was a cold-blooded murder. Let’s even suppose, contrary to all evidence, that Wilson had set out that morning with the intention of killing a n****r as his initiation into the KKK. In such a case there could be no question that this terrible crime must be treated with the full severity of the law, and he would deserve the death penalty. At the same time, he would still have done the world a favor by removing Michael Brown from it, and right before the needle went into his arm he should be awarded a medal. Brown’s death was a good thing, regardless of whether it was a crime.

    The same applies to the gangland murders you prosecute, Patterico. Murder is murder, and must be prosecuted, but the murderers are often making the world a better and safer place, and we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. Hillel the Elder said it best 2000 years ago: “Since you drowned others you were drowned, and in the end those who drowned you will drown.”

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  34. “Profiling” seems to be a relevant comic here, somehow.

    Ibidem (e51701)

  35. “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.” — Revelation 13:10

    I hope that we are not into the Apocalypse yet. I just bought two new pairs of pants.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. EPWJ (8f5c4e) — 8/18/2014 @ 9:02 am

    11.47am Brown chokes then shoves clerk steals merchandise flashes gang signs
    11.51am Call goes to 911
    11.52am dispatcher broadcasts alert
    12.01pm Officer confronts brown
    12.02pm Brown assaults officer Brown is shot 6 times 4 in arm 2 in head – facing officer
    12.03pm first lies get told to police and twitter

    I don’t think we have the timeline straight, and it’s not quite adding up, so some times are not synchronized.

    The New York Times says police place Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson at Ferguson Market and Liquors at “about 11:50 a.m”

    It was a liquor store, not a convenience store.

    The store is on West Florissant Avenue.

    The clerk reports to the police that they walked north on West Florrissant Avenue, which it says is a busy commercial street, toward Canfield Drive.

    The New York Times claims it is about a ten-minute walk to the spot where Officer Wilson approached them. I am not so sure that’s right.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  37. The first lies do not get told at 12:03 pm.

    That @TheePharoah, the St. Louis rapper, witnessed the shooting, may not be a lie.

    But the claim that somone was running and the runner died, may be a lie.

    Unless the runner and Michael Brown are two different people.

    And the runner got away.

    But @TheePharoah mistakenly thouht the person who was shot and died, and the person Officer Wilson was shooting at, were the same person. Michael Brown and the person who was running from the policeman may be two different people.

    The runner, of course, could have been Dorian Johnson.

    Dorian Johnson claims that both he and Michael Brown were running away, but he hid behind a parked car. (and what – got away later? I think that’s maybe just to make himself a witness.)

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  38. Gramps @22. Chastising Sammy or pointing out his errors is pretty much a waste of time. He speculates, gets basic facts wrong and draws conclusions from thin air.

    Your post was exactly right, every fight for a cop is a life or death thing.

    Labcatcher (61737c)

  39. ==I hope that we are not into the Apocalypse yet. I just bought two new pairs of pants.==

    You might want to hold off on the haircut, though, nk.

    elissa (178460)

  40. Gramps, the original (32da3f) — 8/18/2014 @ 9:04 am

    The officer, not knowing of the robbery, only saw a stupid kid walking in the street, disrupting traffic.

    Two stupid adults. Dorian Johnson claims they refused to listen to the police officer and get on to the sidewalk. He claims that then Officer Wilson slammed on his brakes.

    The officer was not shooting to apprehend a dangerous felon and thus protecting the public from future probable harm, he was shooting to protect himself from probable great bodily injury or even death at the hands of an enraged giant.

    That’s the issue. The question of whether Michael Brown robbed the store – which he did in fact – it’s admitted by Dorian Johnson – goes to how likely a negative story about Michael brown is to be true.

    Yes, death. When the armed officer is rendered unable to protect himself from the blows administered, the assailant has the option of becoming armed… with the officer’s weapon. Death often results in those situations.

    As I said, this shows you a problem with one-man patrol cars. Officer Wilson had no confidence at all in his ability to arrest Michael Wilson. He had no taser, or lesser weapon. But he could have retreated.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  41. Here’s a picture of a looter in Ferguson. He’s big , black – and still alive. In the surveillance video, all you have is a big black man.
    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=images+of+looters+in+Furgeson&FORM=IQFRBA&id=5197D1D71F2196A58C293EB6E7A4E1BA1CC3C7DE&selectedIndex=0#view=detail&id=5197D1D71F2196A58C293EB6E7A4E1BA1CC3C7DE&selectedIndex=0
    Contrary to an opinion held by far too many people, we don’t all look alike.

    Mike Giles (930031)

  42. Labcatcher (61737c) — 8/18/2014 @ 11:09 am

    every fight for a cop is a life or death thing.

    He was at least two feet away, when he shot Michael Brown, and he strong reason to suspect Michael brown was snot armed, because (let’s assume) he had tried to take way his weapon, which he wouldn’t do if he had one of his own.

    The cop could have retreated.

    I don’t know what the law is in such circumstances, where the policemen has the choice of retreating, or killing the suspect, but cannot safely attempt to arrest him.

    Now, there may have bene something else going on at the same time.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  43. The city of Ferguson makes one quarter of its income from court fees or fines.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  44. Where, in the police procedures manual, does it cover “retreat”?

    “Runaway”! -Brave Sir Robin

    felipe (40f0f0)

  45. But the police manual does cover use of deadly force. The purpose of the police is to protect the public, not just to get home every night. They are no more important than any other citizen. Too many of them have the public worker “I’m special” attitude.

    Mike Giles (930031)

  46. Peccantem me quotidie, et non poenitentem, timor mortis conturbat me.

    nk (dbc370)

  47. “The purpose of the police is to protect the public, not just to get home every night.”

    Mike Giles – Right, I tell every local cop I see that their duty is to die to keep me safe not just to make it home every night because my town pays them so much. That message is not well received.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. I think Erick has a good handle on this.

    It is perfectly fine to think Mr. Brown was no saint, the rioters should be punished, and in addition to both of those, to think the police in Ferguson, MO behaved badly too. Before rioting even began the police in Ferguson decided to behave like soldiers instead of police.

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/08/18/ferguson-is-not-binary/

    elissa (178460)

  49. The cop could have retreated.

    Why on earth should he? Even in those few states (such as NY and MD) where ordinary people have a duty to retreat, policemen do not. And TX is not one of those states. In TX, as in most states, there is no duty to retreat, for anyone, ever.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  50. I think Erick has a good handle on this.

    Erick Erickson is a lawyer / commentator whose time spent in uniform approximates that of Madonna. I tend to doubt he understands the implications of much of what he advocates in this vein.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  51. Here’s a picture of a looter in Ferguson. He’s big , black – and still alive. In the surveillance video, all you have is a big black man.

    No, you have a big black man who looks exactly like Michael Brown, and is dressed in the exact same way that Brown was dressed 10 minutes later.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  52. I think it’s an important fact that the co-robber, Dorian Johnson is 4 years older * than Michael Brown was. That makes Doran Johnson into the leader. (People don’t recruit people older then themselves)

    * 4 years: 22 years old versus 18. That could actually be anything from 3 years and a day to 4 years and 364 days older.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  53. That message is not well received.

    Since you told them they’re overpaid and suggested they’re yellow to boot, I’m not surprised it is not well-received.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  54. What did Erick in his red State piece say that you so disagree with or “doubt” Art Deco? I am curious.

    elissa (178460)

  55. The city of Ferguson makes one quarter of its income from court fees or fines.

    Where’d you acquire that little datum?

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  56. Milhouse @52. Dorian Johnson has admitted to the FBI that Michael Brown was the robber!!

    See #5

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/darren-wilson-identified-as-officer-in-fatal-shooting-in-ferguson-missouri.html?_r=0

    Mr. Johnson has admitted being in the convenience store with Mr. Brown and told investigators from the F.B.I. and St. Louis County that Mr. Brown did “take cigarillos,” Mr. Johnson’s lawyer, Freeman Bosley Jr., a former mayor of St. Louis, told MSNBC.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  57. If there is someone on the street that wants to beat up a cop, perhaps take his gun, perhaps kill him, just because he didn’t want to get arrested for robbery,
    getting that person off of the street is protecting the public.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  58. the police in Ferguson, MO behaved badly too. Before rioting even began the police in Ferguson decided to behave like soldiers instead of police.

    On the contrary, the subsequent rioting shows the wisdom of that decision. People who think that if the police had gone softer the riots wouldn’t have happened need their heads examined. Especially after the governor put someone else in charge, and he tried a softer approach, and it failed miserably.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  59. Everything. Very few people have a granular knowledge of police tactics and strategy. Erickson is talking out of his ass.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  60. “Since you told them they’re overpaid and suggested they’re yellow to boot, I’m not surprised it is not well-received.”

    Art Deco – Interesting interpretation, but I was reacting to the comment of Mike Giles, plus my state is the last one to enact concealed carry and has still not figured it out. Another fail on your part.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  61. But the police manual does cover use of deadly force. The purpose of the police is to protect the public, not just to get home every night.

    That’s an argument for greater use of deadly force. Not only may a policeman use deadly force to get home in one piece (just as anyone may), he may also use it when he is no danger, to protect the public.

    They are no more important than any other citizen. Too many of them have the public worker “I’m special” attitude.

    That much is true. It’s a problem. But it’s not all that relevant here.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  62. “Since you told them they’re overpaid and suggested they’re yellow to boot, I’m not surprised it is not well-received.”

    Art Deco – I did not say they were overpaid. Again, words means something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. Apparently, my Italian is better than I thought it was, and my Latin remains … mostly dead.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  64. “The city of Ferguson makes one quarter of its income from court fees or fines.”

    Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/18/2014 @ 11:53 am 56.

    Where’d you acquire that little datum?

    A New York Times Op-ed piece today by Jeff Smith, a former Missouri state senator from St. Louis, now assistant professor of urban policy at the New School in New york (formerly The New School for Social Research)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/opinion/in-ferguson-black-town-white-power.html

    …St. Louis County contains 90 municipalities, most with their own city hall and police force. Many rely on revenue generated from traffic tickets and related fines. According to a study by the St. Louis nonprofit Better Together, Ferguson receives nearly one-quarter of its revenue from court fees; for some surrounding towns it approaches 50 percent.

    It’s probably true, because such things are very verifiable.

    The study itself is here: http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/

    I am not sure where this is to be found.

    Somewere here maybe?

    http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/files/better-together-stl/Ferguson%20Budget.pdf

    (Page 49 says Total revenue is Fiscal 2014 was 12,547,900 of which 2,732,000 came from “Fines and Public Safety (or 21.8%) 576,400 from “Fees, Service Charges & Assessments” (or 4.6%)

    Also 442,600 (or 3.5%) from ” Licenses and Permits”

    http://www.bettertogetherstl.com/files/better-together-stl/Chesterfield%20line%20item%20budget.pdf

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  65. 58. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/18/2014 @ 11:53 am

    If there is someone on the street that wants to beat up a cop, perhaps take his gun, perhaps kill him, just because he didn’t want to get arrested for robbery,
    getting that person off of the street is protecting the public.

    Definitely.

    But the justification for using Deadly Physical Force is, I think, imminent danger to somebody’s life.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  66. “The cop could have retreated.”

    Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/18/2014 @ 11:46 am

    Why on earth should he? Even in those few states (such as NY and MD) where ordinary people have a duty to retreat, policemen do not.

    Because the alternative seemed to be to kill him.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  67. 67. res gestae.

    Meaning the whole thing, from the attempted shoplifting which turned into a strongarm robbery, to the fight with the policeman, was the same crime?

    The policeman was not at Ferguson Market and Liquors. Several minutes elapsed between the two incidents.

    I don’t think we have the timeline right, and it matters.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  68. Also: what’s properly considered “relevant” for disclosure to the public, for use of the public in an informed discussion of public issues including law enforcement procedures and policies, is quite different from what’s considered “relevant” under the criminal evidentiary law at the hypothetical future trial of a policeman on a homicide or civil rights criminal charge.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  69. You mean Jeff Smith of the New School for Marxism citing an advocacy group. It just is not credible unless municipal governments in Missouri have very thin functions or are financed by county governments. Where I grew up, even deducting social service boondoggles and the school budget, municipal expenditure is something along the lines of $1,300 per capita per year. There are subventions from superordinate governments, to be sure. Still, the idea that the average household ponies up $650 per annum in parking fines and what not beggars belief.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  70. Another fail on your part.

    Do you say that to local cops or don’t you?

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  71. 2,732,000 came from “Fines and Public Safety

    That amounts to $350 per household per annum in fines. That’s bizarre.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  72. When you’re done with this illogical mess, could you write about the “unarmed” canard? The same people who can’t grasp how the robbery is relevant, seem to think it’s highly relevant that Brown was unarmed.

    Unfortunately, that’s hindsight talking. Officer Wilson would have no way of knowing if Brown was unarmed or not. In fact, it’s unusual for an unarmed person to charge at someone who has their gun drawn.

    It wouldn’t be odd if Wilson believed that Brown was armed, when he charged. That we all know now that he wasn’t, doesn’t apply to Wilson’s state of mind when he shot Brown.

    G (fd5dd3)

  73. Why on earth should he? Even in those few states (such as NY and MD) where ordinary people have a duty to retreat, policemen do not.

    Because the alternative seemed to be to kill him.

    So? No duty to retreat means no duty to retreat. If you are in danger here and now you have the right to kill to defend it. The fact that you can safely retreat is irrelevant.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  74. 2,732,000 came from “Fines and Public Safety

    That amounts to $350 per household per annum in fines. That’s bizarre.

    Not if most of it came from people who don’t live there.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  75. Perry’s spittle-flecked hatred is rather pathetic. He hates anyone that does not agree with them, and wishes death upon them.

    JD (285732)

  76. But the justification for using Deadly Physical Force is, I think, imminent danger to somebody’s life.

    Or serious bodily harm. Or a fleeing felon.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  77. The video rebuts the notion that Brown was a gentle giant. He was a 300 lb. kid who wasn’t afraid to throw his weight around. The video supports the notion that he went at the officer. And it is admissible in the court of public opinion.

    AZ Bob (34bb80)

  78. Not if most of it came from people who don’t live there.

    Given the rates in effect in Missouri, the town would have to issue 22,000 speeding tickets a year to outsiders passing through.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  79. Anyone else read that misguided, inflammatory op-Ed written by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Time magazine?

    Colonel Haiku (5f5b8b)

  80. Yeah, I read it early this am. It’s an example of why pampered athletes should go quietly into comfortable retirement and leave the commentary on social and political issues to those who spent their college years in the classroom instead of the gym. Abdul-Jabbar’s insights amount to little more than regurgitation of stale old Marxist-Leninist claptrap. He must be playing horse with Obama again.

    ropelight (4da36f)

  81. “Do you say that to local cops or don’t you?”

    Art Deco – No you moron. Follow the flow of the comments and it should be obvious I was replying to Mike Giles.

    I know many police officers personally and don’t feel they have this feeling that they are “special” and can thus act differently than other citizens. Others have different opinions whether based on experience or other data. My experiences with police on duty have always reflected back what I projected. If I am acting like an idiot or giving the officer a bunch of attitude I deserve to be treated like an idiot an get bad attitude back. There’s no dickhead exemption to the law of which I am aware. After getting tear gassed and strong armed a couple of times at over exuberant New Years Eve celebrations in Fort Lauderdale as a bullet proof and invincible youth I decided that the belligerent approach might not be the best when dealing with our public servants of any type and modified my behavior accordingly.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. i wonder what kareem abdul-jabbar thinks

    hah just kidding

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  83. <blockquote< 2,732,000 came from “Fines and Public Safety 72. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/18/2014 @ 1:29 pm

    That amounts to $350 per household per annum in fines. That’s bizarre.

    Well, I think somebody’s playing with statistics here. I see it’s not just “fines” but “public safety”

    Now, what’s that? Building permits?

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  84. Now, what’s that? Building permits?

    I would think that would be under ‘fees’. ‘Public Safety’ nearly always means police, fire, and ambulance, not regulatory inspectorates.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  85. Art Deco – No you moron.

    As always, thanks for sharing.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  86. Its hard to keep up with this stuff…. for Sammy:

    I went back to @9 and @19 and saw no mention about staffing, 1-man vs 2-man. That said, this has been a long running discussion amongst police executives. There are times when 2-man cars are needed and a lot where 1-man is sufficient. You can’t predict the need for either. It is presumed that a 2-man car is inherently safer than a 1-man; there is evidence that that is not always the case. The argument for 1-man cars is that most of what an officer does is take reports of various incidents (“cold” reports) and write tickets. With 2-man cars you end up with one writing and one watching; cops these days are to expensive for that stuff. News coverage and contract-year press releases would have you believing otherwise. The solution is usually 1-man cars, but more of them.

    @9 you ask about an identifying “line-up”. I do not recall if it is a Federal decision or a CA state one, but the rule is that when a possible suspect is apprehended he/she is detained there and the witness is brought to them. Only when extenuating circumstances exist is it done the other way around. That’s the law. It is preferred to be done in the field in case the wrong person is detained it can be determined quickly and they can be sent on their way. Much preferable to taking them downtown, and holding them until enough look-alikes can be found to conduct a formal lineup.
    Its also bad investigative practice to bring a suspect back to the scene he has fled. Evidence that may link him to that scene now has to ways it could have been left there, the crime, or the trip back.

    gramps, the original (32da3f)

  87. Art Deco – No you moron.

    As always, thanks for sharing.

    He’s right, though. You responded to a specific comment. You quoted it, so you must have read it. Yet somehow you failed to notice that it was a response to a specific comment, which it quoted.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  88. Here is some commentary that is encouraging (to some of us anyway):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f0mVn0HH6U

    He has more than one great expression, but I won’t tell you in advance.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  89. There’s lots of “relevant” things about the cop we’re not hearing. Because that’s how power works to suppress, and there’s plenty of fools ready to support supression.

    nops (9a2828)

  90. “As always, thanks for sharing.”

    Art Deco – Ima giver. :)

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. There’s lots of “relevant” things about the cop we’re not hearing.

    And you know this how?

    Because that’s how power works to suppress, and there’s plenty of fools ready to support supression.

    What power? All the power nowadays rests with the forces of political correctness.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  92. Art Deco–For some reason it looks like you think that being personally nasty, sarcastic, overbearing, dismissive and flippant about others’ comments or links (which you apparently don’t, or only half read and then frequently misrepresent) is the standard commenting protocol here. It’s not.

    elissa (178460)

  93. gramps, the original (32da3f) — 8/18/2014 @ 4:40 pm

    I went back to @9 and @19 and saw no mention about staffing, 1-man vs 2-man.

    There has been no mention of a second cop there, and if there had been a second policeman there, it almost certainly would have been mentioned somewhere by now..

    There are arguments that a second policeman is a waste – but then you get incidents like this.

    @9 you ask about an identifying “line-up”. I do not recall if it is a Federal decision or a CA state one, but the rule is that when a possible suspect is apprehended he/she is detained there and the witness is brought to them. Only when extenuating circumstances exist is it done the other way around. That’s the law. It is preferred to be done in the field in case the wrong person is detained it can be determined quickly and they can be sent on their way. Much preferable to taking them downtown, and holding them until enough look-alikes can be found to conduct a formal lineup.

    I thought it is done that way. But I thought that there’s a court ruling that that is supposed to be bad.

    So the rule is, if this occurs within a short period of the crime, you bring the witness to the perpetrator, but if someone is arrested later, then you do aline-uo.

    Incidentally, I see from Mark Steyn’s link:

    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/aug/15/lawyer-store-didnt-call-cops-missouri-teen/?news

    ….that the store did not report the robbery. A customer did. So that means they might not have a witness to bring to see Michael Brown, or at least not a complaining one.

    The store now seems almost to be anxious to say they didn’t call the police.

    Not only that, but the police had to get a court order for the video.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  94. Mark Steyn also says there is something very wrong with this police department having so much high tech equipment, but not a dash cam.

    Even the one-man police department where he lives in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser a few years ago.

    He says, in almost so many words, that not having one enables police departments to lie (and collect fines)

    Last year, my meek mild-mannered mumsy office manager was pulled over by an angry small-town cop in breach of her Fourth Amendment rights. The state lost in court because the officer’s artful narrative and the usual faked-up-after-the-fact incident report did not match the dashcam footage. Three years ago, I was pulled over by an unmarked vehicle in Vermont and (to put it mildly) erroneously ticketed. In court, I was withering about the department’s policy of no dashcams for unmarked cars, and traffic cops driving around pretending to be James Bond but without the super-secret spy camera. The judge loathed me (as judges tend to), but I won that case. In 2014, when a police cruiser doesn’t have a camera, it’s a conscious choice. And it should be regarded as such.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  95. LA deputy in critical condition after a beating from an unarmed suspect.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-deputy-lakewood-mall-20140817-story.html

    Mustang (2dd274)

  96. 87. ‘Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/18/2014 @ 4:18 pm

    Public Safety’ nearly always means police, fire, and ambulance, not regulatory inspectorates.

    But that’s not listed as EXPENDITURES it’s REVENUES

    “Fines and Public Safety” is a revenue category.

    “Fees, Service Charges & Assessments” is a separate category.

    “Licenses and Permits” is another category yet.

    Other than that, we’ve got “Sales Tax” “Utility Gross Receipts Tax” “Property Taxes” “Intergovernmental” and “Other Income” (which last is pretty small (165,800 or 1.3%)

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  97. “And you know this how?”

    You don’t think his eyewitness testimony is relevant, at least?

    “What power? All the power nowadays rests with the forces of political correctness.”

    Yes that’s who killed Mike Brown, is getting folks riled up against the victim, and is gassing people in Ferguson.

    nops (9a2828)

  98. Your act is tired, imdw.

    JD (285732)

  99. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/18/2014 @ 2:12 pm

    the town would have to issue 22,000 speeding tickets a year to outsiders passing through.

    I can’t say what’s going on with Ferguson, but according to that New York Times op-ed by Jeff Smith, another (much smaller) town, Sycamore Hills, stationed a radar-gun-wielding police officer on its 250-foot northbound stretch of Interstate.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  100. Sammy, here are the mandatory costs and fees, totaling $135.00, on top of the fine, for a minor traffic violation in Cook County. http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Manage/DivisionOrders/ViewDivisionOrder/tabid/298/ArticleId/344/GENERAL-ADMINISTRATIVE-ORDER-NO-08-03-MANDATORY-FEES-AND-COSTS.aspx

    nk (dbc370)

  101. There’s lots of “relevant” things about the cop we’re not hearing.

    “And you know this how?”

    You don’t think his eyewitness testimony is relevant, at least?

    What eyewitness testimony? The cop’s?!

    In any case, the so-called eyewitness testimony to this shooting is absolutely worthless. The “prime witness” is Brown’s accomplice in the robbery. And the autopsy has shown the word of the other alleged eyewitnesses to have been equally worthless.

    “What power? All the power nowadays rests with the forces of political correctness.”

    Yes that’s who killed Mike Brown, is getting folks riled up against the victim, and is gassing people in Ferguson.

    The power is in the hands of those who forced the town cops to step down, and let the riots resume. The power is in the hands of those racist sh*ts 0bama and Holder who have launched a federal investigation with no grounds at all to suspect anything warrants it. And the power is in the hands of those who are upset that rioters are being tear gassed.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  102. “The store now seems almost to be anxious to say they didn’t call the police.”

    Sammy – The store is worried the peaceful protestors will peacefully protest them into the hospital or morgue.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  103. narciso – The NBPP would like a few words with the witnesses the police told Christine Byers about. Strange that their names are not being released.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  104. they are etting very good at ‘the art of not being seen’ daley

    narciso (ee1f88)

  105. Sammy @ 42, you said in reply to my comments:

    every fight for a cop is a life or death thing.

    I don’t know if you actually addressed this, but if a cop loses a fight their weapon is there for the taking (like Gramps told you), so every fight is life or death.

    He was at least two feet away, when he shot Michael Brown, and he strong reason to suspect Michael brown was snot armed, because (let’s assume) he had tried to take way his weapon, which he wouldn’t do if he had one of his own.

    Sammy, real slow, what is the reach of 6″4″” man? Is it more than 2 feet? And there are estimates that he began shooting while brown was substantially further away.

    At 6-4 and 292lbs,he was substantially armed.

    He wouldn’t try for the Ofcrs weapon if he had one of his own? Why wouldn’t he? That is pure supposition on your part and not supported by anything that we know about this incident. You don’t know brown, you don’t know bad people and you seem to want to attribute normal behavior to abnormally bad people. You could get a lot of cops killed if they listened to you.

    The cop could have retreated.

    Retreated to where? I can hear it now, “dispatch, I am in foot pursuit and if he catches me he’ll beat the hell out of me”

    I don’t know what the law is in such circumstances, where the policemen has the choice of retreating, or killing the suspect, but cannot safely attempt to arrest him.

    He safely stopped him. Shoot to stop, once the bad guy stops doing what he is not supposed to be doing, stop shooting.

    For those that think cops don’t have the right to protect themselves or not take care of themselves first and citizens only after they can do it safely, think about it this way… If the cops gets killed or injured, who takes his place the next day? How much does that cost the agency to recruit, hire and train someone to do the job? Who supports his family? Where are you going to find people to take a job at the current pay rates when they will be expected to give up their life or health to do the job in a manner pleasing to citizens who won’t help themselves and do it in a way that satisfies the courts? Good luck with that.

    Labcatcher (61737c)

  106. Wonderful issues once and for all, you simply been given the pesch latest target audience. What would anyone suggest when it comes to this page that you choose to manufactured some days during the past? Just about any convinced?

    our homepage (3a0aa2)

  107. Labcatcher (61737c) — 8/18/2014 @ 9:01 pm

    He wouldn’t try for the Ofcrs weapon if he had one of his own?

    If he ALSO intended to harm the officer.

    Why wouldn’t he?

    Because then he would take out his own weapon and use it. That is surely less risky.

    Imagine a war. Hand to hand combat. Both persons armed. Have you ever head of such a crazy thing as someone, NOT using his weapon, but grabbing for the other person’s weapon, instead?

    SF: The cop could have retreated.

    Retreated to where? I can hear it now, “dispatch, I am in foot pursuit and if he catches me he’ll beat the hell out of me”

    More like this: “dispatch, I am in foot pursuit and if I catch him he’ll beat the hell out of me. Officer needs assistance. (Pause) It’s hard to go slow.”

    Darren Wilson had a car. He had no ability on his own to restrain Michael Brown, except by shooting and probably killing him. He could not trust Michael Brown even if he appeared to surrender.

    “I don’t know what the law is in such circumstances, where the policemen has the choice of retreating, or killing the suspect, but cannot safely attempt to arrest him.”

    He safely stopped him. Shoot to stop, once the bad guy stops doing what he is not supposed to be doing, stop shooting.

    That actually would not be enough in this case, because how could he be sure he would stay stopped? The officer needed assistance.

    Anyway, it would look like he was firing and mostly missing at first. Michael Brown was not acting scared of the gun. Or he might have been too scared. (afraid he was going to get killed, and thinking his only hope was to get at the policeman first.)

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  108. “What eyewitness testimony? The cop’s?!”

    Yes the cop. You don’t think he has anything relevant to add?

    “And the power is in the hands of those who are upset that rioters are being tear gassed.”

    It’s like you’re dead set on being wrong. Got something against these folks?

    nops (9a2828)

  109. So, nops turns the race card face up. And, surprise – surprise it’s got his picture on it.

    ropelight (b5fb75)

  110. Thirty shots maybe were fired last night at the police and they didn’t respond.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  111. Cry me a river, Elissa.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  112. Slow on the uptake.

    ropelight (b5fb75)

  113. Art Deco, there is no question that you’re in the wrong here. Just go back and look at your initial comment that started this argument. Look at the comment to which you responded, and go back and read it, and you will see exactly why daleyrocks is right and you are wrong.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  114. Yes the cop. You don’t think he has anything relevant to add?

    I’m sure he does, but that’s not what you claimed. You claimed there were “relevant” facts about the cop that we should know. Your obvious meaning was that there were negative facts about him, just like the negative facts that we now know about Brown. And when I asked how you know this, you changed the subject to the cop’s account of the shooting. I’m sure we’ll hear that in due course, and I see no reason why we must hear it now, but it’s irrelevant to your nasty insinuation that there’s something negative to be known about him, an insinuation for which you have no basis, you just pulled it out of your backside. If you were capable of shame, I’d say shame on you.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  115. I think what you are experiencing, Mr. Frey, Is Ken Whites general dislike of Law Enforcement.

    Big Tex (785256)

  116. sammy at 11. I give up. You are like talking to a teenager, all knowing and never wrong. Sammy stuff happens in fights. Deal with it.

    Labcatcher (61737c)

  117. “ou claimed there were “relevant” facts about the cop that we should know.”

    Like his state of mind, which his statement would shed light on. Other things too. All in “due course” of course, “no reason to hear now” which is not the same consideration we give to the dead.

    nops (9a2828)

  118. The dead, remember, was a vicious thug, whose memory deserves no respect. Whether Wilson ends up being right or wrong on this shooting, the world is a better place without Michael Brown in it.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  119. It’s not about respect. It’s about the tale that gets told. We’ve had the burglary report written up 4 days after the fact. But not even the killer’s name at that time. Why? Because they know that folks like you need to come to your conclusions.

    nops (9a2828)

  120. Imdw’s narrative is precious.

    JD (d7747e)

  121. Burglary? No not burglary, strong-arm robbery including assault and menacing. All caught on video tape with 6’4″ 300 pound Michael Brown unmistakably shoving a much smaller man out of his way as he walks out the door with the stolen cigars in his hands.

    ropelight (ffcd8e)

  122. I think we’re all seeing quite clearly why the robbery information was released.

    nops (9a2828)

  123. Heaven forbid the facts cloud Teh Narrative.

    JD (d7747e)

  124. Cloud is what is over the cops. They also get to aim the sunbeam too. Some people are really hungry to say things like “the world is a better place without Michael Brown in it” and frankly it doesn’t take much.

    nops (9a2828)

  125. nops observed, …we’re all seeing quite clearly why the robbery information was released.

    Damn straight we are. Before the video was released we didn’t know what kind of thug Officer Wilson encountered. We didn’t know how big and how aggressive he was, or that Brown was a strong-arm thief making his way from the scene of his crime with a clear motive to resist questioning by the police.

    We didn’t know Brown’s accomplice had altered his appearance pretending to be an unbiased eye witness and was now on TV fabricating tall tales of an innocent teenage boy shot in the back as he stood with his hands in the air.

    Yep, we see quite clearly why DoJ lawyers tried to prevent the Ferguson Police Chief from releasing the video. Quite clearly!

    ropelight (ffcd8e)

  126. nops, it’s people like you who get young black men killed. Your pathetic excuse making gives them a license to think the authorities can be intimidated into looking the other way and that ordinary citizens can be bamboozled into believing your idiot lies. The blood of young black men is on your hands. And, yes, the world would be a better place without people like you.

    ropelight (ffcd8e)

  127. It’s amazing the twists of logic required to uphold white supremacy.

    nops (9a2828)

  128. That didn’t take long. That was a raaaaaacist Godwin. Thanks, imdw

    JD (ce5629)

  129. It’s amazing the twists of logic required to uphold white supremacy.

    It’s amazing the talent some people have for uttering witless non sequiturs.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  130. See my comment yesterday, #113 @ 4:32 am.

    ropelight (ffcd8e)

  131. The suspect was not fleeing he was charging the officer. The officer will be given the benefit of the doubt if this is true. Remember a trial is for the purpose of the prosecution to proveguilt! beyond any reasonable doubt. If officer has no negative history against anyone, it’s reasonable to assume he really did fear for his very life. Also do you actually believe that in the heat of battle, the officer was thinking oh this guy is black so i’ll kill him. Please.

    jerome watts (bc1b69)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3707 secs.