106 thoughts on “Ferguson”

  1. The renewed call for cop cams is somewhat disturbing. The most common question asked of cops being monitored by cameras isn’t “why did you shoot that guy?” it’s why didn’t you shoot that guy?

    1. Cameras won’t solve the problem. All cameras do is provide evidence for trial, the thugs burning down Ferguson ignore evidence and don’t care about due process.

      Ferguson taught cops everywhere their career ends one of two ways, tried by 12 or carried by 6. This will accelerate the departure of good men from the profession who will be replaced by more cops of questionable morality and/or competence, so more incidents that enrage this mob like this will occur, and the next one might not even be trumped up.

      1. Facts presented by an objective camera would have preempted months of speculation and spin laying the brush pile that exploded into the current mess. Had a decent video of that night existed and been released quickly a lot of this mess might have been short circuited.

  3. A Democratic precinct infected with Democratics who voted for a Democratic President, Democratic Governor, Democratic County Executive, and a big Democratic Prosecutor (on Democratic Obama’s ‘truth team’ no less) burn and loot potentially Republican businesses while being cheered on by the Democrats with bylines.

    Which one is supposed to have set up and supported the clearly racist policies that set this all off?

    1. The Mayor is a Republican. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Knowles_III

      Knowles received bachelor’s degrees in political science and criminal justice from Truman State University in 2002.[2] He began graduate studies at the University of Missouri–St. Louis in 2009.[4] A member of the Republican Party, Knowles is a former chairman of the Missouri Young Republicans.[4] Knowles was a staff member for former Missouri state Senator Ted House (D).[citation needed] He is a former employee of the Ferguson Police Department, serving nearly four years in the department’s communications division.[5][citation needed]
      Knowles served on the Ferguson city council prior to becoming mayor.[1] Knowles was elected Mayor in the nonpartisan election on April 5, 2011, winning 49% of the vote.[1] He defeated two challengers, Pearce Neikirk, a Realtor, and former Ferguson mayor Steve Wegert.[1] Voter turnout for the most recent mayoral election was extremely low at just 12 percent.[1] Knowles publicly expressed disappointment with the low voter turnout at an April 2014 city council meeting.[3]

  4. So if the officer in question had been indicted, it would have been solely because of mobs in the street? In what way is the non-indictment in this case a triumph of the court system? I’m asking sincerely — I really don’t know what principle you see being upheld here.

    1. So if the officer in question had been indicted, it would have been solely because of mobs in the street?

      Considering the evidence, yes.

      In what way is the non-indictment in this case a triumph of the court system?

      Evidence won out. It’s not just a triumph of the courts, but of science.

      I really don’t know what principle you see being upheld here.

      Scientific Method

      1. Lets bring more scientific questions before randomly selected juries and thus hasten the advancement of science! Wondering about climate change? Let randomly selected juries ponder “preponderance of evidence” and “probable cause”, and it’ll be a new kind of science and a brave new world!

      2. In all seriousness: why describe the grand jury as scientific? I like our court system (and I have no opinion on the situation in Ferguson, other than a prejudice that our court system generally gets it right), but I wouldn’t describe the justice system as scientific. If each jury treated its job as a scientific investigation, don’t you think juries would behave differently?

        My own personal experience: I recall being on a jury in a case involving an auto accident. I desperately wanted to visit the scene and run experiments, testing what was actually visible to drivers and so forth, but the system unscientifically didn’t allow for that.

        1. It’s scientific (as opposed to irrational/emotional) in the sense that they are supposed to decide based on the evidence presented, even if they’re not allowed to do their own experiments.

          1. I would call that “rational” and hold science to a higher standard, but maybe my standards are too high. 🙂

        2. So I wrote a long reply recapping the thorough briefing from Bob McCullough. Then I realized that either bob is informed and watched the video, and thus he is just trolling as usual. Or bob is uninformed and speaking out of ignorance of the case and maybe his lack of understanding of science. I don’t know which is the case for bob, but I’m sure it is one or the other, and his next response will be part of the experiment to determine the truth.

          1. I’m uninformed about Ferguson. But I’m pretty familiar with how science is done. How was the grand jury’s finding not just “a triumph of the courts, but of science”?

          2. How was the grand jury’s finding not just “a triumph of the courts, but of science”?

            The information you seek is within your grasp. I can only bring knowledge to you, I can’t make you learn it.

    2. So if the officer in question had been indicted, it would have been solely because of mobs in the street?

      Yes. The only reason a grand jury was convened at all was because of the street mobs. Normally, this would be an administrative matter within the department. Prosecutors don’t generally convene grand juries unless they believe they have enough evidence to convict. This one was convened only to assuage the mob, in the absence of such evidence.

      In what way is the non-indictment in this case a triumph of the court system?

      Grand juries are part of the court system. They aren’t supposed to indict without sufficient evidence, and they didn’t.

    3. I think it’s a triumph of the court system that they reached a verdict that was obviously extremely unpopular. They weren’t affected by threats of riots and stuff. And that is their job.

      1. The surveys I’ve seen reported show overwhelming support for the grand jury conclusion. But those who believe the grand jury was grossly flawed in it’s conclusion to not indite are vastly more likely to engage in violence over the matter.

    4. ” I really don’t know what principle you see being upheld here.”

      That we are a nation of laws and not men.

  6. The ‘protestors’ and the ‘community organizers’ did not want justice. They wanted a lynching, plain and simple. They were convinced that the Grand Jury would find Officer Warren not guilty, and they pumped up the ‘protestors’ so they’d get the fires and rioting that ultimately occurred.

    Now, they can blame racial inequality for all the problems in the country. Again. Still.

    But here’s the part of the equation that I can NEVER wrap m y head around. Why do people in neighborhoods like that, set fires in local businesses, or set civilian cars and in one case, a work truck, on fire? It seems to me, that on that street, in Ferguson MO, where the population is around 80% AA and 90% minority, that the cars, trucks and businesses belong to people who ARE minorities TOO!!! WTH sense does it make to burn that stuff?

    Advance Auto I get, they ass-u-me that it’s owned by white guys in a corporation, but many are franchises. In that area, it could very well have been a business run by AA’s. Same for the gas station / C-store.

    1. We have a winner! That is the truth of all the past riots; they devastated the community that the rioters lived in.

      I live near Sanford Florida and was doing a lot of business there when the whole Travon stuff happened. Many of the people I worked with were minorities and part of that community. When the shooting happened the locals knew the kid was a punk and figured that is how he would end up. The demonstration organizers (and a large number of demonstrators) were from out of town. It was all political theater for the news services. Unlike Ferguson, the locals here didn’t buy in to the hype or the lure of promised money.

      1. That is the truth of all the past riots; they devastated the community that the rioters lived in.

        That sadly isn’t true. When whites rioted in Tulsa in 1921 they destroyed the black side of town, not their own. When whites rioted in South Boston in the 1970s they stopped busing. When whites rioted in Wilmington, NC in 1898 they replaced the elected government with a white supremacist one. When whites rioted in Fernwood Park in 1947 they stopped blacks from moving into a white neighborhood. Our country has a long history of mob violence achieving political goals.

      2. “We have a winner! That is the truth of all the past riots; they devastated the community that the rioters lived in. ”

        But it should be noted the ones causing the riot live somewhere else.

        The Lefties [including community organizer shipped into the area] believe that a riot is progress- that it gets media attention and how you get people to pay attention. And that burning the place to the ground would merely be another sacrifice for the cause.

        It’s obvious that if Ferguson was important to all government officials involved they would not have allowed the riot to occur [there is no excuse that it was some sort of surprise] and they certainly would have done things so as to encourage this riot to occur if was planned to
        occur someplace important to them.

        So this was just another opportunity taken by the Lefties to have a demonstration, and like Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, this will utterly fail in terms of the goals of demonstration- as everyone knows there was no vaguely rational excuse for it.
        And leaving as the final message that democrats, in general, are incapable of governing.

  7. I do find it “amusing” that we’re supposed to believe the grand jury report and not believe the 15 Congressional reports on Benghazi. (For certain values of “amusing.”)

    1. It’s only “amusing” to people who fail to distinguish between a simple, straightforward case involving two individuals and many witnesses, and a very complex one involving many people, and a parade of mendacity and stonewalling for many months.

    2. I don’t know Chris, maybe it has to do with who lied?

      Example:
      Lie 1: The attack was caused by an anti-Muslim video

      Lie 2: His hands were up when the cop shot him.

      Chris it has to do with creditability. He who does not lie has a better chance of being believed.

      1. Those are some “protests”! I don’t think “protest” means what the lumpenproletariat canaille in Ferguson think it means.

      2. George, if you’ve read Gerrib’s posts on a regular basis, you should know better than to expect logical thinking from him.

        2. As Bilwick notes, this is Gerrib. To wit: “Congress questioned how the Administration, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that a spontaneous protest lead to the heavy weapon assault of an US compound resulting in the death of 4 Americans.”

        3. From your link Chris:

          ABOUT THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION
          The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation’s oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges.

          How can they question the verdict when they haven’t seen the evidence? (just another racists organization)

          1. I was wondering if Gerrib knew the difference between the National Bar Association and the American Bar Assocation…

    3. It is fine to question but then you have to back it up. On Benghazi, people can point to taped interviews and debate performances. What are you questioning this decision on? I saw zero evidence the officer acted out of racism. Any white kid who robbed a store and hit a cop would have been shot.

      I don’t know if Wilson was really in fear for his life as he was being beat by a man a hundred lbs heavier and a foot taller than him but it doesn’t matter because it never turns out well when you try and fight a cop.

      The only issues I saw that raised flags, were the conflicting eye witness accounts. These had already been accepted by the protesters without question. Nothing would change these people’s opinions of what took place, just as nothing can change their bigoted views toward non-blacks. The only racism I saw, was from the live stream from the protesters.

      Democrat activist groups have been in the city for months planning their protest. Reporters need to ask these Democrat groups if the riots were part of their plans. What we have been witnessing is the fruits of Democrats us v them tribalism and their inculcation of racist stereotypes in minority communities.

      1. “Any white kid who robbed a store and hit a cop would have been shot” is not a true statement. Or rather, it’s actually illegal for a cop to shoot somebody unless the cop is in imminent fear of his life. So the question remains, what exactly was Brown doing after the fight in the squad car? If he wasn’t charging, then it wasn’t a legal shooting.

        1. So the question remains, what exactly was Brown doing after the fight in the squad car?

          Bleeding after being shot while fighting with Wilson in the squad car.

          If he wasn’t charging, then it wasn’t a legal shooting.

          Witnesses, who spoke to the Grand Jury and gave accounts that are consistent with the physical evidence, said Brown was charging. Wilson said he feared for his life. Bullet entry wounds on the front of the body suggest Brown had turned back to face Wilson, after Wilson exited his vehicle to pursue Brown.

          1. Witnesses, who spoke to the Grand Jury and gave accounts that are consistent with the physical evidence, said Brown was charging.

            Seven, including Wilson, said he charged. Five said he didn’t.

          2. Five said he didn’t.

            Was their testimony consistent with the physical evidence?
            Do you know how the Grand Jury works, you Democrat?

        2. Chris,

          Were you there? Have you talked to the cop? Have you ever been in a fight with a bigger, stronger person?

          I was not there and I have not talked to the cop but I have been in fights and yes I thought my life was in danger. The fear normally takes over when your face gets hit so hard your vision blurs and starts going black. At that point you know your in the fight for your life and you need to do anything you can to win.

          So the cop gets assaulted, is he suppose to let the attacker walk away so he can do it to somebody else or even kill someone? If he is willing to attack a cop what else is he capable of doing?

          1. If he is willing to attack a cop what else is he capable of doing?

            If he is willing to attack a cop with a gun, what else will stop him short of deadly force?

          2. First, Wilson and Brown were both the same size – they are both 6′ 4″, and both run over 200 lbs. Wilson was arguably in better physical shape then Brown, who appears overweight if not obese.

            So the cop gets assaulted, is he suppose to let the attacker walk away so he can do it to somebody else or even kill someone? – Was Brown walking away? Or was he surrendering? I didn’t hear the witnesses, and neither did you, because they all testified in secret. So I don’t know who’s credible and who’s not, and neither do you.

            This all goes back to my initial point – an investigation that supports your biases (Ferguson) must be believed, an investigation that does not (Benghazi) must be challenged.

          4. an investigation that supports your biases (Ferguson) must be believed, an investigation that does not (Benghazi) must be challenged.

            One of these things is not like the other. One is a political investigation to get to the truth of a very messy situation with multiple cover ups, stone walling and lying. The other is a legal process in which a man’s life and liberty will be at risk. For a prosecutor to send a case to trial with so much clearly exculpatory evidence, and little hope of convicting beyond a reasonable doubt, would constitute either gross incompetence or prosecutorial misconduct.

          5. On the one hand you’re describing Wilson as being nearly blinded by the adrenaline of a kill-or-be-killed confrontation. On the other you suggest that when he decided to chase Brown down the street seconds later he was making a calculation about the future threat that Brown might pose to others. That doesn’t fit; it seems much more likely that his decision to pursue Brown was fueled by his need to “win” the confrontation, and re-establish his position of authority. So rather than waiting seconds for backup, he re-engaged, creating a situation where Brown would be forced to submit to Wilson and/or die.

            If he is willing to attack a cop what else is he capable of doing?

            That’s like saying that if he’s attacked a cop, he’s bound to attack someone else eventually, so lethal force is justified even if he isn’t threatening anyone at the moment. It’s treating anyone who resists arrest as irredeemably violent and dangerous. But we know that Brown did not have a record of serious violent crime. If it’s true that he attacked Wilson, it’s evidence that someone who attacks a cop doesn’t necessarily pose a deadly threat to others. A cop who thinks as you do here — that a citizen will never treat a cop (e.g. a cop who is trying to arrest him) worse than he’ll treat other civilians — is making a mistake.

          6. the truth of a very messy situation with multiple cover ups, stone walling and lying

            Cover ups and lying that are obvious to you but somehow eluded eight Congressional investigations.

            The other is a legal process in which a man’s life and liberty will be at risk.

            You don’t trust the Benghazi investigations because the stakes were too low?!?

          7. Brown’s autopsy lists him as 293 lbs.

            One of these things is not like the other – yes, the State’s Attorney in the Brown case seems to have acted as Wilson’s defense lawyer, while the Congressional investigations were conducted by people dedicated to the principle of getting Barack Obama out of office.

            very messy situation with multiple cover ups, stone walling and lying – there are no cover ups or stonewalling per the Benghazi report. We don’t know if anybody is lying or covering up stuff in the Brown investigation.

          8. On the one hand you’re describing Wilson as being nearly blinded by the adrenaline of a kill-or-be-killed confrontation.

            Who is the “you’re”, because I haven’t seen that description?

          9. Chris, he was trying to disarm the cop. At that point, he was bought and paid for. There is only one reason to do that and it isn’t cake and flowers.

            If you have a brain, please try and use it instead of your serial strawman armies.

          11. You have a quote from him, because I don’t see where George made any claim about “blinded by adrenaline”. In fact, when I searched, I only found you making that claim. I’m sure, since you are so careful with citation, you can provide a citation of George making that argument.

            What I read of George mentioned being assaulted several times causing blurred vision. I’m not sure if adrenaline can causes blindness, but I’ve read accounts of blows to the head causing blurred vision.

          12. George wrote that fear “takes over” and you know “your [sic] in the fight for your life and you need to do anything you can to win.” To me that sounds like being blinded by adrenaline: your fight-or-flight response invokes the sympathetic nervous system to marshall your physical resources for a single-minded struggle for survival. That isn’t the best state of mind for making a cost/benefit calculation.

          13. To me that sounds like being blinded by adrenaline

            So the “you’re” is actually Jim, and not George. Now let’s look at your assertion correctly:
            “On the one hand you’re describing, [Jim describes] Wilson as being nearly blinded by the adrenaline of a kill-or-be-killed confrontation. On the other you [testimony from Wilson] suggest that when he decided to chase Brown down the street seconds later he was making a calculation about the future threat that Brown might pose to others [himself].”

            For a person quoting selective polling in the immigration thread, you should know that 77-85% of your fellow citizens think the Grand Jury got it right, which means they accept Wilson’s account, not your nonsense of “being blinded by adrenaline”. Heck, I just saw a WaPo reader poll that had 74% saying the Grand Jury process was good and reached the right outcome, and that’s WaPo readers. I doubt those guys burning cars and stealing cellphones and TVs will change people’s opinion.

        3. A white lady got shot by the cops up here a month ago. Starting fights with cops never ends up well for anyone. Race doesn’t matter.

          Its fine if you disagree with the case but no one from your side has been able to show race played any role in what happened. But what the Democrats keep saying is that the Democrat protesters/activists/rioters are justified because this incident only happened because Brown was black and Wilson white. That isn’t true and it is total bs for Democrats to keep using this racist attack.

          We can go watch YouTube clips of the Obama administration lie about Benghazi, Obamacare, or the IRS. You can’t watch a video that shows Brown was executed because of his race. You can’t show anything that supports that.

          Sure, people can disagree about investigations but the substance and evidence of these two examples is vastly different in quality.

          1. show race played any role in what happened I don’t know if race played a factor or not. For all I know, Wilson was pissed at getting “dissed” by Brown, and when Brown didn’t move fast enough for Wilson, Wilson shot him.

            A cop getting pissed at somebody should not result in the person getting dead. I would think a “taxation equal theft” libertarian would grasp that.

          2. “For all you know”?

            It is very clear from all of the forensics and eyewitness testimony that Brown assaulted him, attempted to grab his gun, and continued to charge him even after being shot several times.

          3. “I don’t know if race played a factor or not.”

            It didn’t. There has been zero evidence, contested or otherwise, that race was a factor. Yet, that is what Democrats are protesting about. Brown has be turned into a martyr for the Democrat party despite his death having nothing to do with what the Democrat protesters claim they are protesting.

            “For all I know, Wilson was pissed at getting “dissed” by Brown, and when Brown didn’t move fast enough for Wilson, Wilson shot him.”

            Why just make shit up?

            “A cop getting pissed at somebody should not result in the person getting dead.”

            The cop wasn’t just pissed off and racist so he killed someone. The cop stopped a young man who had just robbed a store and roughed up the store owner. Then the young man got in a fight with a cop.

            I think that police brutality is a problem and the it is possible for cops to act out of racial animus but this is not that case and it should not be portrayed this way by Democrat activists who seek to use this tragedy for their petty politics.

            These cross country protests and the protests in Ferguson have been planned by Democrat party activists and the Democrat party needs to be called out for their role in what went down last night and what is going on around the country.

          4. Rand, who is Chris gonna believe? You, physical reality and the forensic evidence or his strawman created evidence?

            He pulled the same shit with Martin/Zimmerman, remember? If it doesn’t fit with revolutionary truth, he avoids it.

            The truth doesn’t fit his extreme lefty worldview and therefore, cognitive dissonance rears it’s ugly head.

          5. For all I know

            “I don’t have a clue what happened, so it could have happened this way.” Chris, if you can’t be bothered to keep up with the story, then maybe you shouldn’t be speculating. That’s what I’ve been doing.

          6. It is very clear from all of the forensics and eyewitness testimony that Brown assaulted him, attempted to grab his gun, and continued to charge him even after being shot several times.

            No, it isn’t. There is eyewitness testimony that he did those things, and eyewitness testimony that he didn’t. The forensic evidence is consistent with his doing those things, and it is consistent with him not doing those things. It is anything but “very clear”.

          7. The majority of witnesses corroborated the officer’s account. The two or three who did not were his friends (who were the initial liars who started the whole thing). One of them stated that he stood over him and shot him in the back. There is sufficient eyewitness and forensic evidence to charge and convict them of perjury.

          8. There has been zero evidence, contested or otherwise, that race was a factor.

            Wilson’s own testimony incorporates a litany of racist stereotypes about black men: that they’re supernaturally strong, demonically angry, impervious to pain and bullets, etc. That could just be a coincidence, but I wouldn’t be so quick to write off race as a factor, especially when you hear that Wilson lost his previous job because that police department was disbanded for racial issues.

            Democrats keep saying is that the Democrat protesters/activists/rioters are justified because this incident only happened because Brown was black and Wilson white

            This incident is reminiscent of many other incidents in which black suspects have been subjected to violence by a racially biased justice system. The question isn’t whether race was the only reason Brown died, it’s whether we want to take this opportunity to try to change a system that will otherwise go on killing black men and boys.

          9. A man of any race can be strong, a man of any race can appear to be demonically angry, a man of any race (particularly on drugs) can be impervious to pain and bullets.

            You are despicably race baiting, as is your racist ideology’s wont.

        4. it’s actually illegal for a cop to shoot somebody unless the cop is in imminent fear of his life.

          Whatever gives you that idea?

          “Both private citizens and police officers have a right to use force in attempting to arrest a suspect…. deadly force can be used if the police officer has reason to believe that the suspect had committed a dangerous felony.”

          http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/UseofForce.asp

    1. Yeah, those guys looked like they really wanted to see justice. I mean, how dare MetroPCS kill Michael Brown in cold blood! The Pawn Shop shouldn’t expect to get away with killing!

  10. The number of Democrat activists saying that part of dealing with the problem is the community rejecting crime as a lifestyle stands at zero.

      1. The people who think that there is nothing wrong with robbing stores and assaulting cops. The same people who are burning down their neighbors businesses. None of the Democrat agitators have stepped up to say Brown was in the wrong, they instead keep up with the racist attacks.

        1. None of the Democrat agitators have stepped up to say Brown was in the wrong

          I haven’t heard any Democrats defending Brown’s behavior at the convenience store. What you think of his behavior towards Wilson depends on what you think that behavior was — the forensics don’t tell us much, and eyewitness accounts (which are usually fairly unreliable) differ widely.

          1. Jim, the militant Democrat activists will not even acknowledge his behavior. The Democrat party narrative is that Brown did nothing wrong and was an innocent child who only came into contact with the police because the cop, the department, society, and especially Republicans are racist.

            This ceased being about Brown a long time ago. The Democrats have appropriated this man’s death for their petty politics. The protests are now about Democrat stereotypes of a racist society, Palestine, climate change, inequality, and the need to have a socialist rather than capitalist society. The usual grab bag of of causes that motivate militant Democrat activists.

          2. ” the forensics don’t tell us much, and eyewitness accounts (which are usually fairly unreliable) differ widely.”

            You are frigging forensics expert now? How do you know what the forensics tell us? Have you read them all? Digested them and understood them? You trained in forensics? Know what they can and cannot tell you?

            You persist in making statements you have no way of knowing are true.

            And as has been reported and you have been told several times…many people whose original statements were anti-Wilson either changed their minds and reported they actually never saw anything and were relying on hearsay, or the forensics have shown their statements of what happened to be clearly impossible.

            Like these, from a CBS/AP report:

            Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer’s window “from his navel up,” with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

            Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

            Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then “stood over him and finished him off.” But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was “based on me being where I’m from, and that can be the only assumption that I have.”

            The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

            “So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn’t have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?” a prosecutor asserted.

            “Yeah, to coincide with what really happened,” the witness replied.

            Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown’s, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown “on his knees with his hands in the air.” He added: “I seen him shoot him in the head.”

            But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

            “What you are saying you saw isn’t forensically possible based on the evidence,” the investigator told the friend.

            Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

            “I ain’t feeling comfortable,” he said.

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-grand-jury-documents-show-inconsistencies-in-witness-testimony/

  11. justice is determined by the court system, not mindless mobs in the streets

    What an odd thing to say. The court system is intended to uphold justice, but that doesn’t mean that its decisions are necessarily just. Police officers are very, very rarely charged in deadly shootings. That doesn’t mean that all those shootings are just.

    In particular, the absence of enough evidence to charge Wilson with murder doesn’t imply that he acted wisely. There’s been a lot of attention given to whether Brown was moving towards Wilson, and whether he had his hands up. But I haven’t seen much discussion of Wilson’s decision — when, according to his own testimony, he felt so physically overmatched by Brown that it was like a five year old trying to hold onto Hulk Hogan — to chase a fleeing Brown some 100′ down the street. Backup was on the way. Brown did not pose a threat to Wilson. But instead of catching his breath and assessing the situation, Wilson chose to pursue Brown alone, with fatal results. That choice may not be criminal, but it does suggest Wilson should find a different line of work.

    1. Rand: “justice is determined by the court system, not mindless mobs in the streets”

      Jim: “What an odd thing to say.”

      Me: So Jim, do you support doing away with the court systems and having justice worked out by mob rule? Otherwise, why do you find Rand’s statement odd? The rest of your post is a hypothetical (bob, science here, don’t read further, it may confuse you), and not supported by evidence. Except for this part: “But I haven’t seen much discussion of Wilson’s decision“, which only says something about you.

      But instead of catching his breath and assessing the situation, Wilson chose to pursue Brown alone, with fatal results.

      Really Jim? So Wilson, after just being assaulted, is supposed to just let a guy he doesn’t know and just assaulted a cop retreat into the neighborhood and absolutely not pursue the assailant? Really? If you believe that, and not just lying as you do, then I don’t want to hear another damn word from you on how we need a bigger government. Especially if your answer to the odd statement is we should just have mob’s determine justice.

      1. do you support doing away with the court systems and having justice worked out by mob rule?

        No, of course not.

        So Wilson, after just being assaulted, is supposed to just let a guy he doesn’t know and just assaulted a cop retreat into the neighborhood and absolutely not pursue the assailant?

        Yes. Especially if he’d just been assaulted, and was therefore in a physical and emotional state that isn’t conducive to good decision making. He should have kept his distance until backup arrived; had he done so it’s likely that Brown would be alive today.

        1. This is an interesting thought you have here, Jim:

          “Yes. Especially if he’d just been assaulted”

          So all a criminal needs to do to avoid being pursued is hit an arresting officer first, and then the cop is supposed to just accept they are in a “physical and emotional state that isn’t conducive to good decision making”?

        2. We had an incident in Madison where a police officer shot dead an unarmed man.

          The man in question was drunk, and the police call was for a home invasion where he scared this other man’s wife. The two men were tussling in the neighbor’s yard. A police officer who came upon two men fighting called out “Get down on the ground!” The man whose wife was scared and who presumably was fighting off the drunk guy quickly dropped face down. The unarmed drunk man charged the officer who shot him. The officer already had his “backup” of other officers standing nearby.

          The dead man and the officer were white. There was some stink about this “in the community” along with the media digging up dirt on the officer having had prior use of his gun, an incident in a parking garage where he was disciplined. The Chief of Police who was black stood by his officer. I say this in the past tense, not because Chief Wray stopped being black but because he stopped being Chief of Police not long after this incident. The District Attorney who is black, famous for “standing up to Governor Walker”, declined to bring charges.

          We had some organized protests but nothing was burned down. It troubles me greatly that Chief Wray left. Madison is a “community in transition” that has had increases in violent incidents, including a Heismann Trophy nominated football player who was ganged up upon and beaten unconscious out on the street. And a shot fired between cars right outside the UW Health Digestive Health Center during the time I was having my diagnostic test mandated to be covered under an insurance plan. The Chief being black, I got a sense that he knew from life experience and professional experience what was at stake for all peoples and races and took these matters quite seriously. He communicated as much in his press appearances.

          Shooting an unarmed man? It used to be on those “cop shows” on TV that the TV police would plant “a cold piece” on an unarmed victim to get out of trouble, and our hero officer had to sort out what really “went down.” These days with all of the crazy people on the streets, police are indeed at risk, and for all I know, charging a police officer is a good way to become deceased. Heck, anytime I encounter an officer while on the street, I keep my hands out of my pockets. An officer doesn’t know who is crazy and means them harm.

          Jim, you know that I have Conservative leanings but I am open to reason. When you cautioned about reading too much into Benghazi, I thought, you may be right, I am getting too much info from the Right Blogosphere. On the Affordable Care Act — yes, maybe that project will work out long term. On the IRS — yes, maybe there are innocent explanations regarding e-mail backups.

          But on this matter, a person simply loses any and all credibility taking certain positions. I would like to remain safe in my person and in my home. I would like to live in peace with my neighbors receiving housing assistance and continue to patronize the same stores as they do and walk along the same streets as they do. But you don’t charge an officer and you don’t lie about what happened in an incident involving an officer. There can be disagreement about what happened when an officer resorts do deadly force, but you don’t go around burning buildings down.

          The police in Madison haven’t given up on maintaining civil order, and I intend to support them in those efforts.

          1. These days with all of the crazy people on the streets

            “These days” crime is way down from a couple decades ago, but in polls people say that the crime rate has been going up.

            police are indeed at risk

            There are crazy people everywhere, but U.S. police officers kill far more civilians than their counterparts elsewhere (in the latest year for which statistics are available, it was over 400 killed in the U.S. vs. 8 in Germany, Japan and the UK combined). Part of the risk faced by U.S. police officers is that there are so many more guns here. Civilians buy guns to feel safer, which means police feel less safe, which in turn means that civilians feel less safe from the police (“I keep my hands out of my pockets”). It’s an ugly cycle.

        3. Jim, attempting to disarm a police officer is a stupid game, it often earns a stupid prize. If you are going to play that game, understand the stakes likely include your death. There is no walking away from that decision, the Rubicon has been crossed.

          In the language of the street: “Don’t start nuthin’ won’t be nuthin’.

          1. There is no walking away from that decision, the Rubicon has been crossed.

            Brown was not the only person there with moral agency. Wilson made his own choices.

    2. “What an odd thing to say. The court system is intended to uphold justice, but that doesn’t mean that its decisions are necessarily just.” That seems like the odd thing to say. Who claimed that they were?
      And if their decisions aren’t always just, then it’s all right for these members of the black community to riot and burn stores? What is your point exactly?
      Note that this was a decision by a grand jury, which included three blacks. I haven’t examined the evidence, but I bet they did. I also bet that the rioters haven’t examined all that evidence.
      Why shouldn’t there be outrage by all white people – and all black people who care about being part of the society – at these incredible thugs who think that they can riot because they didn’t get the verdict they wanted?
      And if black leaders don’t direct their outrage where it belongs, why shouldn’t the rest of us draw the appropriate conclusions?

      1. What he is saying, is that the system is not just so even though this time the system was right, in the past it has been wrong and that we should ignore this specific incident and focus on the narrative of that system is racist in all other cases, and because of historical guilt, we should give Brown and the Democrat activists rioting a pass for their actions.

        Then as Obama says, the government needs to sit down and listen to the demands of the Democrat activists and do what they say. What happened to Brown or during the riots does not matter because the larger political cause of Democrat activists should be the real focus.

      2. then it’s all right for these members of the black community to riot and burn stores?

        No, of course not.

        Note that this was a decision by a grand jury

        Grand juries will almost always indict if the prosecutor wants them to. This prosecutor did not want the grand jury to indict, he wanted them to give him political cover for his own decision to not pursue criminal charges. The fact that he got at least 4 grand jurors to agree with him (it takes 9 yes votes for an indictment) does not prove very much.

        And if black leaders don’t direct their outrage where it belongs

        I think you have a narrow view of where outrage belongs. The fact that nearly everyone condemns rioting does not mean that rioting is the only outrageous thing happening. The protestors in Ferguson, most of them peaceful, have legitimate grievances.

        Back in the 1970s whites in South Boston rioted over forced busing. The lesson taken from that was not that everyone should “direct their outrage” at the rioters. It was that the courts shouldn’t require busing.

        1. ” The protestors in Ferguson, most of them peaceful, have legitimate grievances.”

          Why is it that only Democrat activists get away with using violence? The Tea Party got no such consideration from the media or Democrats despite being actually peaceful.

          “The fact that nearly everyone condemns rioting”

          BS. Not all, or even close to all, Democrats condemn it. They planned it. They celebrate it. I watched the live streams of the protesters. A lot of them might not have rioted themselves but they didn’t really care that other people did. Saying it was wrong to the TV cameras but cheering it on off camera is just more dishonesty out of the Democrat party.

          “Our country has a long history of mob violence achieving political goals.”

          Ya, I noticed you used a lot of examples of Democrats using violence for politics.

        2. So I am mocked for saying that as a white person I keep my hands out of pockets when I am around a police officer. Jim could not find anything else to disagree with my longish post about law enforcement in Mayor Paul Soglin’s Madison, but he had to find something to scold me for, and he picked up on keeping my hands out of my pockets and generally acting non-threatening around law enforcement officers, perhaps for a reason contrary to facts?

          Jim, as always, you are right and I am wrong. Walk about with your hands in your pockets, in fact, when you see an officer, put your hands into your pockets. There are a lot of people on Rand’s fine Web site who back up your right to not act any differently around the police because that would be not fair. If “anything happens”, I assure you that your fine commenting comrades will gather to conduct protest demonstrations on your behalf.

          1. I think Jim should go visit the White House and see Obama while keeping his hands in his pockets. He can tell us if the federal officers, such as the Secret Service, handle his behavior better than the local governments like Ferguson. But he has to promise to insist on leaving his hands in his pockets, and see how far he got with it.

        3. “Grand juries will almost always indict if the prosecutor wants them to. This prosecutor did not want the grand jury to indict, he wanted them to give him political cover for his own decision to not pursue criminal charges. The fact that he got at least 4 grand jurors to agree with him (it takes 9 yes votes for an indictment) does not prove very much.”

          Oh so NOW you know the inner mind of the Prosecutor too!

          Wow Jim you truly are omniscient.

          And Grand Juries WILL almost always indict if the prosecutor wants them to.?

          Really?

          Got the stats for that assertion? And along with the stats, you have to show that a large fraction of those indictments recommendations were wrong in order to make the dreck you write even remotely plausible.

  12. at these incredible thugs who know that they can riot because they didn’t get the verdict they wanted?
    Fixed it

  14. The founders feared mob rule just as much as monarchs.

    Somehow despite their best efforts we ended up with both

    1. That’s the problem Mark, we depended on their efforts. They set up the system but it was our responsibility to make sure it worked. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

    2. “Somehow despite their best efforts we ended up with both”

      The somehow is that we got too fat and lazy and too few of us know the value of liberty enough to fight for it.

  15. Interesting that the usual gang of people-who-are-wrong-about-everything-else are in agreement with the ghetto jerks in believing the officer was guilty. Doesn’t prove anything, of course, but interesting nonetheless.

    1. I don’t know that Wilson was guilty of a crime, or even that he should have been indicted. I just don’t take the fact that he wasn’t indicted as establishing that his actions were wise or correct.

      1. As often is the case, you are correct here. Maybe Officer Wilson is a “fascist” police person who unnecessarily confronted two young men making a demonstration of walking in a busy street. You are right, giving chase to Mr. Brown after wounding him in the confrontation was also needless. Yes, the man committed a felony by assaulting an officer, but it would not be too difficult to canvas the neighborhood with other officers to make an arrest, perhaps by simply following the blood trail. Maybe the issue isn’t race but one of overly assertive, I used the word fascist, law enforcement.

        Madison’s police under a black D.A. and a black Chief of Police are very assertive in maintaining order, whether at the Halloween “Freakfest”, the notorious lakefront park that has become a “cruiser and casual encounter culture” magnet or the incidents of gang-up beatings, street robbings, and drive-by-shootings gaining news coverage. I mention the race of our (former) Chief. Call me racist for thinking a black Chief will allow white me to feel safer around my neighbors of color.

        A white man was shot dead by the police. A drunk white man, a drunk white man who had committed a home invasion at night putting the fright into a woman, but I suppose if the woman were armed in her house (not allowed here in Madison), she was to know this was an “innocent” home invasion as he was too drunk to know he was at the wrong house? A belligerent drunk white man who was fighting on the lawn outside with her husband who had chased him out of the wrong house? A drunk white man fighting with the husband of the woman he had frightened by busting into her home, when a white officer arrives on scene, orders both men “Down on the ground!” to break up the fight, with the husband who was in the right defending his wife and defending himself obeying a lawful police order by going face down on the grass, with the drunk white guy who had just scared a woman half to death charging the officer and becoming dead for real?

        What happens when a black man gets shot dead under similar circumstances? Do I get burned out of my house, workplace, or where I worship? The usual weak-tea reasons for a resignation were offered, but were that to happen, Chief Wray won’t have to deal with it. I just want to live in peace with my neighbors, coworkers, and people who shop at the same stores. All of you baiters, hustlers, organizers, inciters, callers for mob justice, and excuse mongers, you are threatening me where I live. All of you, heed Cromwell’s scolding and just go!

        1. “Yes, the man committed a felony by assaulting an officer, but it would not be too difficult to canvas the neighborhood with other officers to make an arrest, perhaps by simply following the blood trail. ”

          What blood trail is that?

          1. That would be the blood trail presented as evidence to the Grand Jury that discredited the “hand’s up don’t shoot” according to Zimmerman Case defense attorney O’Mara serving as a talking head on CNN, that folks like Jim are clinging to as a 20-20 hindsight coulda-woulda-shoulda taken Mr. Brown alive fallback.

    1. Oh Bilwick, you’ve gone too far this time in your characterization of Jim. Jim doesn’t want the people involved in Fast and Furious going to jail.

Comments are closed.