What If “Justice” In The Mike Brown Case Doesn’t End In A Conviction?
There is a good possibility that Darren Wilson could be acquitted in the shooting of Michael Brown.. Are the protesters ready to accept that reality?
Inevitably, there has been much speculation over the past week over the status of any future legal proceedings related to the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Williams that have sparked protests that seem likely to continue well past the two week anniversary of the shooting on Saturday, especially with Brown’s funeral now scheduled for Monday and likely to draw big crowds. Notwithstanding the demands of the protesters, though, it is likely going to be quite some time before any criminal action against Officer Wilson proceeds forward at either the state or federal level if it proceeds at all. More importantly, there are significant questions regarding this case that raise the possibility that Officer Wilson could end up being acquitted, in no small part because the state would find it difficult to prove its case.
Before we get to that point, though, there first has to be a determination that there is probable cause that Officer Wilson committed a crime. In theory, that could be done via a prosecutor filing a complaint in state court and an arrest warrant being issued for the officer. However, because of the unique legal issues implicated by officer involved shootings, as well as the fact that the evidence that we know of to date is unclear to say the very least, it was always apparent that this matter would instead by referred to a Grand Jury. That process apparently began yesterday and could last well into September at the very least. In the meantime, MSNBC’s Benjamin Landy summarizes exactly what the Grand Jurors will be asked to consider in this case:
It’s a high bar for prosecutors to indict a cop. In the recent chokehold death of Eric Garner by a New York police officer, the Staten Island district attorney didn’t announce the opening of a grand jury investigation for nearly three weeks after a medical examiner determined Garner’s death was a homicide. A murder conviction against the offending officer is unlikely, legal experts and civil rights attorneys told The New York Times. A lesser charge is possible.
Even when the killer is not a police officer, it often takes weeks for prosecutors to build a case against someone claiming self-defense. Theodore Wafer, the Dearborn Heights, Michigan man who claimed self-defense after fatally shooting 19-year-old Renisha McBride on his front porch, was not charged with second-degree murder for nearly two weeks after the incident. George Zimmerman was not arrested for over a month after fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, as prosecutors investigated whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense. He was eventually found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter.
In the shooting death of Michael Brown, it could take weeks or even months to present the evidence in the case, McCulloch spokesman Ed Magee said Tuesday. He also revealed that Wilson had been interviewed by investigators and would be given the opportunity to testify in secret before the grand jury.
To charge Wilson with a crime, the grand jury would need to determine the officer was not acting out of a reasonable fear of a threat to his own safety or the safety of the community. And although Brown was unarmed when he died, it won’t necessarily be easy for the prosecutor to prove Wilson was not acting in self-defense when he shot and killed the teen. Multiple eyewitnesses say Brown was attempting to get away from Wilson when the officer took his life. But it’s their word against the testimony of a six-year veteran of the police force with no past history of disciplinary action.
Related to this last issue, there has been much discussion online and on cable news over the past several days about provisions unique to Missouri law that that could potentially make it difficult to convict Wilson. As Michael Daly describes it at The Daily Beast, this provision of the Missouri Code appears to give police near unlimited discretion in using deadly force in situations similar to the Brown case:
Chapter 563 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, will no doubt come into play in this new case in which a cop shot an unarmed man.
Under this law, a cop is justified in using deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” if “he reasonably believes” it is necessary in order to “to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony…or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”
Under this version of what is generally called the “fleeing felon” rule, it would seem as though Wilson would have an airtight defense to any criminal charge against him. However, as Paul Cassel notes at The Volokh Conspiracy, there are serious conflicts between this law and current Supreme Court precedent, and the law regarding self-defense as it would apply in this situation becomes much murkier:
[T]his statute is patently unconstitutional, at least to the extent that it purports to authorize deadly force to apprehend any fleeing felon regardless of the danger of that felon. While interesting issues can arise about the extent to which a criminal defendant can rely on an unconstitutional statute, my sense (without having researched the issue in detail) is that the statute will be construed to authorize deadly force only to the extent consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner, that is, deadly force is permissible when the fleeing suspect posed “a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.”
Notice, by the way, that the statute allows deadly force only when “immediately necessary” to effect an arrest. If Michael Brown had his hands up and was clearly and obviously attempting to surrender, then deadly force would not be justified and the shooting would be second-degree murder.
Notice further that the statute also provides a defense where the officer has a “reasonable belief” that certain facts exist – that would seem to provide a defense where the officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that he was facing a threat of serious physical harm. This is consistent with caselaw in the deadly force area that tends to give the officers some leeway, such as the Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor which held that “the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Missouri law also makes clear that the police officer has no “duty to retreat” when attempting to make an arrest.
So, if justification exists (and I set to one side the issue of who bears the burden of proof on the issue and by what standard), then even though an intentional killing has occurred, no crime has been committed. But what about an intermediate case, such as where an officer acts in what he thinks is a need for self-defense but misjudges the need to use deadly force? In that situation, Missouri law (like other states around the country) recognizes a mitigation described as “imperfect self-defense.” This reduces a crime that would otherwise be murder down to involuntary manslaughter. See, e.g., State v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 212, 220-21 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). In situations where the officer acted recklessly, the crime would be a Class C felony. In situations where the officer acted with criminal negligence, the crime would be a Class D felony.
Cassel goes on to describe some of the other possible charges that could be brought against Wilson, but what carries through all of them is the idea that in the end this how this case turns out is going to depend to a large degree on the facts that are brought before the Grand Jury and, assuming an indictment is handed down, at trial. This will include not only the forensic evidence that that has been gathered in connection with the case, which includes everything from the three autopsies that have been conducted in the case but also the results of the workup of the crime scene itself and what they might tell us about the trajectory of bullets and how far apart the parties were. Also thrown into that mix, of course, will be the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the incident, and that’s one area where the prosecution could find itself with a problem.
Even while the investigation of this case is still in its infancy, we have already been deluged with various reports of statements from purported eyewitnesses to the events of August 9th in the media. Nearly all of these accounts differ in some respect or another. Some say that Brown had has back turned at the time the shots were fired, others say that he was facing the officer. Still more of these reports say that Brown had his hands raised as if he was surrendering, while others dispute that. The closest thing we’ve gotten so far to a statement from Officer Wilson same in the form of someone who claims to be a friend who said that Brown told her that final shots came when Brown started rushing at the officer with his head down. Some of these accounts can potentially be reconciled with what we know about the autopsy reports, some of them quite simply cannot. Most important, though, is the fact that there seem to be enough contradictions in these stories that it would potentially create the reasonable doubt that would acquit Officer Wilson at trial. Additionally, the fact that so many of these witnesses have already spoken to the media, and will again be speaking with investigators and before the Grand Jury means that there will be more than enough potential for some error to be introduced in their narrative, thus opening yet another opportunity for a defense attorney to discredit the witness on the stand at trial.
Any potential federal charges in this case would be even more complicated, because they would require that the prosecution prove that Officer Wilson deprived Brown of his civil rights through an act committed “under the color of law” and that the defendant acted willfully and with the intent of depriving Brown of those rights. Leaving aside the question of exactly how the U.S. Attorney would be able to prove that Wilson acted with the intention of depriving Brown of his civil rights, if it turns out that a state court jury finds that Wilson’s use of deadly force constituted justifiable homicide, it would be difficult at the very least for a Federal Court to allow a case that argues differently to proceed to trial. Indeed, given the likelihood that Wilson would raise justifiable homicide as a defense in any state court action, a Federal proceeding in this case would be substantially different from the one we saw in the Rodney King case. In that case, the officers were acquitted in state court but convicted of civil rights violations in Federal Court on essentially the same facts. Given the nature of the issues that arise in the Brown case, though, it would be surprising if we saw a similar outcome here. In the end then, we could end up with the reality of Darren Wilson not being convicted of any crime at all.
It is obviously far too early in the proceedings to say for sure how this case will turn out. However, it strikes me that people expecting that any prosecution of Darrin Wilson will be a “slam dunk” prosecution would do best to educate themselves
Then we’ll hopefully get a series of “Mike’s Law” that changes the danger standard that enables cops to kill with impunity and makes review by an independent outside agency mandatory. Or even better, change the “qualified immunity” rules from being an pre-trail judge decision to a jury decision, similar to self defense.
I’m sure that if the state is open and transparent about what evidence they have, people will feel that justice was served, even if there is not evidence to convict. There may be calls for body cameras on the officers, so there is more evidence in future, but people will understand that the justice system doesn’t always convict
But, so far the state has been anything but open and transparent… So, I would expect rioting if there is no conviction.
The way the facts have been stacking up, Wilson shouldn’t even be charged. Of course, something could be presented that will disrupt that narrative but it seems unlikely.
But he probably will be charged in a political
persecutionprosecution. Not only is there the riot problem, but also the governor needs to distract from his lack of due diligence. See, Jay Nixon was the MO Attorney General for 16 of the 29 years since the SCOTUS case limiting the use of deadly force to stop someone fleeing and he’s been governor for 5 of them. AGs are suppose to recommend law changes to bring the state laws into constitutional compliance.If there is any issue here, it is the suppose firing of shots while Brown was running away. They missed (although I did see one report that one of the 4 shots in his arm may have been back to front graze). So they are not directly at issue in his death. But it would seem to me, that this would be where the much vaulted qualified immunity would come in. Police officers are not required or suppose to determine the constitutionality of state law. Especially as it relates to SCOTUS decision that happened a few years before their birth. Ultimately, it will come down to what the MO standards are for police officer training.
I doubt they’ll accept it, Doug.
But since Holder is part of the mob, ready to bypass the justice process,that shouldnt be a suprise.
But lets posulate, now, and say that the officer was in fact within the law and his rights.
For that matter, lets remove ourselves from Ferguson for a moment…. and postulate a situation where an innocent man gets hounded by a mob like this, is convicted by them and the race baiters now running our federal government, and outside of it, before the grand jury is seated.
even with the eventual court finding in his favor, where does he go? His life is already over, because someone thought they were above the law.
@JKB:
Did you ever notice that for the general public, “ignorance is no excuse” and they can be prosecuted for a crime even if they didn’t actually know it was illegal, and yet law enforcement officers get “qualified immunity”, because it’s unfair to expect someone who’s supposed to be an expert on the law to keep up with what the law actually is?
Why did Attorney General Holder go there to start with? Did he level with the people that there is the possibility that there may not be any charges at all based on available evidence, or did he make a lot of promises ?
Doug, did they “accept” the acquittal of Zimmerman?
@JKB:
Fact 1: He was unarmed.
Fact 2: The officer killed him.
Fact 3: You don’t know a single other fact.
And yet, you have drawn a conclusion. The facts in evidence suggest you are an idiot.
@OzarkHillbilly:
Actually, they don’t. The facts, and more importantly the law at hand, currently back JKB’s (and Doug’s) analysis.
Caveat: Obviously the facts are not currently all known and things are bound to change (see notes below). But if we’re working with the facts that we currently have…
The issue is not so much the facts as *the law.* For all the reasons that Doug laid out, for better or worse, JKB’s analysis is most likely correct. Especially *if* (AGAIN PLEASE NOTE THE *IF*) it turns out that Williams sustained any significant injuries during the attack (note CNN is reporting that their sources say *no* facial fractures but the WaPo is now saying their sources say he did) it’s going to be very hard to legally question his actions. Harder to convince a jury (See Zimmerman).
I’d also note that JKB is also correct in suggesting that the biggest issue is probably the fact that Williams was firing on someone fleeing (which at least according to the NYTs, officials are admitting). I also suspect that JKB is right and one of the arm grazes will be ultimately accepted to be a back-to-front shot (as a few witness accounts seem to corroborate). There’s a *possibility* of a reckless charge there — but the state law makes it difficult.
That’s the bigger issue here, beyond the events that took place, the laws as written currently offer the officer a *lot* of protections.
@Tyrell: he went in support of the narrative, and political positioning. In short, pandering.
@Mu:
Are you willing to risk have a higher crime rate in your community to have such laws? What would you say to any store owner who reports a property crime knowing that the police risk a jury trial during every interaction with a member of the public. Wouldn’t it just be easier to sit in the car and let the criminals get away with a crime rather than try to stop it? Do you really want to turn law enforcement into filling out forms so that people who have insurance can make claims?
Given the recent discussions about police abuse, over protection of police via Bills of Rights, and militarization of the police force, I’d be interested in Jack, JKB’s, and Paul L.’s views on Chapter 563.
Here’s the full text for those interested:
No matter what actually happened, there will be no conviction. What happens next depends on how successful current organizers are at turning the civillian’s rage into political action. They’re out there reginstering people to vote now — if they can convince the locals that the answer is to vote out the entire power structure, then it could remain peaceful.
Of course, Republicans are out there saying it’s “disgusting” that organizers are getting people to register. Because their entire power base depends on preventing anyone from voting who won’t vote for them.
I also expect that there will be no conviction of Officer Wilson, and there may well be no trial. My conclusion from these events will be the same as the people of Ferguson. The system has worked as designed. The system has not been designed by dispassionate angels and is not administered by blind Lady Justice. What we have is what the people who have the power to make the laws want it to be. The police are part of this system. How many prosecutions of cops have there been? Is this because they are more moral than the rest of us?
There are ways to influence the process. Vote, organize, campaign. Segregation did not retreat because people changed their minds without a little nudge.
@Stormy Dragon:
“Qualified immunity” only protects the officer from civil liability. It has no bearing in a criminal case.
@Matt Bernius:
At some point these protections has to be eliminated because we have quantifiable data that suggests that they disproportionately come at the expense of one class of people. One could argue that the unintentional consequence is that it almost licenses bigotry. Following the strict letter of the law in cases like these does nothing to promote justice as it is meant to. It only perpetuates the true problem that everyone obviously feels is hidden by it. At what point will someone buck this trend by setting a new precedent? If not this case, when? This is exactly why the protest is necessary. Every potential juror has to understand that they will either set a new precedent or choose the unforgiving business as usual. It was harder to get basic civil rights for African Americans. This issue should not take as long…
@Matt Bernius:
The “or” seem to be a problem. The Tennessee vs Garner case clearly states that the fleeing person must be suspected of a serious felony that caused bodily harm. Tennessee law puts a limit on officers, that there must be a reasonable belief that the person is a threat of serious injury to officers or other. That other methods of capture are not readily available to effect capture.
As Paul Cassell pointed out, the law in MO seems to include generic felonies which makes it unconstitutional. The litigation this type of use of deadly force was over kids being shot running away from burglaries something we don’t want to use deadly force for.
I know from a friend who use to be in law enforcement in TN, the basic thought among officers is just don’t use your gun to stop someone running way.
The right-wing noise machine had made it clear…the cops are right…the cops are always right…if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from the cops…if the cops shoot you in the back it’s because you were doing something wrong.
Like carrying skittles.
@Eric Florack:
Oh really? Remember all those dire predictions about the Zimmerman trial ? You must remember that – rioting across the nation, etc.? None of it happened. Honestly, many conservatives want there to be rioting so that they can say, “see I TOLD you!”
While wearing a hoodie
Having merely read the Garner decision I cannot imagine why he would think the law is patently unconstitutional.
For one thing, the reach of criminal law is more narrow than civil law. The plaintiff in Garner was suing for damages for an unreasonable “seizure” (killing), and the SCOTUS rejected the argument that such a “seizure” could be defended under state law or the common-law it derived from. (At least half of all states in the 80s followed a strict form of the fleeing felon rule, some readers may want to look into which states before making broad cultural attacks).
That the State cannot in federal court defend itself against an individual victim does not mean that the same State can ignore its own laws to prosecute an individual. Our system tends to hamstring government. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the individual against state government, and it protects Daren Wilson, whatever you may think of him.
Until the prosecution shows up it’s all kind of premature to talk about convictions and acquittals. And who is going to fill the role of motivated prosecutor? I think the safe money is on the cop walking.
The problem here is that the people in Ferguson may think, rightly, that the fix is in. After all, the stats show that white police officers can kill black males with virtual impunity. What the folks in this website appear oblivious to is that Michael Brown is one of several black males who have been killed by white police officers in the last few months. It just appears to be par for the course.
If anyone thinks there will be a conviction, they have not been paying attention to the events of the last few years. There was the Kelly Thomas case, where he was savagely beaten by officers on video tape and the officers were acquitted. There was the Sean Bell killing, which ended in acquittal. There are numerous cases where charges were not even brought.
Given the set of facts the Ferguson PD is putting out there — overtly or covertly — and the noises the DA is making, I would actually be surprised if charges were brought. The MOST we may see is a wrongful death settlement or civil rights charges.
A lot depends on what the witnesses actually say they saw. I think Wilson will not be convicted, but this is going to be a lot different than the Zimmerman case. There seem to be credible witnesses saying unequivocally they saw Michael Brown put his hands in the air before he was shot, and I’m sort of suspicious reading the accounts that say witnesses back up his story. I can’t even imagine how many people were on this street who would have seen it. Anyway, surrendering, for normal humans, is a big deal, and it’s not an ambiguous thing either.
Belittling black witnesses as if they are too stupid or consumed by being black to know what they saw will not help the outcome if there is an acquittal.
So jaywalking is a felony? Jaywalking is a reason to be taken into custody? Lest we forget, the officer didn’t know about the theft.
@Matt Bernius: To the point of the cops injury, the reports I’ve seen say a broken eye socket among other things. The reports further suggest the cop was about passing out. Now, of course that’s not entered into evidence as yet. But…. assuming it holds up in court, its not hard to imagine the cop thinking his life was in danger. That’s probably a justified shoot, even without the badge, and goes well beyond the “stand your ground” issues surrounding Zimmerman.
@Matt Bernius: Matt, my opinion on that law vary depending on the facts of the case.
Option 1. Mike was walking down the street. Officer Wilson simply harasses him for walking in the middle of the street, attempts to dispense some street justice because Mike displays symptoms of “Contempt of Cop” (as some have suggested), causing Mike to defend himself. Officer Wilson fires either at Mike’s back or front after coming out on the wrong end of a beatdown he unlawfully initiated.
In the above scenario, there is no way the officer could claim he was acting to affect a legal arrest. He should be prosecuted as Mike could claim self defense
Option 2. Mike was walking down the street. The Officer tells him to get out of the road, or some such and Mike attacks the officer through the driver-side window while Wilson is still at the wheel (as some witnesses have suggested) and gets in a few good shots to Wilson’s face. Mike goes for the officers gun (as some have suggested). Wilson gains control of the gun and a shot is fired. Mike retreats and Officer Wilson exits the vehicle with gun drawn and likely aimed in Mike’s direction to affect an arrest (Mike is now a felon for attacking the officer). Mike turns on Wilson and charges. More shots are fired and Mike dies.
In this scenario, Officer Wilson is fully within the law to affect an arrest on a felon and will be acquitted of any charges. It matters not that Mike was unarmed. Once Mike initiated unlawful felonious contact with the officer, Wilson could legally affect an arrest under 563.046. 3(2)a.
Other options and variables notwithstanding, these are the two most likely based upon the information produced to date.
I posted to Rod Dreher’s blog that I doubt there will be any conviction.
Why?
Because it almost never happens, regardless of the circumstances. Even when the Supreme Court ruled a killing was unjustified and unconstitutional, the offending officer did not get charged (Police Officer Elton Hymer shot and killed unarmed Edwin Garner in Memphis)
Kimani Gray
Amadou Diallo (41 shots)
Oscar Grant (Mehserle served 11 months)
Kendrec McCade
Timothy Russell (137 rounds fired into his car, no gun or casings were found on him or near him)
Patrick Dorismond
Ousmane Zongo
Timothy Stansbury, Jr.
Sean Bell
Orlando Barlow
Aaron Campbell
Victor Steen (In 2009, 17-year-old Victor, who was riding his bicycle, refused to stop when called by a police officer in a cruiser in Pensacola, Fla. In response, the officer aimed his Taser out of the driver’s window and fired and then ran over the unarmed teen, killing him. The deadly incident was captured on video. A judge ruled that no crime was committed.)
Steven Eugene Washington (who was autistic)
Alonzo Ashley
Wendell Allen
Travares McGill (shot in the back)
Ezell Ford
Michael Brown
Some of these cases are open and shut cases of murder, yet the police (except that one noted), were never convicted, and in most cases, not charged.
At some point you have to admit that there is a problem.
Google “unarmed white man shot by police” and you get the same two stories, one publicized by Rush Limbaugh and another one from 2013.
Google “unarmed black man shot by police” and the list is um….. LONG.
Sad, but true.
@al-Ameda: Rick, the narrative changing had a lot to do with it. People began to recognize the signs that they were being manipulated.
But rioting, etc wasn’t how Doug phrased the question. He asked if it would be accepted. Different level, ya know?
@Eric Florack:
Because none of that has actually come from anything other than anonymous source. As have the reports that X-Rays were negative.
In fact, what’s become even worse in terms of the broken eye socket story is that people have claimed to see the “x-ray” — including Ann Coulter in a recent editorial. However, the hard fact is that the x-ray that many claim to have seen is a doctored scan of an image from a medical textbook that was included in an early report of Jim Hofts blog. Hoft has later gone back and label this an illustration of a break, however at the time he first ran the story there was no such connotation and all of the date data had been removed from the image.*
This gets to the broader point that judging the situation one way or another based on anonymous sourcing is a foolish way to do business.
[*] – Before anyone goes down the path of Hofts is the “anonymous” source of this story, chances are that Hofts source has also been the source for at least Fox News and possible the Washington Post who have also reported the broken eye socket.
@Eric Florack: “People began to recognize the signs that they were being manipulated.”
Says the man who believes everything he hears on Fox…
@JKB:
Very sound thinking (and mirrors what my LEO acquaintances say) — especially given that bullets don’t magically stop when they miss the suspect.
Why was Brown in such a irrational state of mind that day?
Why did Brown steal cigars and assault the Indian store clerk 15 minutes before his death?
Why didn’t Brown and Johnson heed Wilson’s request to get out of the middle of street?
Why would Wilson reach out of his vehicle and try to forcibly pull Brown into the car?
How could Wilson possibly reach up and grab the 6’4″ Brown’s neck?
How did Wilson’s orbital bone fracture?
How did Brown end up dead 20′ from police vehicle after running 35′ away per witnesses?
How did Brown’s arms get underneath/at his sides if his arms were raised when fatally shot?
Why no shots to Browns back especially after Johnson claimed he was shot in the back?
Gun holds 15 rounds. Why only six shots – all frontal shots? (Can fire 6 rounds in 2 seconds).
@Matt Bernius:
A basic thought among any rational person is to not assault anyone authorized to use a gun.
@wr: good point, maybe we can “vote” on who we think is guilty of crimes… that’s a really special thought process you got working there.
here’s a thought; maybe we should see what really happened that day- and put all of the evidence and witnesses accounts together along with the forensic evidence and then maybe come up with a likely scenario. and then maybe we can jump into a delorean and go back to the scene of the crime and avoid having a bunch a of angry freaks looting and burning stuff down because they were misled by an irresponsible media that thrives on this kind of stuff.
like that’ll happen too.
oh, btw- are you all enjoying the crow you had to eat for jumping to woefully wrong conclusions again? if not, try some ketchup on it, it makes everything taste better.
@bill: As always, I read your message and wonder what the hell you’re talking about. I was talking about the legal outcome and didn’t speculate at all about what happened during the shooting.
Oh, but then you’ve decided that the “freaks” — what, you got beat up for calling them savages and spearchuckers, or whatever adorable non-racist phrase you used and now you’re taking it down a notch? — started rioting because they’re so much less intelligent than you that they get led by the media? Despite the fact that the media didn’t show up until after the riots started?
Reading you chiding me is like having Jenos call me stupid — a trip to Bizarroworld.
@wr: Perhaps they view the location of a memorial for the recently-deceased as an inappropriate spot for a voter registration drive.
@Nan: I think that location is the absolutely best place for a voter registration drive.
@Matt Bernius: well, of COURSE its from an anonymous source. The government, both state and federal, have made it clear what the desired outcome is… and any report that runs afoul of that goal will be met by the full weight of the law. Who would be willing to offer any report that backed the cops story with their name on it under those conditions?
Still, those reports would seem to be consistent with the (Non-LE) eyewitnesses who have come forward.
@Nan: Paul Welstone, anyone?
I had much more sympathy for Trayvon Martin in the George Zimmerman case because he appeared to be an innocent enough of teenager who took a short-cut based on the maps and facts of that story. – This case really bothers me because it appears that Michael Brown was on some sort of weekend long crime spree, and many find nothing wrong with that. Further, many feel that because Brown was a young African-American, that somehow a White police officer was just and determined to target him, which is also an absurd premise. If some White guy went on a crime spree and was shot by an African-American police officer, I wouldn’t see any racial bias in the case. On the other hand, it is disappointing that Brown could not just be shot in the leg and brought to trial and served many years in prison like he deserved here. But, that’s disappointing because he had proven some promise despite being enrolled in an alternative education program.
I just don’t see where a lot of racial bias existed in this case. The policeman only asked the kid to get out of the street because he was blocking traffic. He could have given a ticket or hassled him over this, but simply told him to get on the sidewalk, and then the kid attacked the officer, and the rest is history.
I’m disappointed that the protests could not have been held inside a church, instead the protests looked aimed at making fun of the police and provocation by holding hands up, and only worsening relations with the police which may now treat many African-Americans with less leeway when involved in minor offences, but maybe less extreme violence like beatings or shootings.
@LaMont: Do you really think that the residents of Ferguson will be better off in the long run without a police department or with a policy department that does nothing but take reports on crimes that have been committed and help people file insurance claims.
@superdestroyer: You’re asking someone from Albuquerque if he wants more laws reigning in the police? In case you missed it, we’re notorious here for an unbroken string of 40 or so police killings that the DA found justified. And which the city settled for about $5,000,000 a pop to avoid any trial.
@superdestroyer:
Whah?!? I haven’t the slightest idea how that train of thought came from what I wrote. It’s about accountability. I’ll try explaining it another way. Apparently, it has been proven to some extent that dashboard and worn cameras appears to curb police officer behavior. I’d like to think that it causes them to slow down and think about their best course of action knowing that everything is on camera and can be viewed by the public. Under these circumstances, they know that their “protections” will not ultimately immune them from bad practice. It’s a psychological affect that changes the behavior. What I am suggesting is that when these “protections” don’t hold up in the court of law concerning cases like these, where it appears that the police clearly overreacted, it should have the same psychological affect. When police officers in communities like these begin to understand that killing someone, rather they have good reason to do so or not, will be treated seriously without the cushion that they’re almost automatically immune from accountability because of policies and protections that shields them, their behavior should change.
@LaMont:
I think that biggest effect of police cameras (which any person should support) is that people (both police and those who interact with them) cannot lie. However, if every time the police interacts with a member of the public, the law enforcement official is risking not only his life but his home, savings, freedom, and children’s education, then the easiest step to take is to limit the interactions to as few as possible. And if the police become indifferent to crime as a method of reducing financial and legal risk, then the crime rate will go up?
Do you really want society to become a place where only honest people pay for things at a store and honest people are forced to hide in their homes because the biggest bullies and criminals know that the police will not bother them?
@Eric Florack:
No there was no broken eye socket.
You ought to try watching legitimate news sources…not just the ones that echo your bigoted world-view.
@C. Clavin: If you have a link that definitively says that, please provide it.
If, instead, you are once again talking out of your ass… I won’t be a bit surprised.
Considering there were no charges for the officers that ventilated the pickup truck of the newspaper delivery women and the surfer dude in California because they somehow looked like Officer Dorner, and there was no justice for Kelly Thomas who was brutally beaten, clubbed, and stunned with a Taser to death for the crime of being homeless, it’s unlikely, police officers will ever pay for their blatant lawlessness when it comes to their interactions with the public.
You know….because Officer Safety and all.
@al-Ameda:
And so that there may be more heads busted.
@Jack: Which, of course, is why only police should be trusted with guns. Never private citizens, just cops.
Let’s be totally pragmatic here. There is only one side that is likely to resort to violence if they are dissatisfied with the results. So let’s play it safe: give the cop a fair trial, then hang him. And hope like hell that will satisfy that side.
The other side won’t get violent, so we can ignore them.
Oh? Which “side” would that be?
And which “side” is that?
@Jenos Idanian #13: The bloods, the Crips, MS-13…none of those gangs has anything on our men and women in blue. Police are the largest, most organized, most well funded, most well equipped, unionized, politically connected gang in the United States. Cross them at your own peril.
@superdestroyer: Yes, SuperDeeDoopity — The only two possible choices here are a police force that has the freedom to gun down civillians whenever they want and no police force at all.
@Nan: “Perhaps they view the location of a memorial for the recently-deceased as an inappropriate spot for a voter registration drive.”
Would that be because they hold such reverence for the deceased — that is, when they’re not calling him a “drug thug”?
@An Interested Party: That would be the side that has been rioting so far: the side that says that the cop murdered Brown.
Is that too uncomfortable a truth for you, IP?
@Jenos Idanian #13: “There is only one side that is likely to resort to violence if they are dissatisfied with the results”
Would that be the side that aimed automatic weapons from the roofs of armored vehicles at peaceful protestors before shooting them with rubber bullets and blasting them with tear gas?
@Jenos Idanian #13: “Which, of course, is why only police should be trusted with guns. Never private citizens, just cops.”
Gosh, I wonder what little Jenos would say if those protestors had taken advantage of their second amendment rights to bear arms during the protests.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Exactly. Why would the police riot if Officer Wilson is found not guilty?
Would the police riot if Wilson is found guilty? Given that their actions – the shooting and uber-militarized response – caused the riot a few days ago, why would they riot a second time (that is, unless they needed more practice to get it right)?
@Eric Florack:
Best line of the day:
“Now, of course that’s not entered into evidence as yet. ”
LOL!
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Are you uncomfortable with the truth that the officer shot (fired 6 shots) and killed an unarmed man?
@al-Ameda: That’s a partial truth. Or are you arguing that there could never be any circumstances that would make that acceptable?
That would be a good exercise for you, if you (for once) felt like being intellectually honest. Under what circumstances would a cop be justified in shooting a person when that person has no ready, visible weapon?
@al-Ameda: 6’4″ 300 lb, unarmed man
@wr: Like this?
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/black-open-carry-activists-protest-police-brutality/?cat_orig=us
I don’t have a problem with that.
I suppose that there are no circumstances where deadly force is not justified, right? Whether it’s a private citizen like George Zimmerman, or a police officer like Wilson – if you have the gun and you feel threatened – use the gun, let the courts sort it out later.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Speaking of intellectual honesty: please show me where I said that there are no circumstances in which deadly force can be justified.
@al-Ameda: If the alternative is my own death, then yes.
As the saying goes, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Be prepared to be surprised. Here are just a few Links debunking Faux’s mendacious claim of Wilson’s orbital fracture (I know – hard to believe that Faux would stray from facts …):
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-contradict-fox-sources-claiming-darren-wilson-had-fractured-eye-socket/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731311/Police-officer-shot-Michael-Brown-did-NOT-suffer-broken-eye-socket-did-hospital-swollen-face-deadly-altercation.html
Even Little Green Footballs – and they also did some honest journalistic sleuthing:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43758_Breaking-_CNN_Reports__Ferguson_PD_Officer_Darren_Wilson_DID_NOT_Suffer_a_Fractured_Eye_Socket
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43759_Exposing_Gateway_Pundits_Dishonesty-_He_Altered_a_CT_Scan_Image_to_Trick_His_Readers
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/21/right-wing-media-caught-lie-darren-wilson-suffer-eye-fracture.html
@al-Ameda: See my Thursday, August 21, 2014 at 21:52, scenario options above. I believe I outlined when force would and would not be justified.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Another symptom of the problem is so many people framing the question like you do. “But… when can police shoot an unarmed person? When? It sounds like you’re saying never, which is crazy! Have you no sense of decency?!”
Yes, I agree there can be such circumstances sometimes, but why build our whole conception of right and wrong around those instances? Why treat the officer’s ability to shoot unarmed people for the sake of “officer safety” as paramount? Hard cases make bad law.
And by extension, the focus on hard cases makes for bad principles that in turn alter some folks’ perspective into seeing everything as a hard case. So even though this really wasn’t a hard case, you always, always give the benefit of the doubt to the cop and take it away completely from the murdered person.*
No, I don’t want a world where a cop can never claim self-defense. I want a world where every time a cop’s bullet kills someone, the case against that cop is a walk for the prosecution and a nail-biter for the defense. And really, their being a cop is almost irrelevant here — that’s more or less already the case when a non-cop’s bullet kills someone.
Remember the Oscar Pistorius case, now in court? How many people assumed good faith in his “I thought she was an intruder” defense? In the court of public opinion, he was not innocent until proven guilty, and with good reason. As it happens, South Africa doesn’t have juries, so Pistorius isn’t being judged by twelve. But I assume that you, Jenos, would agree that it’s still better than being carried by six?
(Okay, honestly — how many times have cops been “carried by six” after interaction with someone unarmed?)
* This is the nice spin on it, assuming the best-case scenario of your character.
@Eric Florack:
If that were true, I want the cop charged with reckless endangerment for every single person out on the street or in a building within gunshot of a bullet. However, given his aim, I highly doubt either of those things are true. Life is not an action movie, despite how many people think it works that way.
@Yolo Contendere:
Yeah, because justice and laws are all about what you want. He fired 6 shots from a 15 round magazine and all 6 found the target. Which is better than the cops in NYC firing wildly into crowds directly injuring 3 and wounding 6 others with fragments/ricochets.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/
@C. Clavin: Oh, please. You mean the Obama cheerleaders? sorry, no sale. As I suggested, Im willing to sit back and let the syetm do its job. YOU apparently are not because the result wont fit your dogma.
@Yolo Contendere:
Given his aim? His target was hit 6 times. If you question his accuracy, how many bullets you suppose he has IN that gun anyway?
@Eric Florack: When Clavin demands justice what he means is he wants Wilson convicted to confirm that America is waging war on black youth. He is less interested in the facts before the court than in whether a verdict strengthens his position or ideological interests.
@dmhlt: I’m not touching LGF — Charles lost his marbles, along with his relevance and any credibility a long, long time ago. But let’s take a look at those others you cited:
CNN’s Don Lemon, who doesn’t know what an “automatic” gun is: says an anonymous source “close to the investigation” denies it.
PoliticsUSA: repeats Don Lemon’s anonymous source.
Daily Mail Online: Again, parroting Lemon’s anonymous source.
So, you’re saying that this whole story is a lie because Don Lemon — who not only is too stupid to know what an “automatic” weapon is, but is so arrogant that he demands that his ignorance trump the long-standing technical and legal definitions — says he has an anonymous source that refutes it?
Jesus Christ. I’ve tried to be careful in saying that there are reports that the cop had a busted eye socket, and avoid saying anything conclusive, but here are a bunch of people who are willing to trust the proven arrogant and stupid Don Lemon when he says he has an anonymous source, JUST because he validates their opinion.
I’m willing to wait for the full details to come out before I say anything absolute on the matter. Too bad so many of you are so eager to pre-judge the situation based on incomplete facts.
@Jack: I would hope justice and laws are all about what we as a people collectively decide on. Reckless endangerment is on the books. It should be enforced when we see it violated.
I am well aware of the NY incident, and that is central to my point. His accuracy would seem to belie a serious injury to his eye, and that he was “about passing out”. Of course, we don’t yet know for certain how accurate. We don’t know actually know how many times he fired, only that he hit his target 6 times, so fired at least 6. Unless there’s a reputable report out that I haven’t seen yet, which is certainly possible.
It’s instructive to note the speed with which gun laws changed in California back in the 60s when black folks exercised their right to bear arms in public. Conservatives did not make much of a fuss about the rollback of gun rights in this case. I believe it was Ronald Reagan himself who signed the Mulford Act.
@Eric Florack: Jack seems to believe there were 15 shots in that gun. I have no idea, nor do I know how many he fired, only how many he hit. But that, again, is my point. Awfully good shot for his purported injuries. Here, let me hit you hard enough to break your eye socket and cause you to “about pass out”. Then let’s see how your aim is with a moving target.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Generally speaking, which ever option someone chooses to lead with — either the broken eye socket OR the unbroken eye socket — is based on which set of sources that they are choosing to validate their opinion.
Because at this point, its an issue of which anonymous source and news organizations are you going to put out there as “credible.”
Also, on the topic of credibility, let’s not forget that the individual who broke the Broken Eye Socket Story was Jim Hofts, who doesn’t have a particular sparking record either (see the dubious ways that the “illustrative” x-ray was published). And for the record it was Julian Cummings at CNN who first reported the anonymous source that the X-Ray showed no broken bones.
Further, on the sourcing, it’s clear that a number of the sites that first ran with the Broken Eye Socket Story, were repeating Hofts source as well (especially those who claimed that we have “seen the X-ray” or reproduced the “illustrative” x-ray).
With anonymous sources, it’s possible that we are dealing with a single individual behind each story who has talked with multiple outlets. I’ve yet to see any news outlet, on either side, claim multiple anonymous sources for either story.
Time will tell which sides sources are correct.
@ Florack
Let’s say the chief of police has a press conference Monday and shows the x-ray. How is “the full weight of the law” going to come down on him? Please be specific.
@Jenos Idanian #13: In a larger sense, all knowledge is provisional. But come on, you have to agree that there can be such a thing as a blindingly obvious miscarriage of justice, at least in principle.
Do you think we should hold off on “pre-judging” the recent murder of James Foley in Syria until we have “all the facts”? Because that’s where a lot of us see cases like this. (Maybe this case is a tad less cut-and-dry than that one, but I had to use a cut-and-dry example to make the point. In fact, I would argue that the Brown killing is cut-and-dry except for the fact that it’s “up for discussion” unlike other murders.)
Personally I can’t even imagine what sort of new facts would change matters. Maybe there’s some information the police have held back because it sounds too implausible — say, that Brown’s cigar box was packed with explosives, or that Brown had retractable claws like Wolverine from the X-Men.
For God’s sakes, Brown was 20 feet away! Just call Darren Wilson a bad apple (who totally doesn’t imply a systemic racism of police forces) and be done with it! The fact that conservatives choose to own people like this is high up on my disgust list.
@Yolo Contendere: Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.
I’m pretty sure Wilson’s intent was to engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person…namely, Mike Brown.
While I agree that police should be held accountable for where stray bullets strike, in this case no one was injured as a result.
However, I have seen in the past a new phenomena with which I completely disagree. That being a case where police bullets go astray, harm someone, and the intended target ends up charged with the death or injury to the 3rd party because their actions created the environment where police had to fire their weapons.
As a gun owner, 2nd amendment support, and firearm carrier, I know and practice the 4 rules of gun safety.
Police routinely break rule 2 & 4 and cause the death of innocents.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=48148
@Jenos Idanian #13:
And that says a lot more about you than LGF and Charles Johnson.
@dmhlt:
You should read LGF, sure there was a time when mutty/jenos liked what he wrote, but that’s quite a while ago, the man, and the site, has changed, the clear evidence being mutty’s’ comment above.
Read this post by Charles Johnson back in 2009:
Why I Parted Ways With The Right
And you’ll understand why mutty, etc doesn’t like him anymore.
(On the subject of people changing, not sure if you’re reading John Cole over at balloon-juice.com, but go read what he wrote back in 2002-2004 or so… His turning point being the Terri Schiavo case back in 2005.)
@al-Ameda: Meaning, in court.
You remember that place, right?
@Jack: correct.
@Yolo Contendere: Which is it?
Wilson was so battered that his use of a gun was reckless and endangered others because of his injuries
or
Wilson hit all 6 shots on Brown, therefore the injuries he sustained in the brief scuffle with Brown were minor?
From what I’ve heard, it was the officers right eye/side of his face that was swollen. If Wilson was right handed and sustained an injury to his right eye area, that would explain why most of the shots to Browns body were left of center mass.
A right handed shooter commonly closes his left eye and uses his right eye to align the gun sights. If the right eye has sustained damaged, even to the point that it is merely tearing up, proper alignment cannot be obtained and the officer would have kept his left eye open…causing the gunshots to hit the target left of center.
@Lenoxus:For God’s sakes, Brown was 20 feet away! Just call Darren Wilson a bad apple (who totally doesn’t imply a systemic racism of police forces) and be done with it! The fact that conservatives choose to own people like this is high up on my disgust list.
20 feet away? So what?
I’m not calling Wilson a bad apple just yet. I think it’s still up in the air. BUT so far the side that wants him convicted has shown to have put forth some… let’s call it misinformation so far to back up their case.
@bithead:
In court, as in where none of the police officers who shot people in Oakland between 2004 and 2008 ended up?
@Jack:
Do you have a source on that? We know that Brown was hit 6 times, including what may turn out to be a back-to-front graze on the arm.
But I haven’t seen any official report of the number of shots that were discharged. And at least the New York Times is reporting that LEO sources are saying Miller discharged his gun at Brown’s back and *missed*.
@Jack: You will notice in your definition that there is no mention of intent, nor of actual physical injury. Because these things don’t matter in reckless endangerment. And while you may be a no harm, no foul kind of guy, but there are an awful lot of us that would prefer not having our lives endangered, and have no problem with someone being prosecuted despite getting lucky and not actually injuring anyone.
Look, the only point I’m trying to make is that if it is true about the broken eye socket and “almost passing out”, then he had no business firing his gun in a populated area. You seem to care a great deal about gun safety. Would you feel comfortable making those shots after having just sustained those injuries? Would you have felt comfortable with the cop doing so, had you been just down the street?
Oh, I guess I did make another point. His accuracy was awfully good, if the injury reports are true. Better than Bruce Willis.
@Matt Bernius: There are also witnesses who say that at least one round was fired in the initial scuffle, while Brown and Wilson apparently fought over the gun while Wilson was still in his cruiser. And there are reports of a bullet hole in Wilson’s cruiser.
That indicates that Brown was trying to take Wilson’s gun. Doesn’t prove it, but indicates it.
Of course, this is as all unproven as Don Lemon’s saying that Wilson didn’t have a broken eye socket, so it’s all subject to change as things develop.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The entire issue of being able to cross and start stabbing with a knife before someone can draw, aim, and fire is well established within LEO circles (see Tueller Drill – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill).
And there’s no question about the potential danger of a knife.
However, one thing that makes this situation different from Tueller drills (beyond the fact that Brown turned out to be unarmed), is that a critical aspect of the Tueller drill is that the gun is starting in the holstered position. Note Mythbusters didn’t test this with a drawn gun.
Wilson’s gun was drawn and already on Brown when he began to fire. That fundamentally changes the situation.
This also gets back to the question of whether or not Brown was charging or standing still. Unfortunately, like other confrontations, its something we will probably never have definitive proof on.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
And as unproven as various claims that Wilson *did* break his eye socket.
Hence my continued suggestion to not build arguments on either case. But this is the internet so that won’t happen.
@Yolo Contendere: Look, the only point I’m trying to make is that if it is true about the broken eye socket and “almost passing out”, then he had no business firing his gun in a populated area. You seem to care a great deal about gun safety. Would you feel comfortable making those shots after having just sustained those injuries? Would you have felt comfortable with the cop doing so, had you been just down the street?
Your argument makes a bit of sense if one strips it of any context. How about if, say, Brown was charging Wilson at the time? How about if, after beating Wilson and unsuccessfully trying to take Wilson’s gun, Brown panics for a moment, runs away, then turns and charges back at Wilson to try again to get his gun? At that point, what should Wilson do?
Oh, I know. Aim his gun at his cruiser and empty it, so Brown will only get an unloaded gun. That’s a nice, peaceful solution.
@Eric Florack:
Yes, he was capable of firing 6 bullets into an unarmed man – that has already been stipulated and agreed to, correct?
@ PJ
There was also the charming case where Oakland PD blew away a fawn for no reason in full view of a bunch of little kids. They could not even git it a clean death, the poor creature lingered before dying.
@Jack:
The officer shot and missed at Brown while he was running away.
@PJ: Fine, you can trust the nutjob Charles Johnson. I won’t go to his site. But answer this: does he offer anything to the matter besides yet another repeating of Don Lemon’s claiming to have an anonymous source?
A bunch of people all repeating Lemon’s claim doesn’t make it any more credible.
@David M: The officer shot and missed at Brown while he was running away.
You say that with a great deal of certainty. Just what convinces you it’s a solid, established fact?
@Eric Florack:
You mean the place that this situation has not yet gone to, right?
Is this shooting in the courts now, charges have been filed?
@Jack:
Jesus Christ, I’m not trying to argue either of these things with you. Let me lay it out point by point.
1 – Some here are claiming serious injury to the cop.
2 – I am not one of those people.
3 – I am pointing out that IF THE REPORTS OF THE INJURIES ARE ACCURATE, then the cop behaved recklessly, and should be charged as such. This is independent of whether he was justified in shooting and killing an unarmed person.
4 – I am further pointing out that his accuracy in hitting his moving target would indicate THE REPORTS OF THE INJURIES ARE EXAGGERATED, IF NOT MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.
5 – Before you jump on it, I AM NOT SAYING the injuries are made up, only that we currently have no evidence of them.
6 – I really, really hate people who try to have things both ways, which is why I typically only jump in when things like this come up.
@anjin-san: You’re absolutely right, Annie. Because you have a mad-on for the Oakland police, that makes this Missouri cop absolutely guilty.
Oh, I’m sorry. You didn’t actually say that. As usual, you throw up a whole bunch of BS that strongly infers an opinion, but you never actually say anything of substance, and insult those who draw the conclusions you sketch out for them.
So, instead, I’ll simply note that we’re dealing with one particular case here, a good thousand miles away from Oakland. Which brings up the question of why you want to bring up Oakland. I won’t make the assumption that you think that there are parallels to be drawn, or that instances of alleged police wrongdoing in Oakland are in any way indicative of police wrongdoing in this particular incident. I’ll just say that you’re once again demonstrating a case of Blogging Tourette’s, where you just spout out something that might or might not be relevant, then wait for others to offer the substance that you never do.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
IRONY OVERLOAD.
Seriously?!
You’re attacking an anonymous sourcing because it contradicts your personal assumption, which is based on exactly the same sort of *sourcing* (i.e. anonymous) and the same type of circulation (i.e. relying on other people’s reporting).
And your issue is that the opposite side “doesn’t have more to offer”, when all they have to offer is exactly the same thing your side is offering?!
@ Jenos
Where did I say the officer in question is guilty? Please be specific. Failing that, stop making things up.
@Yolo Contendere: I respect your trying to bring down the tone here, and will try to do the same.
But I’ll repeat my challenge of your point 3: if Brown was charging Wilson, then Wilson’s firing at Brown is justified. The alternative would be to let Brown take Wilson’s gun.
@anjin-san: I already noted that, when I noticed that — as usual for you — you didn’t actually say a damned thing of substance.
You need a new game, annie. That one is getting way, way too predictable.
@Jenos Idanian #13: If Brown was charging him, I think that would be a defense against reckless endangerment.
If he was indeed “almost passing out” though, I would have thought Brown would have gotten close enough to get some gun powder residue on him. Assuming he did charge the cop, of course.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Some amount of misinformation is inevitable from both sides. Perhaps there’s even more of it on my side of the issue. For every situation like this, there will be misinformation.
The thing is, that’s irrelevant.
You are “Just Asking Questions” in a clearly pro-Wilson, anti-Brown stance, and the center of your argument seems to be the misinformation (as you call it) from the other side. By contrast, although it’s true that the cop’s possible-misinformation is brought up repeatedly, it’s not the core of he case against Wilson. The core of the case against Wilson is that he shot an unarmed man. On its own, that’s damning. In the larger context and history, it’s a no-brainer case against him. You can try to shift the argument the other way, but you need lots of evidence to do so, not just fear-uncertainy-doubt.
After the Columbine shooting, false claims were made about the killers, like that they’d asked people whether they were Christian and shot if the answer was yes. False claims! Misinformation! Does it change your opinion of the shooters’ guilt even a smidgen?
Again, there are times we should “wait for the whole story” and times we don’t have to. In a way, one of the issues the country is debating (by proxy) is whether cop-shoots-unarmed-person belongs in the former category or the latter.
@Matt Bernius: Please read up the thread. I have NEVER said that, definitively, Wilson had a broken eye socket. However, Cliffy stated, at 9:20:
And the links so far provided to back up Cliffy’s absolute statement ALL come from CNN’s Don Lemon, citing an anonymous source.
Personally, I believe that Brown hit Wilson in the head very hard, at least once. Whether it broke the bone or not is still unknown to the general public, but Wilson was taken to the hospital.
But Cliffy is the one saying the absolute, and others are rushing to offer inconclusive evidence to defend his declaration.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So you’ll agree that at this point that there is currently no credible evidence (i.e on record sources or medical documents) to support any claim as to the extent of damage to Officer Wilson’s face or whether or not he was rendered near unconscious in the initial attack.
So you are correct in saying that there is no credible evidence to suggest that the eye wasn’t broken. Nor is there credible evidence to suggest it was.
Last I check the only things we know for sure (i.e. officially released information) is that Wilson’s face was hurt in the altercation and he was eventually taken to the hospital for an examination.
@Yolo Contendere: If it were me or him, I would definitely defend myself until the threat stopped. Again, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
@Lenoxus: You are “Just Asking Questions” in a clearly pro-Wilson, anti-Brown stance, and the center of your argument seems to be the misinformation (as you call it) from the other side.
I’ll own that. I’m leaning towards the shooting being justified, but I’m not closing out the argument. There are way, way too many facts that have not been verified to make a conclusion at this point.
What I’m saying is that I’m prejudiced because the most inflammatory aspects of the initial reports have been proven false (Brown was shot in the back while fleeing), and I’m feeling a tad skeptical towards more eyewitness accounts. I’m more of a believer in physical evidence.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Thank you. I appreciate that.
I’m only disagreeing with your premise, not your conclusion. At this point we’re all just guessing as to how things played out, though some scenarios are more likely than others. I would hope though that there would me more agreement in a particular conclusion once the premise is established. Pollyanna-ish, I know.
@Jack: And if you hit and killed the two kids playing hopscotch down the street? Is it all right that they’re carried by six?
@Matt Bernius: So you’ll agree that at this point that there is currently no credible evidence (i.e on record sources or medical documents) to support any claim as to the extent of damage to Officer Wilson’s face or whether or not he was rendered near unconscious in the initial attack.
Oh, absolutely I agree with that. Just like I also accept that there is just as credible evidence that Wilson’s eye socket wasn’t broken — the joy of anonymous sources.
I also expect that the medical records might not be so forthcoming, as the Obama Justice Department has “asked” the police to not release more things that might be “inflammatory.”
Cliffy, you wanna walk back your absolute declaration that “No there was no broken eye socket?“
@David M: I have not read that particular account. But if true, the officer still hit 6 out of 7 or 8, which is still much higher than the 1 out of 7 shots hitting a target that is pretty standard for police shootings.
@Yolo Contendere: I’m really trying not to use any premises. I’m mainly concerned about the rush to judgment that has already caused violence, injuries, arrests, and property damage.
And I’ll also cop to letting a couple of regulars here push my buttons with their standard tricks. I’ve gotten pretty good at identifying their standard dishonest tactics, but am still working on good ways of dealing with them.
@Yolo Contendere: Again, I know to look not simply at my target but what is behind it. I would wait until the threat is closer to increase my odds of hitting only my target. That’s also why I use hollow points…to reduce over penetration and the chance of a bullet going through a target and continuing to damage something else down range.
Trust me. I know for a fact that non police are held to a much higher standard than police in defensive shootings. I agree that the standards should be the same across the board. Self defense is self defense.
@ Jenos
So let’s see. You whine hard with a vengeance when you feel you are being misquoted, but you feel free to make up positions for me because you have invented a little rule that says it’s ok to do so.
Are you off for a game of marbles when you get done here? Or is it double dutch?
@ Jenos
BTW, I understand that you are in one of your little tizzies here. Some guys get worked up over beautiful women. Some over money, some over sports.
Black kids shot dead in the street seems to be something that really butters your muffin. We get it.
@anjin-san: I retracted my grave sin of accusing you of offering an opinion before you started whining about it, annie. So I don’t know just what you’re trying to do here.
Actually, on second thought, I do. You’re trying to change the subject and derail actual discussion of the topic, and try to bait me into another pointless argument where you take enormous pride in never actually saying anything of substance. Been there, done that, donated the T-shirt to charity, had it rejected, threw it away.
The pot meets the kettle!
Say, what happened to your pledge to ignore me? I urge you to go back to that plan.
BTW, I was discussing the topic, right up to when you started putting words in my mouth. You may now return to your rebroadcasting of right wing talking points.
@Jack: What you’re saying sounds eminently reasonable, and I agree non police are held to a much higher standard, though it sure seems like both standards are dropping these days. I just have a hard time reconciling a person sustaining serious injury to their visual and cognitive faculties and still have such control in their tactile response. Or frankly even attempting that response, without taking the precautions you note.
The cop should be concerned about two things, not endangering others, and keeping himself safe. Waiting, as you suggest, would help him accomplish both. Not waiting could prevent him from accomplishing both. Even if all the cop cares about is personal safety, one would hope that would initiate the necessary care. Unfortunately, it seems more and more personal safety is the only concern, and the response instead is bigger and bigger weapons with little to no concern of public safety.
@OzarkHillbilly: “And yet, you have drawn a conclusion. The facts in evidence suggest you are an idiot.”
We know more facts, actually. We know that the Ferguson PD released an edited surveillance tape from the store. We know that the Ferguson PD has gotten away with perjury before, even when nailed in court on it, with DA’s and judges as co-conspirators. We know that the police story is that there was a struggle, but that the police have released no medical evidence supporting that at all (BTW, the X-rays were a fake posted by the liar Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit).
We know that in every single aspect of this case that the Ferguson PD has acted badly, dishonestly and illegally.
@Yolo Contendere:
Hmm. Mob rule, huh?
Or as I think it was franklin used to put it, three wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
Worth reading: There isn’t really any dispute over the facts surrounding the shooting
I’m not sure why some people are so eager to justify another shooting of an unarmed black man.
What puzzles me is how little we do know. Perhaps some of the lawyers here can tell me why certain information hasn’t been released:
1) How many shots were fired? Surely that would have been established simply (how many bullets left in the clip) and nearly immediately.
2) The extent of the officer’s injuries? We know he went to the hospital. All this anonymous reporting (and rampant speculation) about how bad they were is just BS though, and why is it such a secret?
3) Is there gunshot residue on the clothes or not? While I know it’s not Hollywood, it’s also not something that takes weeks to test either, especially when this case should have priority because of the riots and follow on incidents.
4) Tox reports? Ditto for testing time.
I suspect it’s something to do with not prejudicing the public since it might come to trial (not holding my breath, as others have pointed out the track record of cops even being charged is pathetic), but come on. This is a national incident, everyone is already being swamped with information and misinformation that makes the preconception problem for a trial even worse, there are riots and protests going on…I’m not saying rush to judgement, but it feels very odd to me that several basic facts aren’t even being published, which only adds to the furious arguments taking place (here and elsewhere) since no one even agrees on basic facts.
Other questions that I’m puzzled by (not relevant to the legal case against the officer, but that bug me) :
1) Has it been definitively established if Michael Brown was the guy robbing the store or not? It’s irrelevant to the shooting (since the officer wasn’t aware of it), but I’m again curious that hasn’t been resolved one way or the other. You can’t see his face well in the store video, but surely the clothes, an eyewitness observation from the guy being shoved in the video, was a box of cigars found with the body, etc, should be able to tell us something.
2) Why was the officer alone? In the other St Louis shooting last week two cops were involved. They were responding to a dangerous situation, but even assuming Brown initiated the attack (still a big assumption) why did the officer even get out of the car instead of calling for backup?
3) Is it just me, or is the training for cops (at least in St. Louis) appallingly bad? Why is deadly force a first resort instead of last? Look at that other kid getting shot–two cops show up and immediately pull guns, not a taser. I believe the kid drew a knife (hard to tell but that’s what I think I see), but that was AFTER the cops had their guns out. No attempt to really talk to him, just a demand to surrender, immediate resort to threatening with lethal weapons, no attempt to use non-lethal methods (even though in the one case they had the suspect outnumbered, and in the other the cop, at best according to his own defenders, got out of his vehicle while injured to pursue someone who had attacked him without backup, and who was not an immediate threat–ie brandishing a gun or other obvious I’m about to kill someone activity–to anyone else in the area!). Wtf?
@Matt Bernius: “it turns out that Williams sustained any significant injuries during the attack (note CNN is reporting that their sources say *no* facial fractures but the WaPo is now saying their sources say he did) it’s going to be very hard to legally question his actions. Harder to convince a jury (See Zimmerman).”
Note that the X-rays were fake, and that the reporting we’ve gotten is that ‘sources say’. So far, the Ferguson PD has not released anything, even though it’d make them look better.
Apparently Doug thinks this is about Mike Brown’s murder.
@Eric Florack: “To the point of the cops injury, the reports I’ve seen say a broken eye socket among other things. The reports further suggest the cop was about passing out.”
The X-Ray was faked, and cell phone videos show the officer walking around for a while, like nothing had happened. And those reports you’ve seen are all ‘sources say….’, but the Ferguson PD has extreme motive to put out any solid evidence they have of the officer’s injuries.
@Nan: “Perhaps they view the location of a memorial for the recently-deceased as an inappropriate spot for a voter registration drive.”
If there’s an ‘appropriate’ spot for registering black voters, in the eyes of the right, I’ve never heard of it.
@Eric Florack: Um, no. Representational government. Why do you hate democracy?
@Eric Florack: “well, of COURSE its from an anonymous source. The government, both state and federal, have made it clear what the desired outcome is… and any report that runs afoul of that goal will be met by the full weight of the law. ”
Liar. The ‘full weight of the law’ has only been used by the Ferguson PD.
@PAUL HOOSON: “This case really bothers me because it appears that Michael Brown was on some sort of weekend long crime spree, and many find nothing wrong with that. ”
You must have access to some evidence that we don’t, and that even the Ferguson PD doesn’t have.
@PAUL HOOSON: “I’m disappointed that the protests could not have been held inside a church, instead the protests looked aimed at making fun of the police and provocation by holding hands up, and only worsening relations with the police which may now treat many African-Americans with less leeway when involved in minor offences, but maybe less extreme violence like beatings or shootings.”
Are you trying to say something here?
@superdestroyer: “However, if every time the police interacts with a member of the public, the law enforcement official is risking not only his life but his home, savings, freedom, and children’s education, then the easiest step to take is to limit the interactions to as few as possible. And if the police become indifferent to crime as a method of reducing financial and legal risk, then the crime rate will go up?”
Every time I interact with somebody, the same applies. What’s your point?
@Jenos Idanian #13: “If you have a link that definitively says that, please provide it.
If, instead, you are once again talking out of your ass… I won’t be a bit surprised.”
Why don’t you post your evidence. Note that there has been no actual evidence posted to support your theory, despite numerous parties having very strong motivation.
@Jenos Idanian #13: “There is only one side that is likely to resort to violence if they are dissatisfied with the results.”
Have you actually not noticed the police actions recently?
@wr: “Gosh, I wonder what little Jenos would say if those protestors had taken advantage of their second amendment rights to bear arms during the protests.”
[MOD: That stepped over the line. Please refrain from making lewd/sexual statements about other commenters. Everyone, lets take this down a notch.]
@Matt Bernius: “Generally speaking, which ever option someone chooses to lead with — either the broken eye socket OR the unbroken eye socket — is based on which set of sources that they are choosing to validate their opinion.
Because at this point, its an issue of which anonymous source and news organizations are you going to put out there as “credible.””
I’m going to keep on saying it – the Ferguson PD and Williams have extremely strong motives to put out any evidence of his injuries, because those support his story.
That evidence would have been sourced, and all MSM outlets would have been discussing it.
So where is it? Non ‘sources’, but the actual signed medical reports, photos and videos?
@David M: Worth reading: There isn’t really any dispute over the facts surrounding the shooting
Read it — apparently more closely than you did.
Brown, a legal adult, committed strong-arm robbery and assault and battery, two felonies there. I’d consider committing two felonies “poor decisions.”
Brown was walking down the middle of the street, and when told by a cop to get out of the street, refused. That is someone looking for a confrontation.
Remember, this is someone who thinks the cop is wrong, and is declaring that these are facts that can not be disputed. Brown committed a strong-arm robbery AND and assault and battery (although they might be considered one criminal act), then refused a cop’s order to get out of the middle of the street.
This Brown defender is not doing his side any favors.
@anjin-san: “How is “the full weight of the law” going to come down on him? Please be specific.”
‘Holder will sent black helicopters and disappear him, just as he did the Bundys’
I’ll wager a nice cold beer that whatever he says will be no more reasonable.
@Barry: I’m going to keep on saying it – the Ferguson PD and Williams have extremely strong motives to put out any evidence of his injuries, because those support his story.
And I’ll repeat it: the Ferguson PD has not shown itself as overly competent, AND the Obama Justice Department has told them to not release things that might be “inflammatory.”
@Jack: “Again, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.”
Do you actually believe that we give a f*ck about that statement, or think that you’re macho or wise for repeating it?
@Jenos Idanian #13: “And I’ll repeat it: the Ferguson PD has not shown itself as overly competent, AND the Obama Justice Department has told them to not release things that might be “inflammatory.””
First, this is not ‘not overly competent’ but dumbf*ck stupid. Second, the Ferguson PD gives a f*ck about what the DoJ says, if they have good evidence? In terms of not being inflammatory, they’ve demonstrated that they don’t care at all.
That’s rather amusing coming from someone who has had a dubious relationship with the truth…
@Jenos Idanian #13: “1. Several minutes before encountering Officer Wilson, Michael Brown stole a $50 box of cigars from a nearby convenience store, a crime, yes, but a crime that many teenagers commit. In the process, Brown was caught by the shopkeeper and pushed the shopkeeper out of his way. Again, a poor decision by Brown, but hardly something that makes him stand out as a uniquely horrible teenager. Brown was neither armed nor ever alleged to have been armed during this theft.”
Proof, please?
@Barry: You want proof? Ask David M. He linked to that account. I just went and actually read what David M. was asserting that was do damned valuable.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Somehow you missed this line in the article:
You did not dispute facts, you disputed the interpretation of them.
So, thanks for proving me and the author of the article correct.
@David M: So, my analysis of the article is “interpretation,” but the author’s minimizing the actions are “indisputable?”
I already linked to one source giving Missouri’s definition of 2nd degree robbery, a Class B felony. The author’s description meets that definition perfectly. Here, I’ll give it again:
And, back to the article you cited:
Robbery using force.
Again, David, your own source “worth reading.”
@David M:
Great find. Good and bad for “both” sides. It’s almost too fair and too reasonable.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You know, all your general nonsense is a little more understandable now that it’s painfully obvious you literally do not understand what facts are. Literally, not figuratively. You literally don’t understand what facts are.
So your habit of repeating right wing lies may actually just be you not understanding the issues well enough to know what’s going on. Or maybe it’s just servile obedience once you’re told what to say. Either way, you certainly aren’t willing to question your received talking points, no matter how ridiculous they are.
@superdestroyer:
Really? Is that all you’ve got? Fearing interaction is not enough of a reason to allow this to continue to happen. Police officers jobs are dangerous by nature. It takes heart and a special skill-set to be a great officer. My brother, who is a Detroit police officer, deals with foolishness on a daily basis. Yet he is good enough at his job to know how and when to de-escalate hot situations without having to take his gun out the holster (this of course pertain to incidences where he did not have to worry about the offender having a gun – much like Mike Brown, who did not have a gun). However, where police incompetence prevail, bigotry can seep in. There should be NO excuse/protections for that whatsoever…
The issue here is not Michael Brown. The issue is the fact that the population of a American City did not trust their police Department, and there are good reasons for them not to. The idea that Michael Brown was a monster because he was a large Black Man is what Blacks hate most about this issue.
The Michael Brown Shooting Incident Report Is Ridiculous
The ACLU of Missouri filed a lawsuit for the incident reports of the Mike Brown shooting. Click on the link to see what it got.
Pathetic.
Read the incident “reports”, then ask yourself why there isn’t more rioting instead of less. Why anyone would believe that the cop would ever be convicted.
@PJ: Maybe they see they’re being manipulated by the usual hucksters for political purposes. As an indication of this consider USELESS TOADY…
@bithead:
And here are some of the racist comments made by the people donating to Wilson. You would fit right in with them, wouldn’t you?
And some more racists donating to Wilson.
@Matt Bernius: Matt, he said the “known facts”. He was not talking about the law. The law, as it stands, is a joke. Kill, and you are innocent (trayvon martin). Kill as a cop, and you can’t even be charged.
Back in my day, cops weren’t afraid to go at it with dirt balls. I remember 2 cops knocking on a door and some whacked out dude coming out and jumping all over them. Neither went for their guns, they grabbed their billy clubs and beat the wholly hell out of that sumb!tch. Another time some whacko at Barnes hospital was threatening security guards with his IV pole. An STL cop came in, walked up, and laid.him.out. Nowadays, they have stun guns, tasers, pepper spray, and they go for the gun first.
Face it. Cops are pvssies these days. And our laws say “That’s the way we want it.”
@Andre Kenji:
We can spend all day arguing about the particulars of the Brown shooting, but this, as well as police militarization, are the heart of the larger issue.
@PJ: And here are some of the racist comments made by the people donating to Wilson. You would fit right in with them, wouldn’t you?
Ain’t you the good little Lizardoid, PJ? Charles lives by the “guilt by association” game, and he avoids it by associating with no one. He’s made himself his own little island, connected to no one and nothing, and demands that everyone else do the same.
But sure, there might be some racist statements on that page. So what? Does that mean that the whole cause is racist? Do you have any proof that all of those statements are sincere, and not just Mobys?
The Ferguson protests have drawn the communist front group International ANSWER, the New Black Panther Party, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. So may I assume that you agree with those groups, their statements, their beliefs, and their past actions?
BTW, your hero Charles is, last I heard, trying to pick a feud with Glenn Greenwald, and once mistook the Tennessee state flag for a Neo-Nazi flag. I suppose that you’re on Charles’ side for those, too, right?
That’s the game you want to play, PJ. You want to impose those standards on others, then you get to be held to them, too.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Good god do some people never leave the playground?
@Andre Kenji: The issue here is not Michael Brown. The issue is the fact that the population of a American City did not trust their police Department, and there are good reasons for them not to. The idea that Michael Brown was a monster because he was a large Black Man is what Blacks hate most about this issue.
No, there are two issues. One is the shooting of Brown, and the other is the state of the Ferguson police department. The two may or may not be related. And our justice system demands that Wilson be judged strictly on the facts of the shooting only.
This is apparently news to Governor Nixon (Democrat), who has declared that Wilson must be “vigorously prosecuted” for the shooting, before the investigation has been completed and the facts determined. Considering that before being governor, he spent 16 years as Missouri’s Attorney General, he ought to know the law a little better.
@Davebo: Good god do some people never leave the playground?
“Lizardoids” are what the LGF sycophants call themselves. Much like the readers of Ace of Spades proudly call themselves “Morons.” Hell, a quick Googling of the term shows that one of Johnson’s Twitter handles is “Lizardoid,” and it’s also his YouTube name.
I actually read LGF years ago, before Charles completely lost his marbles, turned on all those who’d supported him, and spent countless hours trying to rewrite his history.
I admit I occasionally engage in juvenile name-calling here. This wasn’t one of those times.
@OneWorld321: why so logical in here!?
@wr: so an election outcome based on a potentially “just” killing is what? who get’s beat up online anyway, that’s kinda lame- especially when you’re in a basically liberal blog contradicting idiocy. freaks, savages, idiots…it’s all the same- do you have some sort of key word you prefer for those people? you think they would have turned up the violence if the media didn’t show (along with the usual race-baiting blowhards who need not be named)
and again, what will those who caused all this damage and such do if it appears that brown was the aggressor and the shooting was “just”? will they admit fault or anything of the sort? and why do you feel you need to defend people who live in the same country and have the same rights to succeed or fail?
@Jenos Idanian #13: the “law” doesn’t seem to matter that much to those who seek vengeance.
What gets me is that some people are taking the word of the police department as being completely the truth… The same police department that did this and worse………..
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html
@PJ: ah,so, what we saw with Obama, and still see today still goes. Anyone who dares question the black guy is racist.
That crtuch you’re using is getting a mite old, don’t ya think?
@ Florack
No, you are a racist. People who “question the black guy” are just asking questions. You should try it sometime instead of letting people tell you what you think.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Oh,I’m quite sure Nixon does know the law better than that.
Thing is, in his reelection is nowhere near assured. He needs both the political positioning among his liberal base, and funding from the NATIONAL Democrats to have a hope in hell of winning reelection…. something, which, if he, say, called for calm and told folks they should let the system do its job, he would never get.
In short, Nixon is a dispicable creep, out to protect his own interests… and if that at the expense of a cop, so be it.
@anjin-san: Oh, but you see, I AM asking questions. Thus, your accusation, again. Cutem but baseless. And YOU of all the people on the planet, will not be directing my thinking.
@bithead:
When have I ever said that?
A number of the people donating to Wilson through gofundme made racist comments that were visible to anyone up and until gofundme removed possibility to make comments. Do you deny that?
Also, you’re a racist.
@Mutty:
For someone who doesn’t want to read anything posted by him, you sure have opinions about him….
Yes, it’s obvious that people donate $100 to Wilson just to be able to write insincere racist comments!
@Yolo Contendere: Goes with the territory. You’re a good shot, or you don’t make it for the most part.
@al-Ameda: yes, that place.
As I’ve said, I’m willing to sit back and watch.
Seems clear, some folks aren’t. Mostly, those who or on the left.
And you know, it it strikes me that the people who have the biggest problems with this are the ones seeking to give the government more power, and who think government can solve any issue, if we can just get the power to said government and tinker with the laws enough..
Do such people not understand the inherent conflicts in giving government more power, and throttling the police, who are the first level enforcers of that law and that power?
@Eric Florack: Not if we want the government to throttle the police.
But really, no one generically believes in “more government”, so there’s no serious contradiction. Wanting a better social safety net doesn’t somehow mean we have to call Constitutional rights a suicide pact, give cops free reign and military surplus, and label the idea that they should answer to the people “mob rule”. (Under that logic, rejecting a particular religion would make someone ipso facto an atheist.) And it especially doesn’t mean we can’t think there are some racial double standards here.
Besides all that, “the people who have the biggest problems with this” are probably libertarians, not liberals (although they are sometimes in denial about racism as a factor).
@Lenoxus: They don’t?
You’re kidding, right?
And by the way… I’m libertarian, myself.
No@Eric Florack: Okay, I should have looked at your other comments, my bad. The phrase “throttling the police” made me assume you were against doing so.
Anyway, yes, although there are people in favor or “less government”, no one generically favors “more government”. That’s practically nonsensical, because “more government” can take so many different forms: giving more money to the military or to the CDC or to Social Security, making laws against marijuana or speeding or guns, taxing X or taking Y.
There is absolutely no one in politics who says “As long as the government makes a bunch of new laws and funds lots of department, and gets bigger all around, then I approve. The details don’t matter.” Even the totally “bought” politicians (which might be all of them) don’t think that way, they just wield their power in the direction their lobbyists want.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
*boggle*
@rudderpedals: Much like the readers of Ace of Spades proudly call themselves “Morons.”
*boggle*
Yes, Morons. With, I believe, a Capital M.
@Yolo Contendere: On the other hand if you were killed by a cop, what store would you want looted in your name?
@Lenoxus:
when I complain about bigger government Im not talking about expenditure and powers directly within the ConstitutionThere is absolutely no one in politics who says “As long as the government makes a bunch of new laws and funds lots of department, and gets bigger all around, then I approve. The details don’t matter.”
Of course they dont SAY that.theyd never be elected. But that has been the result of the left since Wilson. actual results? who needs them? we just have to look like we care, like we’re “doing something”, so we can claim the other guys dont, and so get re-elected..
@Jenos Idanian #13: You didn’t have to go through the trouble of finding the link and posting it but I appreciate that you did and I read the piece and its comments; Thank you.
@rudderpedals: You’re welcome. The Moron Horde are an… interesting group. Some very intelligent people there.
If you wanna really entertain yourself, do a search on Ace’s site for anything entitled “moron lifestyle.” Those are some fun things.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Yes, when I get tired of plunging needles into my eyes and distance swimming through raw sewage and drinking Clorox, I will definitely search for fun by reading the lifestyles suggestions at “Ace’s site.” Good times.
Tell me, do they spend a lot of time proving to each other that their favorite rock songs are actually conservative, or is that an intellectual activity reserved to their brainier brothers at the NR?
@wr: You wouldn’t last ten minutes in an Ace comments thread, twerp.
On the other hand, you’re prime lizardoid material — you’re stupid and knee-jerk leftist enough. The only thing that might be a challenge is kissing up to Charles enough…
Hmmm. I went to Ace of Spades and learned that contemporary science fiction sucks because of liberals! Bob Heinlein was having none of that nonsense back in the day, no siree bob.
Ya lean something new every day.
Another chestnut from Ace of Spades
Was that before or after he snapped back a briefing officer who warned him that Bin Laden was determined to attack us?
@Jenos Idanian #13: “You wouldn’t last ten minutes in an Ace comments thread, twerp.”
I wouldn’t waste ten seconds of my life there. Or t LGF. I read this blog because the writers are good and the commenters are smart. In fact, that’s why I get so annoyed at the complete worthlessness of the trolls — they bring the standards of places like “Ace’s site” to otherwise interesting conversations.
But you go along and talk about how Robert Heinlein is not only the greatest writer in the English language, but a keen guide to women. I’m sure you’ll fit right in.
@ wr
After spending a few minutes with “Ace”, I know understand why Jenos thinks his prattle is clever…
@ Jenos
Says the man who’s lips found a blissful home on Jim Treacher’s ass…
You mean like the people Reagan essentially celebrated after they murdered civil rights workers?
Realistically, probably a small riot followed by continued resignation from Black America that their lives just don’t mean as much as white lives.
I find it interesting that apparently some conservatives here do not want to go anywhere near the subject of when (or when not) police use of deadly force is appropriate. Why is that the case?
@al-Ameda: I agree with you. i don’t know the why nor if the same reasoning is behind the failure of some of the same to recommend that the folks in that neighborhood arm themselves to protect against the police violence.