© Josh Sager – November 2014
Yesterday, a Missouri grand jury refused to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for his shooting of Michael Brown in August. This represents the probable end to the extremely controversial legal situation, but is likely only the start of a much longer social/political movement.
This decision may be infuriating, but it isn’t a surprise to anybody who has been paying attention to the situation. The deck appears to have been stacked from the start and everything was done to ensure that there were no charges.
To begin with, the entire grand jury process was unnecessary because the District Attorney’s office could have simply brought charges against the officer. The choice of using a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict was a political ploy to outsource the choice not to indict to a secret and unaccountable group (if the DA simply refused to prosecute, they would have had to shoulder the full outrage of the public).
The grand jury was composed of nine white jurors and three black jurors—this isn’t a representative sample of the Ferguson population, which is nearly 70% black. The composition of a jury is very important and the skewed composition of this jury likely had a strong effect on the refusal to indict. After they passed the responsibility to this grand jury, the District Attorney’s Office made sure that the jury was likely to reject charges.
They gave the grand jury presentation to a prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, who has a history of pro-police bias and who once intentionally biased a case in favor of two police officers who had fired 21 shots into a car with two unarmed suspects. Despite his history of bias, and the 70,000 person petition demanding his replacement with a special prosecutor, Missouri officials still saw fit to retain him as the prosecutor of this case.
In an extremely unusual move (at least, if the prosecutor actually want the grand jury to issue an indictment), Robert McCulloch refused to specify charges, giving the grand jury no direction as to what they should indict for. As far as we can tell, he essentially threw a bunch of raw information at the jury without actually leading them to a conclusion. This is, to say the least, not how a competent prosecutor gets an indictment.
As more information is revealed in coming weeks, we will get a better view of what else McCulloch did in the grand jury to sandbag the case.
In short, all available evidence shows that the prosecutors involved in this process were either unspeakably incompetent (in 2010, only 11 of the 162,000 grand juries across the nation refused to indict) or they intentionally threw the case—either explanation should result in their firing and the DOJ bringing this case to the federal level.
The issue of police violence, particularly against minorities, is a major problem in the United States today. Every year, hundreds of police shootings occur, many of which turn out to be on unarmed individuals. Instead of talking people down or rationally assessing situations (ex. not shooting people who pose no immediate threat), American police officers have, all too often, used extreme and lethal force as the first option.
Unfortunately, the American public has let most of these police officers skate free and the message has been set that a police officer is incredibly unlikely to face charges if they kill somebody without a good reason—the recent decision in Ferguson is simply the most recent example of such failures in accountability.
The harm caused by police violence isn’t equally distributed, and is focused intensely on the poor and racial minorities. Police living in rich areas know that they cannot get away with shooting first and never really caring about questions later, while police in poor areas know that their employers (the people) are too powerless to ensure that infractions by the police are punished. To put the magnitude of the racial aspect of this problem of police violence into perspective, you just need to know one thing: Black male youths are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white male youths.
In a ghoulish bit of symmetry, the day before the Ferguson grand jury decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the Cleveland police created the next tragedy in this long string of senseless deaths when they shot a 12 year old black child for carrying a BB gun. They were told by the dispatcher that the gun was probably fake and witnesses assert that the child never pointed the gun at them.
Tragedies like these serve to keep the issue of police violence fresh in the public’s mind and I predict that we will see a lot of conflict in the coming months. Until the constant stream of dead innocents killed by the people tasked with protecting society stops, this will remain a life-or-death issue for large portions of our population.
Reblogged this on MrMilitantNegro™.
It is difficult to ‘Like’ this. I do so only to tell you how very much I appreciate you clear eyed assessment of the situation and the on-going issues in this tragic nation of ours.
This should not surprise anyone. We need to dispel the myth that the US is a “peace-loving” non violent nation. Everything in our history and foreign affairs points to the opposite conclusion. What is amazing to me is the power of myth in the fact of evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Sager, could you please enlighten us as to the extent of your law enforcement training and experience? Have you ever had to deal with a violent criminal? Have you ever sat on a jury?
Do you deny that there is actual video proof of Michael Brown violently shoving a convenience store clerk shortly before the shooting which may provide some indication of his character and or mental state at the time?
Do you realize the City of Ferguson, MO is only one of 90 municipalities in St. Louis County? Do you realize that the current population of St. Louis County is approximately 1,001,444? Do you realize that the population of St. Louis County is 68% white and only 23.7% black which renders your 70,000 person petition and your opinion of the diversity of the grand jury statistically insignificant?
Do you realize that the grand jury consisted of 12 individuals (not just one allegedly biased elected official) who came to a decision after not only having reviewed ALL of the evidence (something that you do not have access to) and interviewed ALL of the witnesses?
I feel that years from now, you will probably look back on this article and ask yourself “What the hell was I thinking?”
You lack a fundamental understanding of what a grand jury actually does–it isn’t a trial where all sides get heard, nor is it a hearing where all of the witnesses and evidence are presented. It is simply a finding of probable cause to justify a trial where the evidence is heard and guilt is determined. The prosecutor intentionally sandbagged his own case by turning the grand jury into a stand for Officer Wilson to present his defense, while only going through the cursory steps towards proving probable cause that a crime committed. Additionally he took the near-unprecedented step of not specifying charges to the grand jury.
I originally wanted to be a lawyer, so yes, I have studied legal procedure and our criminal justice system. Additionally, I have been called for jury duty and have had extensive contact with people who have had serious brushes with the law (although not in a formal legal setting).
The video in the convenience store is what lawyers call prejudicial and irrelevant–Wilson had no knowledge of this incident when he confronted Brown and his conduct wasn’t affected by any knowledge of prior bad acts by his victim. As far as he knew, Brown was simply a kid walking in the street who may or may not have talked back to him. If a trial were to have been ordered, this video would have been excluded as inadmissible.
It would appear that it is you that lacks the fundamental understanding of what a Grand Jury actually does. They are not as dramatic as a preliminary hearing or a trial since there are no lawyers are judges. However, a Grand Jury most certainly does get to view the evidence and question witnesses. They just don’t get to vote on the final verdict of guilt or innocence.
You “originally wanted to be a lawyer”. That tells me that you are not one. You have “studied legal procedure and our criminal justice system”. You do realize that Criminal Justice 101 and Criminal Law 101 were just prerequisite, freshman year classes don’t you? Would you care to provide a little more detail about exactly what you have studied? You have “been called” for jury duty, but did you actually ever serve? You have had “extensive contact with people who have had serious brushes with the law (although not in a formal legal setting)”. What exactly does that mean? Were you under arrest and in jail with them at the time?
You are missing the point of the video. It doesn’t matter that Wilson had no knowledge of that incident. It shows evidence of Brown’s state of mind. Don’t you think it odd that with all of the alleged witnesses, no one thought to take out their I Phone and record the incident? Perhaps someone did, but deleted it because it corroborates Officer Wilson’s account.
Apparently, even SCOTUS Justice Scalia agrees that this grand jury was seriously flawed and formulated to elicit a no-bill: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
I’m surprised about your response to this because. This situation is basically a media driven rehashing of the Trayvon Martin controveresy and like that case the verdict is correct from a purely legal perspective when you set aside all of the racial politics (and its true police brutaltiy is a major problem, and it disportionately impacts the poor and black communities) Both prosecutions seem politically motivated (admittedly as was the decision to kick the indictment back to the grand jury to absolve responsiblity) due to the public outrage, but its clear that there is hardly probable cause let alone beyond a resonable doubt. Both cases are ambigous as to what actually happened, with both suggesting some sort of a struggle and either lacking eywitnesses or having contradictory accounts of what happned which is why even Alan Dershowitz, a staunch liberal but also a staunch civil libertarian defended the verdicts. (I will admit it was wrong for Zimmerman follow Trayvon in the Martin case and he may have profiled him, but profiling someone and following them down a public street is not a crime, though it may be immoral) A DOJ prosecution would be even more politically charged and improper (the origin for these proseuctions was to bypass rigged trials in the Deep South in civil rights cases, cases where there was no fair trial, not simply to get a verdict you like when there was a fair trial, and would be a flagrant violation of double jeopardy and an abuse of federal civil rights prosecutory powers) While both of these cases do shed light on larger social structural issues in the US of race, class gun violence and policing, its clear both of the accused are not guilty legally even if they may not be innocent (the distinction between not guilty and innocent is very important, additionally, Darren Wilson seems a far less questionable and more responsible character than George Zimmerman)
1) Zimmerman’s story was patently ridiculous and he quite literally got away with murder. This case is less ridiculous, as Wilson actually had some legitimate reason to stop Brown. However, the idea that either case’ prosecution is political is simply false. Zimmerman shot and killed an innocent and unarmed kid based upon his delusions of authority and personal bias against blacks. Wilson shot and killed a teen during a traffic stop and, while Brown may have been belligerent in the car, the fatal shots were delivered at a distance after Wilson shot at Brown while he ran away (even Wilson’s testimony backs this up). Both cases invovle extremely valid manslaughter charges that easily fulfill the standard for a trial.
2) Double jeopardy has nothing to do with this case because jeopardy only attaches if charges are issued. In this case, there were no charges, and the feds can easily submit their own without even brushing the spirit of the law the wrong way.
3) In both cases, the sole survivor was the shooter who was allowed by the authorities to make up his own story that serves his own purposes. The police in the Wilson case didn’t even take basic crime scene measurements, allowed Wilson to clean up blood evidence, and destroyed all potential evidence on the gun (ex. fingerprints). This, in combination with the fact that the prosecutor of the Wilson case is part of a family filled with police officers and employees and has a history of lying to protect officers, is why Wilson isn’t on trial now.
Put simply, the fix was in and calling Wilson innocent because a rigged game refused to even let his case go to trial is just stupid and immoral.
Could you please provide a link to an article or news report that shows that Officer Wilson stated that he shot at Brown while Brown was running away? Where did you see that the police did not “take basic crime scene measurements” and “allowed Wilson to clean up blood evidence” and destroy “potential evidence on the gun”? Why would Wilson want to do this? If Brown’s finger prints were on his weapon, that would prove that Brown might have attempted to grab it. If Brown’s blood were on Officer Wilson, that would prove that Brown was close to Wilson and likely not have been running away. If Officer Wilson had been injured and bled on himself, that would be evidence consistent with having been assaulted by Brown.
Put simply, the Grand Jury made the only moral decision that it could and for you to convict Officer Wilson in your own mind without any trial and without any first hand knowledge of the incident or having viewed any of the evidence or having heard any actual testimony just because you are upset at how the recent mid term elections turned out is stupid.
P.S. This was not a traffic stop. Brown was walking.
My belief (among many others) that the prosecutions were politically motivated were based on the evidence or lack thereof when subjected to the stringient legal standards of proof to protect the accused. Both cases were grounds for an investigation, but without being able to even piece together what happened coherently first it hardly seems beliveable that there was probable cause to charge them (if you watch the Zimmerman trial, you could see the prosecutor stumbling overthemselvs compeltely changing their own stories and arguments when holes were poked in them, it was clear thate even they didn’t have a soldid theory of what happened) Zimmerman was a less than credible witness, but there was evidence of some type of struggle, no witnesses and the immoral and irresponsible behavior he may have engaged in that led to whatever did happen was not unlawful. He may be culpable morally but there isn’t enough confirmed demonstrable and proven information, let alone criminal evidence to implicate him beyond a reasoanble doubt from a purely legal standpoint (we have a tape indicating that some sort of fight went down in the Zimmerman case, it seems off that Zimmerman or Wilson would shoot Travyon or Brown respectively in cold blood for no reason without some sort of fight, especially in the latter case with multiple witnesses in plain view, but even sugesting this state of mind is speculation, which further illustrates the central issue of both cases) Put simply, we just don’t know objectively what happened and, the entire case was based on speculation even though Zimmerman was somewhat of a shady character (look at Casey Anthony and OJ, sometimes due process means letting the guilty get off if the evidnece just isn’t hard enough but that’s not the system failing, its the system working). Double jeopardy technically does not apply to this case, but if you compare the rationale for the original federal civil rights suits with this situation it is not the same application that justified it in those cases (ie a demonstrably rigged legal process) the fact that prosecuter turned this over to a multiracial grand jury even further supports that Wilson got legitimate due process rather than a rigged game, making a federal suit unecessary and unethical in my opinion for similar reasons. You say Wilson shot Brown as he was fleeing, the witness testimony was conflicting and contradictory and we know there was a violent confronation (I belive Wilson had some light injuries to his face) I will have to research some of your other claims of evidence tampering (I belive Wilson at least said Brown was charging at him), but it is my knoledge that in both of these case there was either 1.) No direct witness testimony of the actual shooting 2.) Severely contradictory witness testimony, hardly enough for probable cause, let alone guilt beyond a reasoanble doubt allthough that technically isn’t relevent yet. I didn’t even say I was calling Wilson innocent, I beliver there is a technical distinction between innocent and guilty with reasonable doubt (ie OJ, who might have gotten convicted had racist cops not fabricated evidence which legitimately obfuscated other aspects of the case, or Casey Anthony, who is probaly guilty but could not be directly tied to the crime with physical evidence or reliable enough witnesses)
Cut the BS. In the Zimmerman case he ADMITTED to following and challenging a private, unarmed citizen just because the kid was black. He was not a cop. Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation. He killed the kid. Because he “feared for his life”. In other words, if you are a stupid bigot and go after a black person you can use that as a defense for murder in the state of Florida.
In the Brown case it is very different. An officer of the law has a legal right to stop someone who is acting strange , like walking in the middle of the street. There is no doubt that the cop was acting legally at that point. Once the altercation started, however, the cop was either poorly trained, a coward or not too bright. As an officer of the law it is his duty to use NECESSARY force. He used lethal force in a situation where the kid had no weapon. He was in his car by his own admission, so he could have driven a few hundred feet away and waited for back up. He could have used self-defense techniques if he had been properly trained. He could have used mace. He could have used a taser. When he says he felt like a “five year old” when being confronted by this very large person he shows he does not have the mentality to be a law enforcement officer. Maybe it is bad training. Maybe poor judgement. At any rate, the guy should not be a cop. He has shown a lack of judgement is using lethal force. We don’t need trigger happy cops.
You cut the BS. You are obviously not a police officer and did not witness the shooting of Michael Brown. A police officer has more than a legal right to stop someone who is acting suspicious (strange is not the best choice of words), a police officer has a RESPONSIBILITY and is EXPECTED to investigate and assess situations like that to determine if a law is being violated or if the individual is a threat to the public or themselves. Sidewalks are provided for a reason. It is dangerous for a person to just casually walk in the middle of the street as if they owned it and risk getting hit by a car or causing an accident when drivers have to swerve to avoid them. Does that alone justify lethal force? Of course not. However attacking a police officer with the intention to disarm the officer and shoot him or her with their own service weapon does. Michael Brown was 6′ 4″ tall and weighed 292 pounds. Officer Wilson was also 6′ 4″ but weighed 82 pounds less. A person doesn’t need to be armed with weapon in order to murder another person. Nor do they necessarily have to be a trained martial arts expert. There are multiple ways to murder someone with nothing more than your bare hands.
I also was not present at the time, but I have to believe Officer Wilson is telling the truth as did the Grand Jury and the majority of the United States. If Brown first assaulted him while he was in his vehicle, then that is Assault Of A Law Enforcement Officer which is a crime in case you were unaware. At that point, Officer Wilson most certainly was justified in exiting his vehicle to arrest Brown. Many people that are convicted of having assaulted police were actually arrested by the officer they assaulted. Officer Wilson had served as a police officer for 8 years, I’m sure that he was adequately trained and experienced. A person who would choose to work as a police officer in a city like Ferguson sure doesn’t sound like a coward to me. You really need some life experience. I suggest that you go your local law enforcement agency and ask if you can ride along with a police officer some time. Perhaps they may even have a Citizens Police Academy to educate people like you. We don’t need inexperienced, misinformed and naïve civilians thinking that they know what it is like to be a police officer and making ignorant statements as you have done here.
Blake. You are very ignorant of the law indeed if you think the Grand Jury decides innocence or guilt. And you are very naive if you think that a prosecutor cannot get an indictment any time he wants one. And you need much more life experience if you think a well trained police officer has no option but to kill an unarmed man because the officer , in his own words, feels like “a five year old boy” when confronted by a larger man. Maybe you need to ask a few well-trained officers if they feel like babies when they are supposed to be guardians of the law. Darren Wilson indicted HIMSELF when he admits he is unfit, physically and psychologically to be a cop.
Do some research. Learn to think for yourself. As you get older and become more experienced in life you will come to understand that these issues are always deeper than they appear on the surface. Good luck with your studies.
Truly pathetic reply. Nothing more than a tantrum. Is that really the best you can do? It sure looks like I touched a nerve. If you would have bothered to read my comment on Nov 26th, you would have known that I am already aware that a Grand Jury does not decide innocence or guilt. When did I say that the prosecuting attorney can not still seek an indictment? When did I say that a well trained police officer has no option but to use deadly force? In this case, it was Michael Brown who chose that option. Would YOU rush at a police officer who is pointing a gun at you? Perhaps you would. Your comments really call your character into question and make me wonder what experiences you may have personally had with police. What happened to you? Were you stopped at a checkpoint and got a DWI one New Years Eve and thought you weren’t really impaired even though you blew over the legal limit so now you hate all police? Yeah, I’ll bet it’s something like that.
Officer Wilson used the analogy to help the public to better understand the situation. Unfortunately, there are just way too many civilians like you out there who don’t have a clue. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to be physically and psychologically fit to be a police officer. Although, I do have to admit that I find your opinion about Officer Wilson’s size intriguing. Perhaps we should require all police officers to be over 6 feet tall and at least 292 pounds like Michal Brown was. Although, that would prevent ALOT of people from pursuing a law enforcement career. By the way, don’t you even try to debate the extent of my life experience. I have lived almost half a century (all of it in the good old USA), served in the military during Operation Desert Storm (I doubt you were even alive yet then), earned my bachelors degree and have worked at the same job for almost 20 years. Don’t reply unless you can offer some kind of a challenge or have at least one intelligent comment.
Now. You just run along and enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner with your loved ones if you have any. I am going to assume that you live here in America. Just remember that the only reason that you are able to enjoy that privilege is because of our brave and selfless men and women in uniform that protect this great nation which include the well trained and brave police officers such as Darren Wilson that patrol our streets and neighborhoods. I have to go now. I’ll be thinking of you when I say grace later while I am giving thanks for the Grand Jury decision. Good luck with your life.
So, Blake…looks like you are the one having the tantrum, doesn’t it? (On the schoolyard we used to say that kids like you can “give it, but they can’t take it” LOL) And I see that you still cannot figure out what a Grand jury is supposed to do. And why do you need to try to assert your “qualifications” as a way to support your ideas ? Or your age ? Or your job ? Can’t your ideas stand on their own merits?
I read your post of Nov 26 in which you ACCURATELY state that you were not there, yet you “believe ” the testimony you did not hear. BRILLIANT !
Let me try to help you again. The GJ does not try a case. It decides, based on information presented to it by the PROSECUTOR, whether or not there is enough of a basis for a defendant to be put on trial. That means there is some information, not certainty, that a law was broken. An unarmed man is killed by an armed man. That is the ONLY incontrovertible fact in this case. The ONLY one. If that does not bear out being investigated and decided in a jury trial then we have no need of a justice system. People can just kill other people if they have anxieties and personal problems. And walk free.
That alone is evidence to go to trial. Unless the prosecutor, who works closely with this police department, decides to throw the case. Are you really so naive as to not see the conflict of interest? The police officer in question was well=prepared by his lawyer and the prosecutor did not want an indictment. Anyone can see that.
Regarding the police officer in question. He should not be a cop. He embarrasses the profession and the idea of law and order. He is a mental weakling, He is the one who claimed he felt like a “5 year old boy “. Not me. He is the one who used deadly force because he was afraid. BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. If you think that reflects adequate training and sound judgement you are wrong. He is a bad apple and should be allowed to resign before he kills someone else.
Or maybe you think it is wise to have a cop who sees himself as weak and pitiful and therby justifies using lethal force whenever he feels threatened?
Excellent! I thought that our little dialogue was over, but you took the bait and came back. Thanks for being so easy to manipulate. It looks like you answered my question from my previous reply. It seems that I have already seen the best you can do. Did you start your alcohol consumption a little early today maybe? I thought I was being clear when I asked you to not reply until you could offer a challenge or at least have an intelligent comment. I appropriately and correctly compared your idiotic post to a childish tantrum and all that you can come up with is to accuse me of having a tantrum? What are you? A 10 year old? “On the schoolyard?” The lack of life experience that is apparent in your statements would indicate that you were most likely sheltered and home schooled. Were you referring to the yard at your own house where you were all alone and talking to yourself? LMFAO! I can certainly take it, but you have yet to dish anything out. You entertain me more than anything else.
Please explain why you think that I do not know what a Grand Jury does? I have already told you that I am aware that a Grand Jury only decides if there is enough probable cause to indict and does actually vote on a verdict of guilt or innocence. Yes, I am aware that the Prosecuting Attorney could still file a charge if he wanted. That is not likely in this case. Yes, I am aware that Officer Wilson could still face federal charges. Officer Wilson is not off the hook yet, but he has passed the first hurdle. Please allow me to educate you on what a Grand Jury does. I have already posted this link, but you seem to have a problem scrolling up to read previous comments.
That is what we call a link. To read it, all that you have to do is use your mouse and place the little arrow on top of the blue letters and click. Let me know if you have trouble.
I had not planned on informing you of my “qualifications”. However, it was required after YOU indicated that I needed to “get older and become more experienced in life.” While we are on the subject, I couldn’t help but notice that when I suggested that your asinine opinion about police might be the result of a negative experience with a law enforcement agency in the past, you made no attempt to deny it. When I asked if you were even alive during The Gulf War (August of 1990 to February of 1991), you avoided the question completely. What are you hiding I wonder? Have you ever even had a real job or done anything to make anyone proud of you? Why do you think that I can’t see right through you?
Lets get back to the justifiable shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in the line of duty shall we? I clarified that I was not present in the City of Ferguson, MO on August 9th, did not witness the incident and do not personally know anyone involved. Even though you are unable to admit the same, I am sure that you were not present either. However, Brown was shot by a UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS ON DUTY! Therefore, an educated and mature person would normally assume that the officer would have had a reason to do so until an investigation proves otherwise. Of course he was afraid if he feared for his life. Most people who are about to be attacked and possibly murdered by a 6′ 4″ 292 pound man usually are. When did self defense become symptomatic of anxiety and “personal problems?” Of course Officer Wilson was well prepared by his lawyer, that is what lawyers are paid to do. Do I have to explain lawyers to you also? Only an antisocial deviate or someone blinded by emotions would just automatically assume that the incident had to be racially motivated and that Officer Wilson committed murder. Especially since the physical evidence supports Officer Wilson’s statements and the alleged witnesses changed their stories multiple times. Let’s listen to Darren Wilson himself. I doubt you have even seen this yet. If this shooting proves anything, it proves that the Ferguson, MO Police Dept. needs to provide it’s officers with more powerful ammunition.
That is what we call a video. To watch it, all that you have to do is use your mouse and place the little arrow on top of the bigger arrow on the picture and click. Let me know if you have trouble.
What I find interesting is how our little discussion here could be compared to the shooting of Michael Brown itself. You were just wandering through this blog with nothing worthwhile to contribute. I saw your dim-witted comments and decided to intervene with the intention to correct your attitude and set you on the proper path. Instead, you become agitated and attempt to challenge me. I attempt to reason with you, but you force my hand. I keep firing logic at you, it has no effect and all the time I keep offering you the opportunity to surrender. In your case however, a shot to the head would likely have little to no effect. There isn’t anything inside your skull to damage apparently. I will again ask you to hold your comments until you have something intelligent to say. This is another opportunity for you to learn from your mistakes and surrender with what is left of your dignity.
In the second sentence of the second paragraph, I of course meant to say that the Grand Jury does not actually vote on a verdict of guilt or innocence. Sorry, it’s been a long and busy day.
Blake. I usually try not to respond to rudeness but I will make an exception in your case. Regarding my “life experience” I will simply say this. I was standing up and being counted on social issues (the Vietnam War, Civil rights) when you were still in short pants, possibly diapers. Started work at 16 and have been working and paying taxes almost 50 years. But as I stated I could care less about life experience.I prefer to let ideas stand on their own merits.
And, as you reread these posts you will find that it was not I who started making PERSONAL comments. It was your comment of Nov 27 in which you made negative comments concerning my life experience and intelligence. Live with.it. It is there in black and white. My only comments previous to that were about the actual situation. You chose to try to do the character assassination. A sign of a weak argument.
Back to the issue. Police officers are supposed to protect citizens . We, the PEOPLE, give them that right. But we , the PEOPLE, expect that since we authorize them to use lethal force they do so in a manner consistent with the Constitution and common sense. Since, we, the PEOPLE, give them that authority we must hold them accountable. Just because someone wears a uniform does not mean they have the right to exercise lethal force at will. If anything, being authorized by we, the PEOPLE, to use lethal force a police officer is expected to be unusually careful in doing so.
When I criticize ONE police officer, for some reason some folks seem to take that as a condemnation of the police. I have no idea why. If I criticize one store owner does that mean I am condemning all store owners? Or if I criticize one teacher does that mean I am condemning all teachers ? Life experience tells me that there are good cops and bad cops. It would be incredibly NAIVE of me to think otherwise.
The fact that a police officer ON DUTY kills an unarmed man, or (as in the case of Cleveland) a 12 year old boy, means that we need to be certain that the killing was not only justified, but that the officer involved be thoroughly examined. He, or she, has taken a life as an agent of the state. He, or she, has acted as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, That is serious. It undermines the very foundation of the legal system. That officer must be examined thoroughly as to his training, psychological fitness, prejudices and abilities. To do otherwise is to give anyone in a uniform the right to ignore the law.
Whether or not the cop in Ferguson is fit for duty can be seen in his own words. i am not making this up. He was scared. He felt intimidated. He saw the man he shot as a “demon”. He felt like a “five year old boy”. He killed the man because IN HIS MIND he had no other choice. That is exactly why he should not be a cop. Lack of judgement. Inability to come to grips with a bad situation.
Every day GOOD cops confront similar issues. They only use necessary force. Not lethal force. Cops like Wilson give GOOD cops a bad name.
Those who blindly condemn or blindly SUPPORT actions of the police are the ones who are naive, in my opinion. Wearing a uniform is not a license to kill. Only those who are physically and psychologically mature should be wearing those uniforms. In my opinion, based on his own testimony, Wilson fails that test.
I win again. You couldn’t even stay quiet for one day. Man, you are predictable.
So, you were “standing up and being counted on social issues” which included the Vietnam War. Someone who says that indicates that they were a protestor and did not serve in the military. I suspect that while you were allegedly taking your stand, you were likely partaking in some of the other activities that the other protestors were doing as well. I’ll wager that you possibly still may be doing so and actively support the legalization of that activity. How did that lifestyle work out for you? What did all your chanting and banner waiving accomplish? What happened to some of the people you knew? You claim to have worked since the age of 16 and have paid taxes for almost 50 years. All I know for a fact is that at least I am telling the truth, but I’ll just pretend to believe you. Were those 50 years continuous? How long have you ever been able to keep a job? I am aware that unemployment benefits are taxable income. I have always believed that there is more to life experience than the amount of years you have lived. How many of those years were productive? Did you actually ever do anything to help others and make the world a better place or, were you a liberal and just fooled yourself into believing that you did when all you ever did was just make noise and annoy people? Did you ever learn from your mistakes? It might help you to understand it better if I use the following analogy. Let’s say you have an antique clock that is broken. It doesn’t keep the right time and you can never count on it to be right, but you keep it because it goes well with your décor. You get a new clock so you can keep time. Since the antique clock is older, is it suddenly now correct? Of course not, it was flawed from the beginning and has never been right even though it has been ticking. On November 27th, I was merely advising you that your comments clearly show that you have no law enforcement experience or any basic understanding of what police officers endure and that your conclusions were incorrect due to this short coming. This was not character assassination. You are a just like that broken clock. This is not an argument. I’m clearly right and you are not even close to being right. I will remind you that the Grand Jury decided that no probable cause existed to charge Officer Wilson.
Your opinion of Darren Wilson’s statements is irrelevant. He is a human being just like ALL police officers and there are times that all humans feel scared and intimidated just like you seem to be scared and intimidated by police or authority in general. How tall are you? How much do you weigh? Are you now going to be terrified ever time you encounter a police officer who is shorter or smaller than you because you are afraid that they will see you as a “demon” and shoot you? Yes, I will admit that there are police officers out there who should not have been hired and would qualify as “bad”. However, Darren Wilson is not one of those. Darren Wilson is an inspiration to all police everywhere. He followed procedure and gave Michael Brown the opportunity to comply. Brown’s actions would indicate that he may have actually WANTED to be shot. You may find the following article interesting.
I know that it will do no good, but I will ask again. Please do not reply until you have something intelligent (or at least not as naïve) to say.
Blake…I can see that you continue with personal comments rather than address the issues. That is fine. I prefer to argue issues…your seem to like to engage in personal attacks. That is your right. But it does nothing to clarify issues. I will not do so. (But just to ease your mind on the subject I have never collected welfare or unemployment benefits. Nor have I ever been given “bonus points” or “special consideration” when applying for a job. Unlike some categories of people). Hope that eases your mind and you can concentrate on issues rather than personal attacks.
Bottom line. Mr Wilson should not be a cop. He is a bad cop. I would not attribute malice on his part, just incompetency. For the reasons I explained already. He will likely resign from policing, which would be a good move for him and for the community. There are plenty of jobs that do not entail giving a person the legal responsibility to use deadly force. He should find one. The world will be a safer place.
I hope that in the future when you try to participate in discussions you view them as a means to elucidate and educate and not as a vehicle for anonymous character attacks. Happy Holidays. 🙂
So you finally decided to give up. Very wise, very mature choice on your part. I accept your surrender. In absolutely ALL of my reply’s, I most certainly did address the issue. Simply pointing out the errors in another persons logic in an effort to prevent the conversation from spiraling into chaos is not a personal attack. Now your comments about Officer Wilson on the other hand, THAT was a personal attack. It should ease your mind to know that he has resigned today from the Ferguson, MO Police Dept. Knowing what I know about police officers, he did this in order to help lessen the potential for violence to his fellow officers. A very noble and honorable move. I am not worried about now civilian Darren Wilson. He is young and will most assuredly find another and even better job. Possibly with the FBI, CIA, DEA, BATF, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, Border Patrol or even another police agency somewhere else. Maybe even politics! VOTE WILSON IN 2016! This of course depends on if there will be any federal charges filed against him. He had and continues to have overwhelming public support (despite what the liberal media would like us to believe) and all those who stood behind him collected quite a bit of money for him and his new wife. I am sure that more donations will follow. Who knows? Perhaps Darren Wilson will get a book and or movie deal. I think Chris Evans (Captain America) should portray him. Unfortunately Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzeneggar are just too old.
I guess we will never know for sure why you have such a negative opinion about police. I suggested the possibility that you personally may have had a negative confrontation with police in the past. Three times after this, you replied and never once denied it. You indicated that you had some involvement regarding the protest of the Vietnam War. I suggested that you may have possibly became ensnared in the culture of the protestors and experimented with mind altering substances and may very well still be doing so today. You have not denied that either. I hope that in the future when you participate in discussions that you will remember to remain objective, use common sense and be cautious when commenting on topics that you know nothing about and not to use them as a vehicle to simply vent your frustrations to compensate for your insecurities. Peace and joy to you.
P.S. Please don’t try to deny that you have given up. I have won way too many online confrontations to be fooled. You could just simply choose not to reply and I promise I will pretend to believe that you didn’t even read this or that you have better things to do.
I prefer evidence, facts and logic to personal attacks. I will not be goaded into insults. Sorry for not taking your bait. I am reminded of the words of Louis Brandeis: “Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.”
The Grand Jury spent just over 3 months examining the evidence and facts from August 20th to November 24th. During that time, the Grand Jury members reviewed over 5,000 pages of testimony from 60 witnesses in addition to the physical evidence. On November 24th, they arrived at the only logical conclusion and decided to not indict Wilson. You on the other hand with no law enforcement experience, knowing only what you were told by the liberal news media and blinded by your pre-existing animosity toward police in general, convicted Wilson of murder in less than 3 minutes. To be as polite as I possibly can at this point, I will just simply say that you have a serious intelligence deficit. That is not an insult, that is a simple fact that is proven by the supporting evidence that you yourself provided in your comments. I am sorry that this is difficult for you to accept, but at least you can use this as a learning experience.
By the way. By choosing to reply to my previous comment, you in fact DID take the bait. How many times are you going embarrass yourself?
Instead of ending with the words of a deceased lawyer and Associate Supreme Court Justice who died in 1941 that no one remembers, Why don’t we listen to someone who is a little more recent. In the words of William F. Buckley Jr. (1925 – 2008 author, commentator and founder of the National Review), “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
Louis Brandeis…a Supreme Court justice “no one remembers”. LOL. That comment says it all. LOL
“I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence”…William F Buckley, Jr.
I put it to you that I suspect that you may have a history of criminal behavior and or illegal drug use. You repeatedly choose not to deny these suspicions, thereby possibly confirming them. In my previous reply, I explained how I was able to completely deconstruct your attempt to discredit Darren Wilson so easily with simple logic that you should have been mindful of before you even posted your first comment. You were unable to defend your stance and made no attempt to refute me. I believe THAT says it all. LMAOROTF!
I think that there is more to you than just stupidity, questionable character and poor judgment. I believe that it would be prudent for you to obtain a psychiatric examination. There is evidence that being liberal is a symptom of an underlying mental disorder after all.
Were you not aware that Louis Brandeis was dead? Just what year do you think it is? Do you have dementia or Alzheimers? Just because you may have read something about him fairly recently doesn’t mean that a significant portion of the general population would have any clue who he is with the possible exception of professors teaching law of which I am most certainly sure you are not one. However, there is hope. “There is nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won’t cure.” -Jack E. Leonard.
Now, take THAT bait so I can reel you in again.
Do you also suspect that Barack Obama was born in Kenya ? Email and ask him. If he does not respond that will be all the proof you need. LOL (Hook, line and sinker).
In case you were unaware, his name is Barack Hussein Obama II. Were you hung over, stoned or in jail (or all three) when it was announced that the alleged Kenyan birth certificate tuned out to be fake? That is OLD news.
Every elementary school student knows that only a natural born US citizen can serve as president. Prior to becoming President, he had been elected to the U.S. Senate in 2005. Many people do not realize that even members of Congress must pass background investigations in order to gain security clearance, it isn’t just automatic. If his birth certificate would have not been legitimate, it would have been discovered in 2005 and he would never have been able to be president. In other words, I NEVER believed that it was possible that the President was born in Kenya although I knew that his father was.
Your failure to answer simple questions only proves that you wish to conceal the truth, most likely out of shame. I never said that it proved the actual suspicions. However, it doesn’t disprove them either. Truthfully, it doesn’t really matter if you answer or not. If you attempt to deny, I won’t believe you anyway. Your comments indicate that credibility is something that you lack.
Hook,Line and Sinker. Now that Darren Wilson has resigned in disgrace, without severance pay, that pretty much says it all. Every cop must be looked at as an individual, not as a member of a group. Bad conduct must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Although at least one of his supporters thinks he is FBI material, I doubt that any governmental policing force will be seriously considering his resume. Some people just don’t have the mental discipline or common sense to be good cops. Wilson made the right decision by resigning. He was told that the community will be safer without him on the force. He is correct.
The only thing disgraceful is that Darren Wilson had to choose to resign at all. I will once again remind you that a Grand Jury decided that there was not enough probable cause to indict him. Get over it already. The law abiding tax payers are now without the protection that this fine young man risked his life every day to provide. Just like all human beings, Wilson is allowed to defend himself and did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, Michael Brown just happened to be black. If he had been white, this whole incident would have never been more than just a few paragraphs in some Missouri newspapers without even a photo and or a one minute report on the radio and television. Had Brown been murdered by another black person like approximately 93% of all black murder victims in the U.S., there would likely have not been any public outcry or demonstrations.
Click to access bvvc.pdf
Darren Wilson’s resignation will not change anything. I’m sure that he was planning for his possible resignation the whole time since the shooting. I have no doubt that he had already made a plan and will be just fine. He is now free from the stress that law enforcement officers endure daily and can pursue another career. He deserved a break. A year from now, few people will even remember his name and will have moved on to something else.
So, now that we cannot justify killing an unarmed man we bring out the race card. Perhaps, as you said in your Nov 29 post this paragon of police work will be recruited by the FBI ? LOL
OH MY GOD! IT HAPPENED AGAIN!
Pay particular attention at :32. How is this possible? The officer did not fire his gun, he used his bare hands! I thought that it was impossible to kill another human being without some sort of synthetic, manufactured device.
What are you going to do now? This is clearly part of a conspiracy. First, the Republicans take back the government and now the police are killing everyone! You don’t stand a chance. The Conservatives own most of the guns and almost all of the police! It’s time to get out your punch bowl, call all of your bedwetting, burned out libtard cult member friends (that’s really all that people like you are), mix together the Kool-Aid and cyanide that you have been saving and take the Jim Jones way out.
Race card? How is just posting a link to some government statistics bringing out the race card? If you seriously don’t believe that if Michael Brown had been white that there would never have been any protests even if Darren Wilson had been black, you are even more thick headed than I originally thought you were. Believe me, I thought you were exceptionally thick headed from the start.
I just can’t stop grinning when I think of you sitting there in your studio apartment reading my comments. You start yelling and cursing, pounding your fists, pulling out your hair (if you have any), stomping your feet and disturbing your roommate. Then you take a few deep breaths, count to ten a couple of times, maybe self medicate a little and then sit back down and type some weak little reply and you actually think that you can make me believe that you are not furious and that I haven’t succeeded in getting under your skin? You might be able to fool most people, but you’re going to need much bigger horns if you try to butt heads with me.
Do me a favor. The next time you are driving in your Prius with all your Greenpeace, pro LGBT rights and Obama bumper stickers on it and you are leaving your “pharmacist” after negotiating the purchase of your “medication” and you get stopped by a police officer do this. Get out of your car, ignore their commands and run at them as fast as you can.
I have to ask. When you type LOL, I of course assume that you mean “Laughing Out Loud”. Do you actually mean “Liberal On LSD?”
Blake writes: ” i thought it was impossible to kill another human being without some sort of synthetic, manufactured device.” Well, then I guess you learned something today. There are many ways to kill people. Most people knew that already. But it is good to see that you are open to new ideas. 🙂
I see that you have bitten the hook yet again. You really are a dependable little minnow aren’t you? Newsflash, I was being sarcastic when I made the synthetic, manufactured device comment. Now try again.
Oh. Now I get it. All those silly post were you just being sarcastic. Now they all make sense.
That was just weak. Barely a whimper. Drink some coffee, sober up and try again.