Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

#Ferguson Missouri: Unarmed Teen Gunned Down by Cops, Riots Erupt

#Ferguson Missouri: Unarmed Teen Gunned Down by Cops, Riots Erupt

Violent riots destroy local businesses after an unarmed teen was killed by local law enforcement.

All hell broke loose in Ferguson, Missouri after a police officer killed an unarmed teen. Michael Brown got into an altercation with local law enforcement, and was shot and killed by one of the police officers.

According to ABC News:

The struggle began when the officer encountered two men, one of whom was Brown, in the street outside of an apartment complex, and one of the men pushed the office [sic] back toward his squad car, according to police. A shot was fired inside the squad car and then multiple shots were fired at Brown outside the car, killing him, authorities said.

The identification of the officer responsible for the shooting will be released tomorrow at 2:00 in a press conference, ABC News reports. A vigil held Sunday night in Brown’s memory turned violent as attendees began looting and destroying local businesses:

According to the Houston Chronicle, the FBI is opening up an investigation into potential civil rights violations.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

What I’d like to know is: Is the analysis of a self-defense claim the same with a police officer lawfully executing a legal duty as it is for a situation like zimmerman/martin or any other self-defense case we read about here?

It seems to me that even if there was a struggle in the police car, once the suspect released from that and took some distance and offered to surrender, he shouldn’t be shot at? In other situations, self defenders claiming self defense have a difficult time when they are shooting at a fleeing unarmed attacker.

    Ragspierre in reply to steveo1. | August 11, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    The two accounts, as I have them are…

    1. Brown was attempting to get the LEO’s gun

    2. the LEO essentially executed Brown

    This should be investigated down to the ground.

      theres one witness saying the cop got out of car, walked over, pumped few more rounds into him.
      not so sure I buy that one…
      and any investigation now going to be secondary to the damned rioting 🙁

        MarkS in reply to dmacleo. | August 11, 2014 at 8:15 pm

        Apparently that “walked over” covered a distance of thirty feet, if so, where is the threat from an unarmed man.

          I don’t know.
          which is my point really.
          we do not have any reliable data here.
          we even have reports of tanks being deployed there from local media which was then dispersed by everyone there. they got a pic of bradleys apc is not a tank) on railcars LEAVING the town and somehow thats tanks going to be used.
          no reliable data.

          Char Char Binks in reply to MarkS. | August 12, 2014 at 6:22 pm

          Apparently, the body was 35 feet from the squad car (the start of the fight), but that only means he ended up there, not that he was shot there.

        steveo1 in reply to dmacleo. | August 13, 2014 at 9:15 am

        What also bothers me is that the buddy (Johnson) said that the officer drove up in allegedly an SUV patrol car and barked at them through the passenger window to quote: “Get the fxxk on to the sidewalk.” When the teens didn’t immediately go to the sidewalk, he went forward a bit and did that reverse K turn and ended up perpendicular in the street with his SUV door, inches from the two teens. Then he opened the door, somewhat violently.” This I can believe, but incredibly stupid on the part of the leo. The before part and the after the struggle part, I think the leos are going to have trouble with.

          Char Char Binks in reply to steveo1. | August 13, 2014 at 10:39 am

          Not only incredibly stupid, but incredibly unlikely. Why would he try to get out when he got so close to Brown that he couldn’t open the door? It seems more likely that he tried to get out and Brown shoved the door on him.

    tom swift in reply to steveo1. | August 11, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    and took some distance and offered to surrender

    Even if he didn’t offer to surrender, but tried to escape, the police would have a very hard time claiming that an LEO killed him in self defense.

      Olinser in reply to tom swift. | August 11, 2014 at 8:07 pm

      They don’t have to claim self defense at all for it to be a good (legal) shooting.

      Cops have a much wider set of circumstances in which deadly force is authorized than a civilian. And yes, they can shoot an unarmed, fleeing man in a number of circumstances – especially in the case of escaping violent criminals.

      In this case, from what I have heard, the idiot shoved the cop, got himself placed under arrest, and then went for the cop’s gun. Then he tried to run.

        tom swift in reply to Olinser. | August 11, 2014 at 8:16 pm

        They don’t have to claim self defense at all for it to be a good (legal) shooting.

        Obviously.

        they can shoot an unarmed, fleeing man in a number of circumstances – especially in the case of escaping violent criminals.

        But they’re going to have to actually make that argument; which they wouldn’t, were this a reasonably obvious case of self defense.

        In this case, we’ve yet to hear any hint that the deceased was a violent criminal. Or, for that matter, any sort of criminal at all.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to tom swift. | August 12, 2014 at 4:32 am

          Walker was given a walk for a lot worse. There was an actual assault on this officer.

          But this will be another black vigilante political debauchery. It’s already paid off in voluminous quantities of free goodies to the looters with more to come, I’m sure.

          But they’re just like us. Right.

          steveo1 in reply to tom swift. | August 13, 2014 at 9:34 am

          But even if he was a violent criminal if he stops and turns around and raises his hands, why keep shooting? To me that’s murder.

        walls in reply to Olinser. | August 11, 2014 at 9:07 pm

        I wonder if he ran away with AZ tea and a bag of Skittles …

        No, we don’t have a broader authority to use deadly force than anyone else and I speak as a 16 year cop. Deadly force (e.g. firearms, cutting instruments, strikes above the shoulders) is authorized when the actor has reasonable fear for life or serious bodily injury of themselves or a third Cops do have a greater chance of using it than civilians, not question of that.

        In Tennessee vs Graham (1989), the Supreme Court started “… The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 396-397.” (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/490/490.US.386.87-6571.html). Justice by it’s nature is a slow deliberative process and the defendant is now the officer, not Mr. Brown. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to his day in front of the grand jury and f needed, a jury of his peers.

        All we know is the officer shot Mr. Brown and there is no civilian video of it because someone would have bought it and played it by now. Many people are speaking to reporters but from my experience once a witness is put under oath, they revise their statement. But we can we sure some people will use this as an excuse to steal from others and Jesse and Al will try and ake money off of it.

      steveo1 in reply to tom swift. | August 13, 2014 at 9:56 am

      Apparently, the leo was in the driver’s side of an SUV. The driver side window of an SUV is quite a bit further off the ground than a patrol car. The Dead Guy was 6″4″ so it might not have made a difference but I don’t see him being able to reach through the window far enough to grab at the leos gun. I guess it depends which side the hand gun is on, left or right, but we also know that there was a shot fired from inside the SUV, which Johnson confirmed. He said the shot hit the DG, so the leo must have been aiming at him. The shot didn’t go off into the dash or something like that, apparently.

      steveo1 in reply to tom swift. | August 13, 2014 at 12:48 pm

      There would be positive evidence as to the position of the leo SUV. Most likely the shooting leo didn’t move the SUV after he got out and shot the kid. He probably went back to the vehicle and called on the radio, maybe not, just called from his own shoulder radio. If the SUV was perpendicular in the street, instead of parallel, that would lend some credence to the Johnson story.

Unarmed Teen Gunned Down by Cops
*******************************
so…you were there?
we do not have enough info to make any statements like this.
the distances are troubling for sure, even more troubling is titles like that.
theres a lot of conflicting crap out there right now. and people keep adding to it.

    The police department says no weapons were found on the deceased, and since an officer shot him and controlled the scene thereafter, it’s unlikely someone stripped the deceased of a weapon after his death. So let’s be fair, this part comes from the cops.

    I’m keeping an open mind about everything else.

None of my tribe expresses their outrage at perceived injustice by looting liquor stores. Sorry but the shooting is just an excuse to misbehave.

    tom swift in reply to Anchovy. | August 11, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    [Possibly] trigger-happy cops and the propensity in some social circles toward looting sprees are really independent issues.

    Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | August 11, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    “None of my tribe expresses their outrage at perceived injustice by looting liquor stores.”

    Rags scuffs the ground with his shoes, while whistling an old Irish tune of the “troubles” and looking vacantly at the sky…

    “There was a wild colonial bay, Jack Duggan was his name…”

    walls in reply to Anchovy. | August 11, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    Exactly … there are NO excuses to rob WalMart stores and liquor stores … just another hot summer night in Saint Lou, and 0bama’s sons are lookin’ “fo mo free stuff”.

Just read that Brown’s family has retained the services of Benjamin Crump.

When this story first appeared on Saturday, the reports had nothing about a struggle for an LEO’s gun. What they did have was plenty of suspicion that the police were going to doom the investigation to slow motion while officialdom brainstormed some excuses. [The usual caveats apply – the press is generally wrong about everything, etc.]

The suspicion of official foot-dragging is corroborated by this story. After two days they still haven’t said who did the shooting. That’s not so easy to justify. Is it a mystery? Are they still trying to cook up some more convincing stories? There may be excellent reasons for the delay, but there are also obvious grounds for suspicion.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 11, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Lessee…

    you are the head of a police department in these circumstances.

    Are YOU going to rush to a press conference to name the officer in question?

    Cripes…!!!

      “Don’t question authority!!! Don’t you DARE question authority!!!!”

      The answer is: It depends on the police chief and what they are trying to do. An ethical police chief will protect the officer and his family from the raving mob. An unethical political police chief will promptly throw the officer’s name out regardless of the evidence in order to force a confession, resignation, and sate the mob’s thirst for blood. Sometimes they will also order the force to withdraw from certain neighborhoods during riots to make sure looting happens, something which I sincerely hope did not happen this weekend.

      Protesters should be protected, looters should be shot.

        tom swift in reply to georgfelis. | August 12, 2014 at 12:04 pm

        The primary function of the police force is not the protection of the police.

          Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 12, 2014 at 12:42 pm

          Well, it certainly CAN be.

          As an infantry officer, my primary purpose is OFTEN the protection and well-being of my troops.

          As a police chief, my officers are NOT fodder for the news cycle.

          AND my investigation will not be driven by the demands of people like you who think in terms of robotic logic.

    tom swift in reply to tom swift. | August 11, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    Is it a mystery?

    Even more to the point, why should it be a secret?

    Presumably the cop has a story; so, what is it?

    Trying to hush it up is not likely to be successful.

    There are some things which are best done quickly (even if they’re not done honestly). Honesty may be considered optional by some, but alacrity is not optional.

      maybe because the PBA/unions prevent it?
      not sure on this depts contract but these sort of things are in some contracts.

        tom swift in reply to dmacleo. | August 11, 2014 at 9:22 pm

        That would be a pretty shabby excuse for failing to explain why an LEO gunned down a member of the public.

        There must be a reason for it, and unless that particular department is totally out of control, the command hierarchy must know what that reason is. If it’s a good reason, the public should hear it. At the very least, it might save a lot of excitement. If it’s not a good reason, one can see why nobody would want to give it; one can also see why the public – even the non-looting public – might be suspicious.

          Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 11, 2014 at 9:32 pm

          Good-flucking-gravy…!!! How about it isn’t an “excuse”, but the signs of a careful, deliberate investigation?

          I guess you’d rush out to the microphones and cameras and say either…

          our guy is totally exonerated and the dead kid is SOL, OR…

          after ten minutes of inquiry, my subordinate is a mad dog killer and you are free to do with him and his family as you’d like.

          No issues with the subsequent criminal trials, law suits, etc. You are a hero.

          They confiscated all onlookers’ photos and video. No matter how much you {heart} the State, that’s really bad optics. Sorry.

          Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 12, 2014 at 6:14 am

          I don’t hold with confiscation of phones or video recorders.

          Being careful with information and responsibly investigating is the opposite of “hearting the state”.

          It is taking care of people WHILE making sure the guilty get punished appropriately.

          your question was why name not released.
          I gave a possible reason so you change your question and go on another rant with no evidence.
          congrats mr sharpton, post crap we must.
          I’m done with you, you are a waste of time.
          FOAD

          Henry Hawkins in reply to tom swift. | August 12, 2014 at 3:17 pm

          It’s under investigation. If you make too many facts known to the public, you are prejudicing potential witnesses who will massage their accounts to match what’s been reported. Makes for bad investigations, which hurt both LE and the public.

        Oh right, just like Zimmerman’s name was not released. Oh wait, he’s not a member of the Privileged Class who can shoot unarmed kids and not be expected to account for it.

        “Never mind”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | August 12, 2014 at 10:33 am

          You might want to give some thought to WHEN Zimmerman’s name was released, and under what circumstances.

          Are you insisting on being so dumb about this that you seriously suggest the name of the officer will NOT be released/discovered?

          Seriously…???

          There is supposed to be that revelation today, in fact.

          Actually Rags, you might want to give some thought as to when the police released Zimmerman’s name.

          According to the local news station, Martin was shot on Sunday, Feb. 26, 2012. The names of Martin and Zimmerman were released the next day, Feb 27.

          http://mynews13.com/trayvon-timeline.html#shooting

          There are two sets of rules for cops and citizens when there is a shooting or an investigation. We can argue all day long as to the reason and validity of those differences, but to deny the differences exist is to deny reality.

      Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 11, 2014 at 9:02 pm

      There is also a SOP for a use of deadly force in MOST PDs, along with strictures on exposing officers to outright danger during an investigation.

      Additionally, most PDs have a use-of-force doctrine that they apply in circumstances like this.

      Anonymous has already threatened to make public the addresses of the entire PD, which will do nothing BUT escalate the tensions on the ground.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Ragspierre. | August 12, 2014 at 5:30 am

        Homes of officers were attacked the first night, doors were kicked in and gunfire exchanged, according to one article. That was the first night.

        The officer who shot Michael Brown was also black, according to news articles.

          Would you mind linking to those articles? I’d be interested in looking at them.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | August 12, 2014 at 10:12 am

          Amy, I could not find the articles. Maybe I have conflated comments with actual articles. I did find out that the police are planning to release the name of the policeman who shot Michael Brown. http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/11/name-ferguson-officer-michael-brown-released/13910543/

          So your claim that officers were facing targeted gunfire at their homes……..?

          And your claim that the officer who shot & killed young mister Brown was black……?

          Is nothing but (highly inflammatory hot air…..?

          tom swift in reply to Uncle Samuel. | August 12, 2014 at 12:01 pm

          Recall the Chernobyl accident.

          The Soviet Union tried to keep mum about it, perhaps hoping nobody would notice. The radioactive plume was detected by the Swedish military. After that it didn’t take long to determine that the source was in the Chernobyl area. Still, the Soviets played dead. The Western press ran wild with the story, with reports of fifty thousand dead in Kiev, etc etc. Gorbachev finally came to the realization that if he came clean with the information, the USSR would look bad enough, but if he persisted in his attempts at secrecy, it would look far worse. So, belatedly, he realized that, at least sometimes, honesty is the best policy.

          Parallels here are obvious. The police are failing to provide basic information. Nobody can be terribly surprised when other information, most of it bogus, is provided in its stead.

          Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | August 12, 2014 at 12:14 pm

          That may be the stupidest thing you’ve ever posted.

          Which is going some…

      sequester in reply to tom swift. | August 12, 2014 at 9:27 am

      There is good reason why Grand Jury proceedings are secret. Secrecy protects the innocent from having their names besmirched. Secrecy does not equate to a dishonorable investigation of an incident.

        Ragspierre in reply to sequester. | August 12, 2014 at 9:35 am

        Personally, I HATE the impulse we see from…say…the Obami to hop out in front of a too eager press with any damn thing, only to have them come back with a “clarification” and some excuse about the “fog of this or that”.

        I like the idea of holding one’s piece until something authoritative and truthful can be imparted after some careful investigation.

          Phillep Harding in reply to Ragspierre. | August 12, 2014 at 12:13 pm

          You must read the news more carefully than I do because it seems to me there is a real shortage of “clarifications”.

          Nose thumbing, OTOH…

        MarkS in reply to sequester. | August 12, 2014 at 10:52 am

        A grand jury might be more convincing than an in house investigation by the police

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkS. | August 12, 2014 at 12:12 pm

          Convincing to whom? And, without a police agency investigation, what would you put before a grand jury?

Humphrey's Executor | August 11, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Hopefully Mr. Branca will post an explanation of the “fleeing felon” rule as it may apply to this case.

    The police should know about that without any coaching. But so far they don’t seem to be talking.

    Suspicion is inevitable.

      JPL17 in reply to tom swift. | August 12, 2014 at 6:48 am

      Tom, you’re not from around here, are ya?

      Mr. Branca doesn’t work for Ferguson PD. He’s Legal Insurrection’s resident expert on the law of self-defense. He knows more than a thing or 2 — perhaps even more than you — about when a police officer is entitled to use deadly force, and when he isn’t.

      Any enlightenment Mr. Branca could bring on this subject would be most welcome.

We don’t have the facts. Cops, like other people, are capable of lying as well as making unwarranted assumptions.

Be that as it may — what’s with the shitforbrains looting and rioting? Not the way to make a statement about non-violent, law-abiding communities that should not be stereotyped.

It’s not a crime to film the police. I want to know how they justify confiscating all onlookers’ photos and videos.

Everyone needs to use an app which uploads to a cloud while filming/photographing.

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

    I meant to add, remember how relieved George Zimmerman was when the police (lying to him, alas) told him that there was surveillance footage of the incident he was involved in? He wasn’t worried -he wanted the truth to come out.

    Just sayin’.

    MarkS in reply to Amy in FL. | August 12, 2014 at 10:57 am

    They justify the confiscation as collecting evidence which leads to the question why should one be compelled to give evidence of a crime to the perpetrator of the crime?

      Seizing as evidence is one thing. I’m sure in a perfect world we’d just have an FBI agent show up and take custody. I just hope there’s a pristine chain of custody and people can get to the bottom of this properly.

I have NO information, but if I were the cop who shot the kid, I would probably not be all that anxious to tell my story to the cops/Internal Affairs. Just as we should take the Fifth after any shooting we get involved in, the cop should do the same. And this cop probably has just as much right to consult with an attorney and get his facts straight as we do.

So I draw no conclusions or inferences from the delay by the cops in making public pronouncements!

As to the looters, the story keepers should probably be out there protecting their stores with “streetsweepers” and other arms, since the cops do not seem interested in doing so.

    tom swift in reply to Mike45. | August 12, 2014 at 11:47 am

    I would probably not be all that anxious to tell my story to the cops/Internal Affairs.

    Well, of course not. But what the shooter thinks about it has little to do with the department’s subsequent actions and statements.

    When the police go for anonymity, that puts them in a difficult situation. If people suspect a police coverup – and some would claim that police efforts to keep the shooter’s identity secret is indistinguishable from a coverup – it’s an easy step to suspect that a lot more is being covered up as well. From there, things go downhill almost inexorably – complaints, mass protests, mobs, riots, and finally looting sprees. As we are seeing.

      Gunstar1 in reply to tom swift. | August 12, 2014 at 2:35 pm

      Unlike when people know the persons name and they can just target that individual with death threats and harassment.

        Like with Zimmerman? After all the death threats and the Black Panther bounty on his head, I bet he wished the cops had kept HIS name a secret too…

        But of course, when it comes to shooting unarmed black kids, the State’s rule is that “It’s different when WE do it, so shut up.”

          Milhouse in reply to Amy in FL. | August 13, 2014 at 10:41 pm

          So because the police in Florida f***ed up with Zimmerman, and ruined his life because of it, therefore a cop in a different department, in a different state, should have his life ruined too?!

          Murphy in reply to Amy in FL. | August 14, 2014 at 7:52 am

          Either all shooters’ names should be released to the public, or none should be. I would err on the side of openness, transparency, and public accountability; others would not.

      steveo1 in reply to tom swift. | August 13, 2014 at 9:28 am

      I also think that no one is really doing any work on the identity part. Can’t be that many leos on this force. Whittle that down to how many were hired 6 years ago. Get the police academy photos from 6 and 7 years ago. Then go to facebook with the last names of the remaining suspects, get the photo of the leos and ask Johnson, the buddy, who was it? But the MSM in the area won’t publish the name without the chief telling them that they can.

    steveo1 in reply to Mike45. | August 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    A good FBI tactic would be to talk to the leo shooter and tell him they have a pristine cellphone video of the whole encounter (a bluff) and does the leo want to change any of his statement before they set it in stone. Let him know that lying to the FBI is it’s own felony. Also, we’d like you to take a polygraph with the FBI examiner. This guys probably all lawyered up, they’re never going to get the exact details of what happened.

Midwest Rhino | August 11, 2014 at 10:44 pm

Attempted murder of a cop by this black teenage punk would make him a hero in certain circles.

A cop shooting his attempted murderer means … all rioting of businesses, and area wide social injustice is … sanctified.

Crazy town … seems likely the cop should not have shot .. seems certain making thug Trayvon a national hero/martyr was a tragic but successful political ploy.

I don’t know what happened. But I do know there is a reverse lynch mob out there. Justice cannot be served with the likes of Crump around.

By the way in Tennessee v Garner 471 US 1 (1985) The Supreme Court stated:

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspected felon unless it is
necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others

We still don’t know the facts. But reaching for an officer’s gun constitutes probable cause to believe the felon poses a significant threat of death. I can’t think of a more foolhardy move. It almost guarantees getting shot.

    clerk in reply to sequester. | August 12, 2014 at 8:34 am

    Well said. People should not be on trial because a mob by its very shouting of the word Justice perverts its true meaning. We should not put people on trial for their lives to appease shouting and rioting hordes. There is a little thing called probable cause that must be proven before someone faces the overwhelming burden of a trial.

    counsel in reply to sequester. | August 12, 2014 at 8:38 am

    Justice and mob pressure are fundamentally incompatible. If the shouting and angry protestors truly had faith in our system of justice, they would let authorities conduct a thorough and impartial investigation without attempting to influence the outcome. Witness statements sometimes fall apart when the witness is confronted by a skilled investigator.

      tom swift in reply to counsel. | August 12, 2014 at 7:50 pm

      If the shouting and angry protestors truly had faith in our system of justice

      I suspect that’s the problem … they don’t.

    So show the dash-cam/in-car footage of the kid reaching for the cop’s gun. Easy peasy.

    Oh wait. They lost it. Or their cam malfunctioned. Or some dog they hadn’t got around to puppyciding yet ate it.

    Oh, such “bad luck.”

      Char Char Binks in reply to Amy in FL. | August 12, 2014 at 6:28 pm

      How would the dash cam show what happened in the back seat? Not so easy peasy after all, is it?

      Milhouse in reply to Amy in FL. | August 13, 2014 at 4:20 am

      They didn’t lose it and it didn’t malfunction. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. It’s not available because it never existed, because this town don’t have dashcams in the first place.

        They even had lapel cams, according to an article in the WSJ. They just weren’t wearing them. You’d think that honest cops would be eager to wear the body cams – they could very smartly put an end to false accusations against them.

          Char Char Binks in reply to Amy in FL. | August 13, 2014 at 10:44 am

          If there is video, I hope we get to see it. It may surprise some people, but not everything is video recorded — yet.

          Milhouse in reply to Amy in FL. | August 13, 2014 at 10:46 pm

          They had them but weren’t wearing them?! That sounds very suspicious, if true. But I don’t think it is true. What I’ve read is that the department got them recently, with plans to give them to the cops and train them on their use, but they haven’t done so yet. Which is not suspicious at all, it’s just unfortunate that it didn’t happen yet. It’s not as if these cops, knowing that soon they won’t be able to get up to any shenanigans, decided to get it out of their system first! That would be a crazy paranoid theory.

      steveo1 in reply to Amy in FL. | August 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm

      this pd doesn’t have any cams in their patrol cars…The chief said they just bought body cams but didn’t have them deployed yet.

      Personally, I think every State legislature should make it mandatory that cams/audio be in every patrol car and provide the funding for it. I’d even support a sales tax hike in my State to pay for it.

        Milhouse in reply to steveo1. | August 13, 2014 at 10:47 pm

        Agreed, 100%. Cops should always be treated with suspicion, because so many of them are bullies, who think the law doesn’t apply to them. But in any specific case, when a cop is accused of a crime, he’s entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Nothing justifies the rioting. Holder’s statement that Justice will investigate is OK but the issue is where is Holder when there is questionable Black criminals attacks Kaffirs?

Obviously these Knock Out attacks are racial attacks. Most black crime is racial in nature.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Guy. | August 12, 2014 at 8:09 am

    Obviously these Knock Out attacks are racial attacks. Most black crime is racial in nature.

    I don’t think that most Black crime is racial in nature – most of it is Black on Black, likely for the reason that other Blacks are more convenient. Sure, on occasion, some White person is accidentally killed in a drive by, but it are the Blacks (and Hispanics) who have their kids covering in the bathtubs at night.

    I suspect that you may be correct though about knock down/knock out attacks being more racial in nature. And, there does appear to be Black on everyone else crime when this sort of thing happens. And, that has been going on, at least since the Asians armed themselves during the Rodney King riots.

      Remember – blacks from across the nation were using social media (twitter esp) to tell the black looters to go loot white neighborhoods instead.

      There’s a difference between complaining “why are you fouling your own nest” and advocating “go torch those whitey homes over there”

      So I gotta go with John Derbyshire:

      “A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.”

      http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz3ABjEx7HD

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am suspicious on the one hand any time Crump comes out to represent a family, like he did here. To me, a race hustler nearly on the order of Al Sharpton. On the other hand, if the police did confiscate all the video records, and, esp. if they erase them, then maybe they have something here. Not surprised that AG Holder is jumping in – but that is just going to fan the racial flames even more. Maybe his team is needed, but I think that the state should get the first shot.

In any case, I have little doubt that the coverage here will be better than almost anywhere, as it typically is, when this sort of question comes up.

    If I was police captain, my last act would be to tell Eric Holder that all video records were lost or deleted. And that we “recycled” all the phones we confiscated.

      Milhouse in reply to Fen. | August 13, 2014 at 10:53 pm

      Yes. Even if it turns out that this was a cold-blooded execution, and the cop is a rabid dog who needs putting down, this is still what Holder should be told. The local authorities should refuse to cooperate with the DOJ investigation, because it’s fundamentally illegitimate. We all know that had the victim been white the DOJ would have taken no interest in it.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 13, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Crump called Brown a “baby”. Of course, and Trayvon was a fetus.

I have many concerns on how this went down. it (initially with the limited data) smelled odd.
now it does not matter. riots nullify any attempt of justice.
smart move dumba**ed

I agree with you Bruce, especially when it comes to finding objective reporting based on fact instead of agenda. Looks like I’ll be spending a lot of time here on LI! I think what will be telling is how information is being reported in the major media outlets and the public relations blitz that will, no doubt, ensue especially since Crump & Co. are now involved. As a result of following the Trayvon Martin (insert trademark here) case and the subsequent Zimmerman trial, there are some things that naturally make me skeptical. For example, if we start seeing images of Brown as a little kid as opposed to more recent photos of him at age 18, that is a sure sign that PR is trumping (or shall I say Crumping) the facts of the case.

I caught a brief interview with the Ferguson police chief last night in which he stated that, in order to conduct a thorough, objective investigation, they have a county or state entity undertaking the investigation. Will the media report this fact? I wonder how many people are simply assuming that the Ferguson police department is investigating itself. I keep hearing people question why they haven’t released the name of the officer who shot Brown, implying that the Ferguson police are hiding something. Perhaps they are trying to prevent people with a “mob justice” mentality from taking matters into their own hands and having the likes of Spike Lee or Roseanne Barr posting innocent citizens’ addresses.

lesson 1: don’t get into a “struggle” with an armed man …

lesson 2: if the armed man you are struggling with is a cop expect to get shot …

lesson 3: the “community” never misses a chance to break the law and loot stores …

    steveo1 in reply to dorsaighost. | August 13, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    I’ve always taught my children to respect the authority of the leos, but to also know their rights. They don’t have to talk to them and shouldn’t and if they tell you that you are under arrest, put your hands behind your back and go peacefully because all the leos can do is to bring you someplace that you will probably be released from and then you talk to the court. That way you don’t get hurt.

    But I think it’s different in the projects. I think there are cowboy cops and the teens sometimes get battered by these kinds of leos because , well, they can and they get away with it. A lot of these kids get beat up even if they are peacefully trying to do what I said above. It doesn’t work the same for them.

Police now say they will not be releasing the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown:
https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench/status/499203942862319617

    Fine to not try and get the man killed, but the public’s going to expect something better than the usual “see ya in 6 months” stuff. Might not get it, but the expectation’s there.

      So there are two sets of rules. The police will release the names of civilians accused of shooting unarmed youth, and dealing with the publicity up to and including death threats is their problem. But if it’s own of their brethren? Oh well THAT’s different.

      Because some animals…

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | August 12, 2014 at 3:51 pm

        Where are you getting this crap, and why are you insisting on chanting it…???

        It is a LIE. Not a mistake. A LIE.

          I am sorry Rags, but what exactly is a lie here?

          The police routinely publicize the name of suspects prior to an arrest. In cases where there is a shooting, they publicize the name of the shooter. Here, the police are releasing the name of the shooter.

          There is no lie here other than to say that there aren’t two sets of rules for the police and citizens.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 12, 2014 at 6:40 pm

          Well, you’re simply WRONG.

          Do a search. Police OFTEN do not immediately release names of suspects, and for VARIOUS reasons.

          One of which is public safety, or the safety of the suspect. Here you had a swarm of enraged people form almost immediately, and then you had outright rioting.

          Since there have been (by accounts) rather serious death threats.

          How is that NOT the same as the Zimmerman case…???

          It is SOP for a lot of police departments to withhold the names of officers in officer-related shootings pending the investigation of the incident. But it is not uncommon for them to withhold the name of civilian suspects, too.

          Well gosh Rags, I guess you told me, eh?

          After all, when I do a search for police not releasing names of adult suspects, I haven’t found it routine as you claim. But I certainly bow to your knowledge that no one else can find and substantiate.

          As to the Zimmerman case, Martin was shot on the night of February 26 and the police released the name of Zimmerman the following morning.

          This shooting took place on August 9th, and here on the 12th, the police have not released the shooter’s name.

          Once again, I bow to your superior knowledge that less than 12 hours is the same as 3+ days and counting. After all, I can see how you would think that a 600% difference in the times would demonstrate that there are not different rules for police and regular citizens.

          I also bow to your linguistic skills in equating the words “standard operating procedure” and “uncommon” to indicate there is no difference in releasing the names of suspects. I would have thought that the terms indicated a difference, but clearly I must be wrong simply because you say so.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm

          “I haven’t found it routine as you claim.”

          Well, no, and you won’t find anywhere I used the word “routine”, either. Do you plan to just lie?

          When Zimmerman’s name was released, was that ANY reason NOT to release it? Was there ANY controversy? Was there a riot, you moron? Was anybody sending death threats to the Po-po?

          You can’t read, apparently.

          “It is SOP for a lot of police departments to withhold the names of officers in officer-related shootings pending the investigation of the incident. But it is not uncommon for them to withhold the name of civilian suspects, too.”

          That suggests that there are two standards for civilian and police shootings in terms of the release of information.

          Dunnit…??? Stupid…???

          Can you think of any good reasons WHY there SHOULD be two policies…???

          How come you ignored the FACT that police DO withhold…for safely reasons among others…the names of civilian suspects? Did you bother looking really?

          I am sorry Rags, but when I made the statement that it was routine to give the name of shooters but not police, you claimed I was lying. I can’t see how that isn’t a statement that you believe that the release of the name of police was routine as it is contrary to my statement which you believe to be a lie.

          Since you want to compare the release of Zimmerman’s name and that of this unknown shooter, let’s go back and read what you claimed earlier:

          “You might want to give some thought to WHEN Zimmerman’s name was released, and under what circumstances.”

          We know that Zimmerman’s name was released quickly. The circumstances were “in a press conference before people could get riled up about the police treating the shooting of a black kid differently than they would any other shooting.”

          That is EXACTLY what happened here. The police treated this shooter differently because it is one of their own.

          Oh, and btw, in case you forgot you also wrote:

          “Are you insisting on being so dumb about this that you seriously suggest the name of the officer will NOT be released/discovered?”

          Apparently the only person who is being “dumb” was you as the name was not released.

          You also asked this:

          “When Zimmerman’s name was released, was that ANY reason NOT to release it? Was there ANY controversy? Was there a riot, you moron? Was anybody sending death threats to the Po-po?”

          There was no reason not to release Zimmerman’s name just as there is no reason not to release the name of this shooter. That’s the point. Was there any controversy 12 hours after Martin was shot? It was building. Was there any controversy after this shooting? It was building.

          Was there a riot when Zimmerman’s name was released? Nope. Thanks for proving that being open and honest in investigations keeps people calm. Are you so naive to think that the police’s actions in keeping the shooter’s name hidden does not add to the sense that the Police are covering things up? That there will not be justice for this kid? Are you the only person who doesn’t see the double standard and how that standard has led to the tensions in cases like this?

          You asked:

          “Can you think of any good reasons WHY there SHOULD be two policies…???”

          No. Not a one.

          Unless you believe that citizens should be treated differently from members of law enforcement and receive special privileges, then you can’t think of a good reason either. Of course, treating people differently is never a good thing, but that would be your only basis for a “good reason.”

          Finally, I did look for cops withholding the names of suspects and only found cases where the victim had yet to be identified (which didn’t happen in this case) or the suspect was underage (which also isn’t relevant to this case.)

          The problem is that you keep claiming that there is no double standard in cases like this despite all evidence to the contrary. You then attack people who dare to disagree with you on the facts because we should all bow down to your factual inaccuracies.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 12, 2014 at 9:31 pm

          Oh, dear. That reading problem again.

          Where you used “routine” I merely stated you were WRONG. Read, hon. I did not say you lied. Did I?

          Your stupid, false comparisons to the Zimmerman case will stand as their own indictment of both your inability to reason and your fundamental dishonesty.

          You continue by noting the officer’s name has not YET been released. It will be, of course, stupid.

          He MAY be guilty of a crime in fact, and could be tried at law.

          There was every reason not to release this LEO’s name, and I find it only reinforcement of your appalling stupidity that you see none. Or is it dishonesty again? SoKay.

          Police ARE different than the rest of us. Sorry, that reality must come as a revelation to you. It is an incident of the job they perform. As a general principle, that difference, or set of differences, should be carefully minimized and jealously guarded. But they do have both prerogatives and burdens you and I don’t have. I often wonder how we get people to do the job. You can try to hand-wave that truism away (there are different standards for each of us because of the role), and I really expect you are either that dishonest or that stupid, based on your “stuff”. Still, it is just as true as that military members are not the same as the civilian population.

          What I keep resisting on this thread is the hair-on-fire bullshit of a couple of the posters here who have no tie to reality…or very little…and keep indicting someone on no knowledge, and throwing bombs about the police covering up what happened here.

          I will keep doing it, too. Could be the policeman is a murderer in fact. Could be the police are covering something up. There is no evidence I see of either, as yet.

          BTW, the police are so fastidious about NOT naming suspects they have adopted the term “person of interest”, who is often totally anonymous. And THAT is a fact, you moron.

        Char Char Binks in reply to Amy in FL. | August 13, 2014 at 11:39 am

        There was no controversy with the Martin shooting UNTIL the names were released, showing that Trayvon was shot by Whitey McWhiteman.

          Or more specifically Yiddle Yiddleman. Except that his name was misleading, and he was neither Jewish nor white. If his name had been Jorge Mesa, nobody would ever have heard of Trayvon Martin.

But UNTIL you have an investigation by a police agency, there is nothing to put before a grand jury.

Something about this seems odd, but without more facts I can’t tell what.

Has anyone found out whether the man who was shot indeed had no criminal record, as his grandmother claimed? How about the friend who was with him? The authorities seem to be waiting also on toxicology reports. That might be significant.

Having the County lead the investigation sounds very appropriate.

    steveo1 in reply to tarheelkate. | August 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    because he’s a juvi any non-felonies even some felonies are sealed records. The pd would leak any of that right away if it was available. My thought is clean record.

Disregard any comment that begins with “witnesses say.” I’ve seen, first-hand, a police encounter where the perp shoved cops out of his way, charged after a woman before cops managed to wrestle him to the ground, and the witnesses all said “He didn’t do nothing! He didn’t do nothing!”

    As long as we, in keeping with your rule, also disregard what any cop witnesses say, I’m good with that.

      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | August 12, 2014 at 3:56 pm

      How about give each piece of information what credence it warrants?

      And how about we allow a little time for the PROCESSESSSSSS to run their course?

      Or you could run around here with your hair on fire, insinuating things you have no idea are true. Like “an unarmed kid” was shot by police. We don’t know he was not TRYING real hard to GET armed, do we?

      Up to you.

Char Char Binks | August 12, 2014 at 6:38 pm

Many of the witness accounts so far are very fishy. Saying the cop tried to open the door, but it hit Brown — how would that look different from Brown shoving the door on the cop as he was trying to exit the car, a far more likely scenario? Saying the cop was trying to pull Brown INTO the car during the struggle — there’s not a cop on Earth who would put a suspect in the car without subduing and handcuffing him first. And of course there were accounts of Brown getting shot in the back. It seems his back, like Trayvon’s, must have been located at the front of his body.

    tom swift in reply to Char Char Binks. | August 12, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    http://www.news4jax.com/news/violence-flares-where-police-shot-teen/27421772?item=0

    The officer “shot again, and once my friend felt that shot, he turned around and put his hands in the air,” [Dorian] Johnson told KMOV. “He started to get down and the officer still approached with his weapon drawn and fired several more shots.”

    “He ran for his life, they shot him and he fell,” [witness Piaget] Crenshaw told KTVI. “He put his arms up to let them know he was compliant and he was unarmed, and they shot him twice more and he fell to the ground and died.”

    The story may be fact or it may be fiction, but it allows for shots in the front, the back, or anywhere else needed.

      Char Char Binks in reply to tom swift. | August 13, 2014 at 11:44 am

      Sure, Johnson’s account of hands in the air and a shot in the back is as credible as Johnson’s account of the cop pulling Brown INTO THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF HIS CAR. Because that’s how cops make arrests. They are trained to pull suspects into the driver’s seat and THEN subdue and cuff them – SOP.

    It does appear that way that why would the leo want to pull him through the window? But regardless of the struggle at the window, the first part: the confrontation in the street with the SUV at first contact (which we haven’t had refuted by the investigators) and the last part, the dead guy running away and appearing to surrender (which hasn’t been refuted) and had no weapon is going to be tough for the head ramrods to get around. And the number of shots which indicate a lot of anger/rage.

      Char Char Binks in reply to steveo1. | August 13, 2014 at 1:49 pm

      I didn’t say anything was refuted, just that witness Johnson has said some very incredible things, calling all every part of his story into doubt. If we don’t believe that the cop deliberately hit Brown with the door, or tried to pull him into the vehicle, why would we believe Johnson’s account of Brown running away, shouting “I don’t have a gun” (or something like that), being shot in the back, and putting his hands up in surrender? None of it has the ring of truth, and I don’t doubt most of it, if not all, will be refuted. But once people build up so much outrage based on false info and lies, they don’t let go of it easily.

I know you are having issues here Rags and your anger is getting the better of you.

You did say that the people (including me) lied. I guess your anger leads to amnesia or something.

And yes, I am noting that the officer’s name has not been released because in every other case where someone has been shot the shooter’s name has been released. That is what the discussion is about, Rags. You keep denying that little fact.

You were also grossly mistaken about the time and release of Zimmerman’s name and now are trying to blame others for making the valid comparison between that case and this one.

You have now taken to the clearly desperate attempt to deflect from what people are saying: the police treat their own differently than they do the average citizen.

Your attempt has gotten so pathetic that you are now bringing in the designation of “person of interest” to try and deflect from the facts of this case.

Here’s a news scoop for you Rags: the shooter is not a “person of interest.” The shooter is known to the police and they are refusing to release his name as they would for every other person who had shot someone.

Stop whining like a little child and be an adult. The cops are treating this case differently because one of their own shot a kid. If it were you or me, our names would be out there for all to see. You and I would have been in the back of a police car and taken to the station to perform the “perp walk” where the media gets all sorts of pictures and attempts to yell at the suspect. Have you seen that happen here?

The police swear to uphold the laws of the state and the Constitution. That is part of every oath taken by every cop in the country. Those laws and that Constitution demand equal protection and equal treatment under the law for all.

How sad it is that you are willing to excuse the breaking of that oath by the police.

    Ragspierre in reply to gitarcarver. | August 12, 2014 at 11:21 pm

    Let me be succinct.

    You NOW are lying, and you are persisting in being both irrational AND dishonest.

    You can deny facts and reality, but I will treat you with the contempt you deserve. Well, and observe you are full of shit.

    And I’ll point at you and laugh.

      You sure do throw that “lie” term around a great deal Rags, especially when there is no basis for it.

      Adults admit their mistakes. Go ahead and own up to yours. No one will think worse of you when you do so.

    Ragspierre in reply to gitarcarver. | August 12, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Police are withholding the name of the suspect until the case is reviewed by the Bell County District Attorney’s Office, and formal charges are filed.
    http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/police-release-name-of-woman-killed-in-killeen-shooting/article_9bef9650-61c4-11e3-8426-001a4bcf6878.html

    That is one of several. You don’t honesty do research any more than you honestly do anything else.

      One of several? Let’s take this one and show how silly you are being.

      The shooting took place on December 9, 2013. The name was released on Tuesday, December 10.

      http://www.kxxv.com/story/24170295/killeen-standoff

      Are you still mathematically challenged to see that 1 day is not the same as 3 (going on 4)?

      Adults admit their mistakes, Rags. Do the adult thing here.

        Ragspierre in reply to gitarcarver. | August 13, 2014 at 9:19 am

        You are a liar. I’ve shown you are both irrational and dishonest on a fundamental level, and everyone can see it.

          You haven’t shown anything other than a penchant for acting like a child and saying people lie when they disagree with you.

          Apparently you like the idea of the police being treated differently than ordinary citizens. Most people would disagree with you on that point.

          Apparently you like the idea of the police exhibiting a lack of transparency when it comes to their own. Most people would disagree with you on that point as well.

          Most people would understand that lack of transparency leads to the anger within communities when dealing with alleged police misconduct. In fact. a report by a former police officer and now college professor showed how the police in Ferguson needed to be more transparent and open in their activities and investigations, otherwise the people would view them with suspicion and mistrust. That report was in 2012 and seems to have been dismissed by the police. The result was predictable.

          I am sure that you will continue to rant and rave, calling people liars when they disagree with you and saying they are stupid when they show your lack of critical thinking.

          Such is the way of a person with the maturity of a 5 year old.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 13, 2014 at 12:02 pm

          Well, that post was ANOTHER set of lies.

          BTW, your reading comprehension problem continues unabated.

          As does your fundamental dishonesty. The dates on the two cites from the Killeen incident don’t match up, do they, stupid? And TIME is not the significant point of anything demonstrated, in any event. The withholding of the suspect’s name was CONDITIONED not on time, but the decision of the DA. If that took a day, a week, or a month, THAT was the condition.

          Liar.

          But I’ve proven my point…that your irrational position that police NEVER withhold suspect names is stupid and a lie.

          They do, and for various good reasons, just as there are good reasons in this instance to NOT broadcast the name of the officer involved in this shooting AT THIS TIME.

          I’ve also demonstrated that you will flop around from the general to the specific as it suits your effort at “argument”, and that you ignore valid points and hand-wave others that you can’t deal with.

          LEOs are people. Your position is that they are evil people.

          My position is that they a just people, and I won’t default to ascribing to them the darkest comic-book motives and conduct without evidence.

          Simple as that.

          That does not mean I do not question authority, as I was accused of doing. It means I insist on remaining rational and reality-based, and that I demand evidence before forming an opinion.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 13, 2014 at 12:10 pm

          “Apparently you like the idea of the police being treated differently than ordinary citizens.”

          No, that is another of your lies.

          What I DO is recognize reality. Police are NOT like ordinary citizens IN REALITY. If you want to run from that REALITY, you may. It remains true. Whether I like it, you like it…whatever.

          And IN REALITY, we all know this and accept it as part of the role they play in society. As I mentioned, they have both prerogatives and burdens we do not have. Even fireman do, again, as part of the work they do.

          Now, I’ve ALSO stated…clearly…that we need to be vigilant in keeping those differences where they belong, and in assuring they do not become onerous.

          But I, unlike you, do not engage in irrational thinking.

          I also work at being honest, a project you should try.

          I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying. You say that in the Killian shooting the police withheld the name of the shooter but now aren’t sure of the dates.

          And you accuse others of not being logical and stupid?

          There are other articles out there on the subject. The shooting / standoff took place on the 9th, and the name of the suspect was released on the 10th. Now, do you still want to try and make the claim that 1 day in Killian is the same as 4 days in Ferguson? THAT’S what you want to hang your hat on?

          Once again, I say to you that it is okay to admit that you made a mistake. Adults do it all the time. You have a choice to act like an adult or continue to rave, whine and cry like a five year old.

          I am an optimist by nature and hope that you will do the adult thing.

          However, I am also a realist and know that you will continue to act like a child.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm

          Where are your links, liar?

          Put up the link to the “professor” you referenced, too, while you’re at it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 13, 2014 at 1:03 pm

          There you go with that “time” red-herring.

          LOVE that, seeing you just lie over and over…!!!

          (A red-herring is fundamentally a lie told to deflect.)

          Police withhold names of suspects not uncommonly. Often to protect a minor, or other innocent. Often to foster an investigation. Often to promote public safety. As here, moron.

          I just want to make sure I understand your position here.

          The police in Killian released the name of the shooter within a day. The police in Ferguson have yet to release the name of the shooter. You think that comparing the times is irrelevant. I can’t argue with that thinking because there is none.

          (Oh, and by the way, how is a factual statement on the times a lie? You really need to come up with a new schtick on calling everyone who gives facts that show the fallacy in your position a “liar.”)

          Secondly, there are times when the police do not release the suspects because they are minors. That is not the case here and such restrictions are often codified – not a choice of the police.

          By the way, Rags, do you know that in some jurisdictions when an officer is interrogated as part of an investigation, not only is he allowed his lawyer to be present (as is everyone) but his union shop steward or representative is there as well. Do you think that adult citizens can have others in the room? (Quick answer: they cannot.) Also do you realize that in many jurisdictions, police cannot be questioned on shootings until they have spoken to union reps and furthermore, they do not have to answer questions on the day of the shooting. That’s the “equality” that you are supporting.

          You also tried to justify the non release of the name by saying the names of suspects are not released “often to foster an investigation.” Your claim of “often” is obviously in dispute because clearly not releasing the names of suspects is highly uncommon. But even given that, are the Ferguson PD, the FBI et al looking at anyone else for this shooting? Is there another suspect out there?

          Even when you go hunting for a shelter in a storm, your own posts destroy your thinking.

          But perhaps the most ridiculous statement you made is that the name of the cop was not released because of “public safety.” How is that working out for the people and City of Ferguson? Last night the police in Ferguson shot tear gas at people while demanding the people “go home.” The only problem was that the people were home and were standing on their front lawn and porches. Is that the type of “public safety” you are talking about? Where people cannot stand on their own property without being gassed by the police?

          This is an topic for adults, and obviously you are incapable of meeting that standard.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 13, 2014 at 1:41 pm

          More lies, more red-herrings, more irrational clap-trap, and no links…

          Hmmmm…???

          “More lies,…..”

          (Stated without proof)

          “…. more red-herrings, …..

          (stated without proof)

          “…..more irrational clap-trap, …..”

          (stated without proof )

          “and no links…”

          I have given you as many links as you have supplied.

          But to demonstrate how ridiculous you are being, take a look at the link I gave you already.

          The shooting took place on Monday, December 9, 2013. The article you gave saying the police were withholding the name of the suspect was posted on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:58 am. Now Skippy, take a look at the link I gave again:

          “The Bell County District Attorney’s Office reviewed the case on Tuesday and a complaint was returned charging Wilson with murder. He has been transferred to the Bell County Jail.”

          The complaint was issued on Tuesday which is ONE DAY after the shooting.

          Somehow in your mind you are equating the release of the name of a shooter in Killian Texas with the non-release of the name of the shooter in Ferguson.

          Logic and critical thinking aren’t strong points of people who act like little children.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 13, 2014 at 2:07 pm

          More lies, more red-herrings, more irrational clap-trap, and no links…

          Hmmmm…???

          AND, I am pointing at you and laughing…!!!

        I love how your fall back position is always everyone else is stupid and a liar.

        The dates on the Killian shooting match up just fine. I am sorry if you don’t see that but like so many things, you are stuck in a position and nothing anyone can say will dissuade you from that position.

        It is incredible that you accuse other people of flopping around. You were the one that tried to bring in “persons of interest” into this discussion when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A port in any storm, I guess.

        It is clearly a lack of critical thinking when you attack those who say the police should not be treated differently as liars and then go on and try to say that they are treated differently.

        So as I said, you seem happy with the idea that police are treated differently for their illegal actions than regular citizens. I hope that you never meet a cop that decides that he is above the law and treats you as some sort of serf. Maybe you can tell him that you support his belief that he is above the law. That may help you.

        I remind you that you claimed it was not “uncommon” for police to withhold the name of suspects. To prove that point you went and found a shooting from 9 months ago where the police released the name of a suspect within a day. That was your best evidence to prove your point? After all the crimes committed in the country, you went back 9 months? In actuality, because you had to go back that far, you proved that your statement was false. It is uncommon for the police to withhold the name of a suspect.

        I didn’t have to prove that. You did.

        (Geez it must suck to blow your own position out of the water.)

        I never said all cops are evil. Maybe you read that before blaming me for a lack of reading skills and comprehension. Or maybe you were rocking that fallacy while proclaiming to the world how you work at being “honest.”

        The bottom line is that you are fine with the police having protections when they are accused of breaking the law that other people don’t have. You are fine with a layered legal system where cops who commit crimes are treated differently than the average guy on the street.

        All cops are not bad or evil, but unlike you, I believe they should be treated the same as an average citizen when they break the law or are being investigated.

          Ragspierre in reply to gitarcarver. | August 13, 2014 at 12:42 pm

          I love how you just continue to lie.

          Here, stupid, I see you STILL are not honest enough to do some research and report honestly.

          The date on the story reporting the RELEASE of the suspect’s name is December 10th.

          The date on the story reporting the suspect’s name would be WITHHELD pending a decision by the DA is December 9th.

          Moron.

          From THAT I conclude we really have NO IDEA of the actual date of the EVENTS.

          I also LOVE you taking the time to write these long, blathering posts.

          And I LOVE pointing at you and laughing…!!!

          Ragspierre in reply to gitarcarver. | August 13, 2014 at 12:46 pm

          Ooooopss…

          I reversed the dates.

          See, this is how you do it.

          The report relating the release of the suspect’s name was dated the day BEFORE the report relating it was being withheld.

          So, again, we have no idea about the actual timing of events.

I know Chief Belmar personally and while I haven’t talked with him about this incident, I know Jon to be a honorable man and there is absolutely no chance that he would cover anything up!

MouseTheLuckyDog | August 12, 2014 at 10:53 pm

FWIW an interview with the fine upstanding citizen that was with Mike “Big Mike” Brown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-wlDI6hg18

JackRussellTerrierist | August 13, 2014 at 4:24 am

…and there’s a slush fund for the family set up – the same family that didn’t give a damn what this kid was doing with his time.

Char Char Binks | August 13, 2014 at 2:36 pm

I just listened to Dorian Johnson on the Rev. Charlatan show. Apparently this minister of God never heard of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” The door bounced shut when it hit Big Mike? That doesn’t sound at all like Mike shoving the door back on the cop as he was trying to exit, does it? And the cop was trying to arrest Mike by pulling him in through the driver-side window, and Mike was too big to resist that act? Don’t cops always arrest people that way? Then big Mike ran for two or three minutes and only made it 35 feet before the first shot hit him. How is it that these black teenage football players are such slow runners!? Johnson needs to be arrested for obstruction of justice and inciting to riot, if not other charges.

Forget about what’s routine. Looking back, it’s clear that releasing Zimmerman’s name was a terrible mistake that should not be repeated. Had it not been released (or had it not been a German name that to some ears sounds Jewish) there would never have been a controversy in the first place, and he would have been spared the irreparable damage that he suffered as a result. Sharpton and the other race hustlers would never have taken an interest in the case, and 0bama and Holder would never have heard of it.

I agree with gitarcarver that police should not have privileges that other people don’t. But the answer is that the police should give other people the same consideration that they give each other, and that they expect from each other. If they would not release a policeman’s name, then in the same circumstances they should not release a non-policeman’s name.

I saw a stupid piece at Reason that argued that since people suspected of killing cops have their names released, and nobody worries about putting them or their families (if they’re dead) in danger, therefore it’s wrong to be concerned about this policeman being in danger if his name is known. That’s just ridiculous. It’s the same sort of moral equivalence that some people apply to Israel v Hamas. If a dead cop-killer’s name is known, nobody is going to harm his family. It’s never happened before, and it’s not likely to happen in the future. If a suspected cop-killer’s name is known, he may get some hostile treatment if he’s pulled over for a traffic offense, but nobody’s going to beat him or kill him or put a rock through his window or threaten his children. But we all know that that is what’s going to happen to this cop, if and when he’s named.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend