Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Michael Brown Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 26, 2020 32 Comments
One of the two posts of mine that sent some alumni, faculty, and students at Cornell Law School into a rage regarded the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" slogan which has become synonymous with the Black Lives Matter Movement.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 04, 2020 51 Comments
The Black Lives Matter movement was born of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. While the BLM founders started their organizing after the prior Trayvon Martin case, it was Brown and Ferguson which launched the BLM movement into the public spotlight through the protests and riots in Ferguson. Nothing was more associated with the BLM movement than the chant "hands up, don't shoot," based on the narrative that Brown had his hands raised and said 'don't shoot' when shot. That same chant drives protesters and rioters ripping up cities after the George Floyd killing.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 09, 2019 35 Comments
Five years ago, on August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, Missouri, by police officer Darren Wilson. The death, and the claim that Brown was shot with his hands up asking not to shoot, sparked riots and launched the Black Lives Matter Movement to national prominence. But the narrative was based on a lie. Brown was shot because he attacked and attempted to take Wilson's pistol. His hands weren't up, and he didn't ask not to shoot, as an Obama-Holder Justice Department investigation later proved.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 09, 2016 14 Comments
On August 9, 2014, Ferguson, MO, Police Officer Darren Wilson shot dead Michael Brown. Our first post about it was on August 11, 2014, as rioting broke out. We kept the coverage non-evaluative. We learned from prior cases, such as Trayvon Martin, not to accept at face value racial and other narratives being spun. We also learned from events such as the Boston Marathon and Newtown shootings that initial facts reported by the media often are wrong. We embedded this news reports of the looting: Within days, various supposed eyewitnesses would claim Brown was a passive victim -- an account we now know to be untrue -- as summarized in this MSNBC report we posted on August 13, 2014:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 11, 2016 25 Comments
Facts don't matter in the Black Lives Matter movement. Trayvon Martin's shooting planted the seeds for the movement. Contrary to popular myth, Trayvon was not unlawfully shot and killed by George Zimmerman. The trial evidence was overwhelming that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman with a punch to the nose and when shot was on top of Zimmerman beating him Mixed Martial Arts style, having smashed his head into concrete. Moreover, the racial narrative was false, a perception caused by a deceptive NBC audio edit and false interpretation of audio in which Zimmerman supposedly uttered a racial slur, and amplified by activists and family lawyers. Michael Brown's death directly launched the movement and took it national. Brown, however, wasn't shot "hands up, don't shoot" but because he sucker punched a cop sitting in his vehicle and tried to steal the cop's gun. [Ferguson PO Darren Wilson injuries caused when Michael Brown sucker punched him while trying to grab gun] [Ferguson PO Darren Wilson injuries caused when Michael Brown sucker punched him while trying to grab gun] These seminal events of the Black Lives Matter narrative were lies.

Posted by New Neo on August 12, 2015 52 Comments
Here's an excellent article on the plight of the unarmed perpetrator, by John Hinderaker. Here's an excerpt:
This is the point I really want to make: the constant emphasis on police shootings of *unarmed* men that we see in the press is, for the most part, crazy. If you are a perp, or a suspect, or an inoffensive person walking down the street, you may be unarmed, but the police officer is not. Nor, in most cases, will he have any immediate way to know whether you are armed or not. If you attack him, what do you expect him to do? Challenge you to an arm-wrestling match? He is entitled to use deadly force to defend himself. Attacking a police officer rarely ends well. Likewise with fleeing a police officer who is ordering you to stop. If there is a problem here, it does not demand a thorough revamping of American police practices. Rather, it suggests that those who have influence with a small demographic group–6% of the population, according to the Post–impress upon them that they should not attack police officers under any circumstances, and if told to stop, they should stop. If they put their hands up, they are not going to get shot.
This makes the point that should be obvious to all but has somehow gotten obscured by all the post-Brown propagandist verbiage, which is that a police officer can't tell whether a belligerent aggressive suspect is armed or not unless he/she is brandishing the weapon in full sight.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 08, 2015 138 Comments
Last weekend a cop shot of a fleeing unarmed black man in Charleston, SC.   Not all the facts are in, but the video (apparently captured by a cell phone) is damning; it shows the cop firing at the fleeing black man several times, finally bringing him to the ground.  There seems little indication that the fleeing man represented an imminent threat to anyone, much less the police officer. It also appears that the cop planted his Taser beside the man's body.
ABC Breaking US News | US News Videos The NY Times reports:
A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away. The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
Here's the full video:

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 04, 2015 27 Comments
The New York Times reports that the Department of Justice has released an extensive report (embedded below) clearing former Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson of civil rights violations in the shooting death of Mike Brown in August 2014. Wilson's shooting of Brown led to weeks of often violent protests, including repeated nights of looting and arson. These protests, largely organized by Al Sharpton and similar racial activists, left portions of Ferguson in ruins. In November 2014 Darren Wilson received a no true bill from the grand jury empaneled to hear criminal charges against him, sparking additional riots. He shortly thereafter resigned from the Ferguson police department, and has stayed out of the news since. We covered the grand jury's findings extensively here at Legal Insurrection, including here: Analysis: #Ferguson Grand Jury: NO Indictment In Michael Brown Shooting In considering civil rights charges against Wilson the Department of Justice ultimately determined that the credible witnesses and forensic evidence overwhelmingly favored Wilson's narrative of lawful self-defense. The witnesses whose testimony favored a narrative of racist misconduct were found to be lies, inconsistent with the forensic evidence, or simply not credible relative to the witnesses favorable to Wilson's narrative. A Department of Justice investigation continues into the Ferguson police department generally, on the basis that the department has engaged in racist activity. The specific examples noted by the New York Times, however, seem only to illustrate mockery of President Obama and his wife, rather than black people generally.
A report from that investigation found a wide pattern of discrimination by the city’s police force, and said that city officials had sent racist emails on their government accounts. One depicted President Obama as a chimpanzee. Another included a photo of topless African women with the caption, “Michelle Obama’s high school reunion.”
One can't help but recall the thousands of Progressive depictions of President George W. Bush as a chimpanzee during his administration.  Not racism, I guess.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 07, 2014 11 Comments
Yes, I agree that #BlackLivesMatter. So do all other lives, including the lives of police (of all races) who keep us from the abyss. Remember Officer David Smith never lived to tell about enraged perp who stole his service gun. Someone started a hashtag, #PoliceLivesMatter. Seems worth retweeting some of these tweets, don't ya think?

Posted by Andrew Branca on December 03, 2014 17 Comments
Bill O'Reilly focused on the ongoing Ferguson Grand Jury kerfuffle in his opening segment last night, revealing in stark detail the contrast between the reasoned perspective of those accepting the facts and evidence presented to the Grand Jury as well as their decision and the inanity of the reason-free "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" crowd. First up was a audio recording of former NBA player Charles Barkley speaking on a radio program (2:05):
We have to be really careful with the cops, man, because if it wasn't for the cops, we'd be living in the wild-wild west in our neighborhoods.  I think we can't pick out certain incidents that don't go our way and act like the cops are all bad.  I hate when we do that. Think about it, you know how bad some of these neighborhoods would be if it wasn't for the cops?
Then was then contrasted with the ramblings of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the National of Islam (2:35):
As long as they kill us and go to Wendy's and have a burger, and go to sleep, they gonna keep killing us.  But when we die and they die [applause] they soon we are going to sit at a table, and talk about it. We're tired. We want some of this earth, or we'll tear the God-damned country up.

Posted by Andrew Branca on November 30, 2014 55 Comments
One of the most recent of the seemingly never-ending succession of Progressive complaints about the Ferguson Grand Jury is that the Grand Jury's decision not to indict is inherently flawed because they were permitted to consider self-defense. Those professing this argument rely for support on one of their favorite variations of the classic "straw man argument":  they quote an authoritative Conservative figure in purported support of their position. In this case, they are calling upon none other than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as in the Think Progress post: Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury. In particular, the Think Progress post states the following:
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

Posted by Andrew Branca on November 29, 2014 37 Comments
As a follow-up to our post yesterday, de-bunking Lawrence O'Donnell's claim that a purported error on the part of prosecutors led the Ferguson Grand Jury into error, I thought it might be informative to progress that de-bunking to an even more comprehensive level. As noted yesterday in No, Prosecution did not Mislead #Ferguson Grand Jury into Erroneous Decision, Officer Wilson had several potential legal justifications for his use of deadly force against Michael Brown.  Among these were the justification to use deadly force in making an arrest under MO statute §563.046. Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest and, alternatively, the justification to use deadly force in self defense under MO statute §563.031. Use of force in defense of persons, the state’s self-defense statute.  Both of these statutes were presented to the Grand Jury. Either one of these statutes alone is more than sufficient to justify Wilson's use of deadly force against Brown.  He did not, however, attempt to avail himself of both statutes. Wilson himself testified for more than four hours to the Grand Jury, in person and without legal counsel present.  during the entirety of that testimony he never--not once--argued that his use of deadly force against Brown was based on an effort to arrest Brown in general, nor based on his arrest powers under §563.046 in particular. To the contrary, Wilson relied explicitly and entirely on his right to use deadly force in self-defense, as allowed for by §563.031.
Accessibility by WAH