d-usa wrote:

I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is this some Texan thing?

Isn't everything a Texan thing to a Texan?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is this some Texan thing?

Isn't everything a Texan thing to a Texan?

Yes, including the world's chocolate supply. All your chocolate are belong to me!

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.

Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.

 Crimson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"

They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.

Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.

So we are supposed to throw our hands in the air and say "feth it" because some people will never change their mind?

That's just pure laziness and incredibly sad.

"We could bring some healing to the city by being as transparent as possible, we can remove 99.9% of the cloud that will follow the officer for the rest of his career and his life. But some people will never think that we did enough so feth the process, feth the family, feth the town, and feth the cop?"

sparkywtf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"

They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.

Tasers are rather ineffective, especially against larger males, which Brown was by every definition. Add in drugs in the system (if that report was accurate), which also decrease the effectiveness.

Then add in the suspect running (according to official story) and the injury to the head and eye, chances are a taser would have missed.

Also remember, if Brown was charging the officer, it only takes a couple seconds to travel 25 feet. This is why officers train heavily in that scenario so that they can clear their firearm, aim (as much as you can), and shoot. If the officer had his firearm out already (which he did with the struggle in the car), he would have had no time to reholster the firearm and then draw the taser and use it.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.

Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.

So we are supposed to throw our hands in the air and say "feth it" because some people will never change their mind?

Of course not... I'd want the process as transparent as you just advocated.

That's just pure laziness and incredibly sad.

That's reserved to those who pre-judge and want Summary Justice™.

"We could bring some healing to the city by being as transparent as possible, we can remove 99.9% of the cloud that will follow the officer for the rest of his career and his life. But some people will never think that we did enough so feth the process, feth the family, feth the town, and feth the cop?"

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if all parties were as transparent as possible, it still wouldn't matter because the WHOLE THING is co-opted by outside agitaters.

Out of about 120 arrests, 4 were from Ferguson. The rest are outsiders and even out-of-state.

What does that tell you?

 whembly wrote:
The Westboro group is protesting Ferguson...

https://vine.co/v/M30ln2rITJm

 whembly wrote:
The Westboro group is protesting Ferguson...

https://vine.co/v/M30ln2rITJm

Jihadin wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"

They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.

Tasers are rather ineffective, especially against larger males, which Brown was by every definition. Add in drugs in the system (if that report was accurate), which also decrease the effectiveness.

Then add in the suspect running (according to official story) and the injury to the head and eye, chances are a taser would have missed.

Also remember, if Brown was charging the officer, it only takes a couple seconds to travel 25 feet. This is why officers train heavily in that scenario so that they can clear their firearm, aim (as much as you can), and shoot. If the officer had his firearm out already (which he did with the struggle in the car), he would have had no time to reholster the firearm and then draw the taser and use it.

If I heard correctly. LEO was not armed with Tazers and the wielder charged at the officers yelling "shoot me"

whembly wrote:The Westboro group is protesting Ferguson...

https://vine.co/v/M30ln2rITJm

 Jihadin wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Was mention earlier if its the knife wielder. Suicide by cops it would seem. Did not help with the situation being they got the perception of "They shot another one!"

They could have (and should have) used a taser instead. There was no reason to kill the guy.

Tasers are rather ineffective, especially against larger males, which Brown was by every definition. Add in drugs in the system (if that report was accurate), which also decrease the effectiveness.

Then add in the suspect running (according to official story) and the injury to the head and eye, chances are a taser would have missed.

Also remember, if Brown was charging the officer, it only takes a couple seconds to travel 25 feet. This is why officers train heavily in that scenario so that they can clear their firearm, aim (as much as you can), and shoot. If the officer had his firearm out already (which he did with the struggle in the car), he would have had no time to reholster the firearm and then draw the taser and use it.

If I heard correctly. LEO was not armed with Tazers and the wielder charged at the officers yelling "shoot me"

 d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I'm not concerned about him not being charged or if charged found not guilty. I'm concerned about a cloud of "he got away with it because he is a cop" hanging over the whole thing if he did nothing wrong.

Unfortunatetly, no matter how transparent, the "he got away with it because he is a cop" will be the outcry.

So we are supposed to throw our hands in the air and say "feth it" because some people will never change their mind?

Of course not... I'd want the process as transparent as you just advocated.

That's just pure laziness and incredibly sad.

That's reserved to those who pre-judge and want Summary Justice™.

"We could bring some healing to the city by being as transparent as possible, we can remove 99.9% of the cloud that will follow the officer for the rest of his career and his life. But some people will never think that we did enough so feth the process, feth the family, feth the town, and feth the cop?"

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if all parties were as transparent as possible, it still wouldn't matter because the WHOLE THING is co-opted by outside agitaters.

Out of about 120 arrests, 4 were from Ferguson. The rest are outsiders and even out-of-state.

What does that tell you?

That the people of Ferguson are upset, that they have a history of racially charged issues, and that they have been on the street protesting every night since the event. And that they want to know that changes are being made and that Brown has his day in the justice system. Other people of Ferguson who don't think that there is a problem think that the cop won't get a fair shot and they want to know that he got a fair trial as well. That's what the people of Ferguson are thinking.

There are also a ton of people from out of the area who also protest peacefully, on both sides, because race and policing is a major issue in this country. The spark of this shooting would have just fizzed out if there was not a gak-ton of kindling ready to burn. The majority of these people also protest peacefully. And they also want to know that both sides had a fair shot at the justice system.

And then there are the idiots who riot and provoke the police. They have an agenda that goes beyond "we are discriminated against". You deal with those people by dealing with them, not the way the police has done prior to last night. You don't punish the people of Ferguson (either by rioting or using civil-rights era police tactics on them), you don't attack the reporters. You arrest the folks causing the problem. You work with the community (and last night was a good example of the police and the community working together against the outsiders).

There are distinct and separate issues here, lumping them together doesn't help anyone.

 d-usa wrote:
Even most outsiders are not violent.

 daedalus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Even most outsiders are not violent.

The violent ones are a big issue though. They usually have damage reduction and spell resistance too.

 d-usa wrote:
Even most outsiders are not violent.

 kronk wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:

Anyway the forensic crew must pay for this chaos! along with a crook cop.

Investigation of the police officer is ongoing. The forensics are still in process. This isn't CSI. Cases aren't resolved in 60 minutes.

The Chaos was created by the rioters themselve AND the local PD uping the anti with their tacti-cool gear.

Here in the US, we have the court of law and due process. Keep your Thai vigilante justice to yourself.

 whembly wrote:
The Westboro group is protesting Ferguson...

https://vine.co/v/M30ln2rITJm

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Even most outsiders are not violent.

Even then... stay out.

 Frazzled wrote:
Isn't the army in charge in Thailand? Don't they deal with protests with tanks?

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Even most outsiders are not violent.

Even then... stay out.

How are you defining outsider? Just those in Freguson? The county? The State? Only those with police forces? Only those with black populations?

Has it come to this, again. Really?

I am a very imperfect person, I know this. But I have always prided myself on being a reasonably fair person and one that passionately believes in the goodness of America. I am a news junkie and read far too much news. Like millions of others I have been drawn to the tragic death of Michael Brown in Ferguson (Missouri) at the hands of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson. I believe that there have been incidents in American history both long ago and recently that show policing powers have and do become corrupted. But I try hard not to reach that conclusion without a full understanding of the facts. I don't believe that this is an easy task given the media and the manner which news is not reported with a "just the facts" manner but instead with a social or political bent.


What occurred in Ferguson (MO) was tragic. The loss of life by any human is a horrible thing in most instances. Whomever has died had people who loved them and they will be missed. Yet in death I believe those of us living have a responsibility to honor in a dignified manner that person who is no longer with us. Such honor should give the friends and family of the dead comfort and also when required by law, must give honor to the legal system that we have in America. I fear that we are doing neither for Michael Brown and believe that we, the public, are wrong if we allow such disregard to continue. The parents of Michael Brown have asked for peace and civility in the wake of his death and I believe they are sincere. I have no reason not to believe this. However, I also know they are not being respected by the media, politicians or the public at large.


What do we honestly know? We know that on 9 August 2014 at approx. 12:01 pm Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking in the middle of a street in a small (less than 22,000 citizens) city (Ferguson) in rural St. Louis County. We know that Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson were asked or told by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson to move out of the street and walk on the sidewalk. We know that something occurred and that prior to 12:04 pm when a second Police Officer arrived on the scene, Mr. Brown was left dead after this encounter. Three minutes, 180 seconds after the first contact are the "unknowns" at this point.


As I write this (08/20/2014) a Grand Jury is scheduled to begin meeting as early as today although reports are now saying that findings may not come until October. The truth is that the Grand Jury will hear the facts in evidence and to decide if Officer Wilson should be charged with a crime for his actions. To me this is the "simple" part of this situation. Simple because the law gives direction of the legality of an act and if that act was justified or not. I am, as a I said before, willing to be even tempered and allow justice to work.


Sadly, I feel far too many others are unwilling to allow this and those more radical voices are being aided by not just the media but opportunistic self appointed community leaders, elected politicians and even some in the media.


We are told by the media that this shooting must be an issue of race however nothing is offered to show that Officer Wilson harbored any bigoted thoughts or feelings and in truth the one thing we know is that he, a six year veteran, had no complaints lodged against him and that as late as February 2014 he was given a commendation for good service. No question that Officer Wilson is a white man or that Mr. Brown is a black man. However is the ethnicity of each enough to call this a racial issue?


The media tells us (08/18) that credibility issues exist because the Prosecutors of St. Louis County Mr. McCollugh a man who has been in elected office since 1990, just might be unable to be impartial in this case because his father was a police officer who was killed by a black man in the line of duty in 1964 when he was twelve. The media tells us that Mr. McCollugh has a long history of family members working for Police Departments (Mother and Uncles) and offers the insinuation that he could be unable to cross the "thin blue line". They ponder these questions without offering any evidence that Mr. McCollugh has show a history of propensity of bigoted decisions. The media has been given this "credibility" and "impartiality" angle thanks in part to an elected government official, County Executive Charlie Dooley who was first appointed to the position in 2003 and then won a special election in 2004. Mr. Dooley has been in that position since that time however he lost his bid to remain during a primary challenge in August 2014, so unless he runs as an independent or write-in candidate it would seem his tenure will be ending soon. But what was it that Mr. Dooley said that aided the media in a call for the prosecutor to step aside? According to St. Louis CBS on 08/16 Charlie Dooley called for the State AG to remove Mr. McCollugh or for him to recuse himself because, "McCulloch’s objectivity has come under question because his father – a police officer – was killed in a shooting, and because he openly criticized the decision by Gov. Jay Nixon to remove county police from the streets of Ferguson this week." Does Mr. Dooley have a valid criticism? I have no idea but I do wonder, if valid, why hasn't Mr. Dooley raised this concern prior to 2014 considering he has been the elected county executive since 2004 and was a councilman for St. Louis County from 1994 until his appointment as county executive in 2003. Remember, Mr. McCollugh has been the elected prosecutor since 1990. Mr. Dooley has had ten years to raise concerns about Mr. McCollugh's ability to be impartial has he done so or is he just using this situation to now do so? Additionally, how grotesque is it that the 1964 murder of Mr. McCollugh's father at the hands of a black man is being used to question his ability fifty years after it occurred. Funny that Mr. Dooley request the prosecutors removal but is not requesting the United State AG Eric Holder to be either removed or recuse himself once you consider that Mr. Holder on 08/20 stated to the AP that he, "told how his father, an immigrant from Barbados proudly wearing his World War II uniform, was ejected from a whites-only train car. How his future sister-in-law, escorted by U.S. marshals, integrated the University of Alabama in spite of a governor who stood in the schoolhouse door to block her. How as a college student, he was twice pulled over, his car searched, even though he wasn't speeding." Does not Mr. Holders personal history predjudice him just as much as Mr. McColluchs? To me the only question I can ask is, really, has it come to this?

Although we don't have the full account of what occurred in those three minutes on 9 August, I will agree with Mr. Dooley in that credibility is an issue. However, I believe that the credibility of all involved is open for conversation. Look, I am a flawed person and there are issues in my life that because of my past behavior I don't believe I have the credibility to speak on with authority. Do I think that means I am not a "credible" person. No. It does mean that I understand people give more weight to people with far more experience, education than I. It may not seem fair but it is life and I accept that. So what do we really know about the parties involved?


We know key people are Officer Wilson and Dorian Johnson. Only they know what words were exchanged that began the events which resulted in Mr. Browns death. Mr. Johnson has retained an attorney and has spoken with the media about that tragic day. Officer Wilson has, at this time, not spoken and while it has been reported a "friend" of his has spoken to ABC News and to talk show host Dana Loesch the truth is we have not heard his story or read his report.


Mr. Johnson reported to Chris Hayes (MSNBC) that Mr. Brown was running away when he was first shot and that he (Mr. Brown) was holding up his hands in surrender when the subsequent rounds were delivered by Officer Wilson's weapon that ultimately resulted in death. Today (08/20) 100.7 The Viper (radio station in St. Louis) is reporting that Mr. Johnson has recanted his statements to the police and has stated that Mr. Brown attacked Officer Wilson. Which is true and is it appropriate to question Mr. Johnsons credibility?


I think it is reasonable to question the credibility of Mr. Johnson (and everyone's - even my own to be honest), particularly when we now know that just minutes before the altercation between Officer Wilson and Messer's Johnson and Brown that they (Johnson and Brown) were involved in what is being characterized as a strong arm robbery at 11:51 am at the Quick Trip party store. [whembly: author is wrong, it's a small convenience store, not QT] Mr. Johnson was aware when he was interviewed by Mr. Hayes and others that he and Mr. Brown had (presumably) just committed this offense yet he did not mention this. On one hand I understand leaving it out - honestly. Maybe the story isn't true and Messer's Johnson and Brown had nothing to do with it. Maybe Mr. Johnson did not mention it on the advice of his attorney because an outgoing investigation. I get it. But it does lead one to question Mr. Johnsons credibility, fair or not.


What about the credibility of Officer Wilson? What do we know. Well, thanks to the media we know a great deal about him. We know Mr. Wilson has been a police officer for six years. We know he has no complaints against him and was awarded a commendation earlier in the year. We know he lost his mother when he was 16, is divorced but currently lives with a fellow employee of the police department (her name has also been released) and at the home they share is a swimming pool, basketball hoop, metal American flag out front and they have a couch on the front porch. We know the house was valued at 180,000 and that his neighbors are concerned about people coming into the area to cause problems. We know that the media discovered his fathers Facebook page and took photos and quotes from that page. We know that Mr. Wilson played hockey in high school and that his mother (who again died when he was 16) had a past criminal record for fraud and that this is being communicated (according to the media (Daily Mail) to show his character). In fact we know from the media what his home looks like as local media and CNN have broadcast video of it including the street address on the home. OK. Fine, I agree that knowing an individuals background gives you an insight into credibility. But what was the point of telling us Officer Wilson had a swimming pool or that his home was valued at 180,000? Will this not make some folks assume he was part of the "middle class" and as such unable or unwilling to understand Mr. Brown or Mr. Johnson? Why show his home on the television or report the name of his girlfriend? Honestly all I can think it, really. Has it come to this.


So we know a little about Mr. Johnson and Mr. Wilson but what of Mr. Brown? Should we know about his back ground and what may events may have led up to his thinking on the day of the incident. Are such things fair? As shown earlier, AG Holder was willing to share how his past experiences have given him insight into how he responds is it not fair to ask what are the things in Mr. Browns history that have shaped him?


The media has reported that Mr. Brown was known as a "gentle giant" who in spite of his size did not want to play football because he was not attracted to violence. His family and friends have talked about how he was proud of graduating high school and looking forward to going to college. His mother related how he was proud of his music and how he had a sound cloud account that allowed him to share his music with others. I listened to Mr. Browns music (or "Big Mike" as he called himself) and have regrettably found the music to be filled with images of guns, violence, b*****s and h**s, not to mention drugs and of course running s***t in the hood. Big Mike hash-tagged his music with things like; #trap (street for dope / crack house), #reals**t. Songs like; Money Religion, Body Bag, S**t talka, Hu$tle, Smokn' dope, We don't play, Ca$hn dough and lights out all tell a story of values and perspective. But I also know that his music isn't directed to 46 year old white men and while I am a fan of some rap music (to be fair mostly old school stuff; Slick Rick, Public Enemy and a few others. Disclosure; I have a weird like for Lil'Jon and love "turn down for what" . . . yeah, I know). Anyhow, my point is that cussing and violence in music does not offend me but I am cognitive that it sends off a message to the larger community. I know that if you search for it you will find photos of Mr. Brown making gang signs (Piru Blood to be specific). You will also find photos of Mr. Brown smoking dope, flashing money and looking for all to see the role of modern day gangsta. It isn't fair and I will admit that but the truth is people take all of the things we do and form an opinion. My opinion of Mr. Brown is that he is the typical 18 year old kid in America who has been far too influenced by modern media and adopted many of those things as part of who he was. No different than when I was 18 and had long hair, wore the tight parachute pants, bandannas and elf boots of the heavy metal scene that dominated the culture. The difference is that I was able to grow out of that period and Mr. Brown was not. I know that if you watch the video from the Quick Trip robbery (if it is Mr. Brown and to be fair the family AAL Mr. Parks stated on 08/18 that, "it appeared to be him") that he did not appear to be a "gentle giant" at that moment. I know the spontaneous memorial placed where Mr. Brown was shot (where Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton have both "prayed") shows people placing empty alcohol bottles (he was 18 right), Nyquil (used to make "lean"), blunt wraps and cigarillos (it was cigarillos that Mr. Brown is alleged to have stolen just prior to the shooting and for the unaware black and mild, swisher sweets and so on are used to roll pot). I also know that at the memorial is a Pittsburg Pirate hat with off coloring (Red P with bill) which is most associated with the Piru Bloods. It is all in plain sight but unless you know - you won't know. I know that fair or not all of these things play into what people will think about Mr. Brown just as much as the murder of Mr. McColluchs father plays into Mr. Dooleys belief that he can be impartial and just as much as AG Holders personal history plays into how he views this incident. It isn't necessarily fair but it is reality. I once worked with a guy named Dennis Sullivan and he was fond of saying, "you want fair? OK, the fair is in August and life doesn't happen just during that week". He was right.



It seems to me that from the very first day of this horrible event the presentation of the media has been very pro-social justice and anti-police (or authority, if you will). Consider that the media, non elected community leaders and even some elected leaders blamed the early rioting and looting on the local police. The local police were said to be inciting the riots by using tear gas and dressing in riot gear. I imagine there is a school of thought that supports such feelings but I also know that it is difficult to second guess folks when businesses are being burned, looted, citizens are throwing Molotov cocktails, rocks and other objects at the police and continuing to shoot at not only each other but the police. I felt Gov. Nixon was correct in brining in the State Highway Patrol to take over the policing of the protest but noticed that they engaged in the very same tactics. I felt that Gov. Nixon was wrong to call in National Guard particularly in light of the criticism that the police had been too militarized but I concede he has that power, authority and responsibility.


As I follow politics pretty closely Gov. Nixon was not an unknown character to me. In truth he has been talked about as a possible Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate but is seen by many as being far too moderate. I don't live in Missouri so I don't know. What I do know is that Gov. Nixon, in my opinion, has been all over the map. Appearing on the Sunday talk show circuit (08/17), Gov. Nixon (08/17) said that the night prior (Saturday) was a "A solid step" forward. I struggled with that and wondered did Gov Nixon know that seven people were arrested and one person was shot in a town of approx. 22,000 residents on 08/1? Honestly, is that a "solid step". Then on 08/17 (Sunday) the peaceful protest again devolved into chaos. But remember it was the Gov. who said the local police were too militarized and acted too harshly thereby causing much of the chaos. Recall that Pres. Obama from his rented vacation home on Martha's Vineyard supported the Gov. and called the police harsh and questioned if they were using excessive force. It was such pontifications that led to the Gov. removing the local police and installing the State Highway Patrol who's commander on the ground marched with the protesters and related that the Brown Family will need to be thanked for Michael because his death will make it better to be a black man in America (assumingly things will change, right. But, how about Michael being a felon who just committed a strong armed robbery and who may have been fighting with the police. Are those not possibilities?). Yet now the Gov. calls in the very militarized Army National Guard to assist the Highway Patrol all because . . . . Sunday night the highway patrol had to use tear gas like the local police did and apparently two more civilians were shot by other civilians and at least one police car was fired upon. So where was the "solid step". Overnight on 08/18 thirty one people were arrested, two people shot and multiple Molotov cocktails thrown at the police along with other objects and the police used tear gas, flash bang grenades, riot gear and vehicles. Not to mention four police officers hurt along with an unknown number of protesters hurt and the police seized two handguns. Where is the "solid step" that Gov. Nixon mentioned? I have been following a Facebook Group; Ferguson Scanner Updates that reports to be providing a rolling feed of police calls and actions in Ferguson. A simple review of this page does not support the "solid step" that Gov. Nixon spoke of and I wonder if he would now change that assessment. If nothing else would he agree that it was not such a "solid step" when the Gov. lost control of his press conference (08/15) on CNN and allowed Rev. Shabazz to take over? Was it a "solid step" when someone (name unknown) took the podium in front of the Governor and said the County Prosecutor needs to press murder charges on Mr. Wilson.


Because I think leadership is at a major loss in many areas I want to stay on Gov. Nixon for a moment. On 08/20 in an news story on Yahoo! it was reported that Gov. Nixon stated, "A vigorous prosecution must now be pursued,” Gov. Jay Nixon (D) said in a five minute video address posted to his website on Tuesday (08/19). Such a statement is worrisome, as Gov. Nixon is an attorney and former Attorney General, Gov. Nixon, clearly know that at the time of this statement no indictment had been handed down and that the Grand Jury is scheduled to meet, today (08/20) in fact. Does his statement not have the capacity to prejudice the Grand Jury proceedings as he is the highest elected official in the State, a lawyer and a former AG? Gov. Nixon also said; “The democratically elected St. Louis county prosecutor and the attorney general of the United States each have a job to do,” said Nixon, a Democrat. “Their obligation to achieve justice in the shooting death of Michael Brown must be carried out thoroughly, promptly, and correctly.” ABC News is reporting that the Governor will not seek to remove the county prosecutor in this case as he is quoted as saying it "could unnecessarily inject legal uncertainty into this matter and potentially jeopardize the prosecution." But wouldn't it be fair to believe that, Gov. Nixon, in light of his statements about not removing the prosecutor and how doing so could "inject legal uncertainty", coupled with his statement that a "vigorous prosecution must be pursued" and his not so gentle reminder to the St. Louis county prosecutor that they are "democratically elected" are something more? To me, I believe the Governor is poisoning the well and offering a mild threat that if the grand jury determines not to prosecute Mr. Wilson the county prosecutor will somehow be punished for not fulfilling what the Governor sees as an "obligation to achieve justice". But justice at what cost. Sadly this does not appear to be a search for justice when the starting point is a Governor who states there is a need for a "vigorous prosecution" prior to the prosecutor beginning to present the case to a grand jury. This is a perversion of justice. Even last night (08/19) the St. Louis media (CBS) is reporting that the night saw 47 arrest, some looting, chants of "time to kill a cop", bottles of urine thrown at police and what one police officer called "looting tourism" as the police report more than 93% of all those arrested are not from Ferguson. Amazing.

I do think that the community has a right to protest and demand not just an investigation but an open and transparent investigation.[whembly: me too!!!] I believe the Ferguson Police were correct when they (or someone above there command) made the decision to have the St. Louis County Police handle the investigation was correct. I believe the demanding nature of the media for more information from the Ferguson Police is inappropriate as they know the investigation is ongoing and that the case I being handled by another department. I believe that the so-called hacker collective Anonymous was wrong to threaten the Ferguson Chief of Police with disclosing information about his daughter if he did not release the officers name. I believe the Chief of Police was on firm ground when he released the video allegedly of Mr. Brown robbing the Quick Trip along with the report from that incident given the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that the media had submitted to his department. I question the timing of the release but understand the information was already being sought by the media.

I am befuddled that before the investigation is complete or findings are presented to a Grand Jury that not one, not two but three autopsies have been performed on the late Mr. Brown.[whembly: seriously, does anyone else find that strange?] The Brown family Attorneys, Messer's Crump and Park have said that the family requested an autopsy because they were not getting information from the local authorities and because they wanted an independent review. On the first argument I can only imagine that the local authorities were holding off on information because of an ongoing investigation. On the second count, I have no idea of the local authorities can or should be trusted and would defer to the fact that if this were the case then the State should have stepped in. But honestly, what have we learned from the families autopsy? The family autopsy showed at least six shots. All would be consistent with shots to the front. Four to the arm and two to the head. The ME who did it even stated they could have been because Mr. Brown was going toward the police officer. This fits the story that has been circulating from a supposed friend of Officer Wilson (although we have no idea if this is true of it is consistent with Officer Wilsons report). What we do know is that if this information is true that it is not consistent with the story shared by Mr. Johnson. We also know that on 08/19 St. Louis Post-Dispatch Crime Reporter Christine Byers tweeted; "Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting". We know that moments after the shooting citizens were taking video tape of the police on the scene and on one video shared at the website Progressives Today a conversation was overheard and that conversation seems to refute the idea the Mr. Brown was simply surrendering with his "hands up, don't shoot". In this conversation two men are heard speaking. During that exchanged one man on the tape (face unknown) tells another; #1 "But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him" {crosstalk} #2 "Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus – the police had his gun drawn already on him" #1. "Oh, the police got his gun" #2 "The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him" {crosstalk} #2 "Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing" #1 "The Police?" #2 "The Police shot him". If this conversation is true is it not possible that Mr. Brown went after or continued to go toward Officer Wilson? Notice this witness said nothing about his "hands up". On that isn't it just possible that his "hands up" if they were in that position were that way because he was running after or toward someone to fight? Does this not fit what we now have learned from the families own autopsy? Does this not contradict Mr. Johnson's report to the media? Is it not possible that Mr. Brown knew he and Mr. Johnson just committed a crime and because of this he (Mr. Brown) was amped up and feeling like he could strong arm the police just like he did the store clerk and get away? Was Mr. Brown feeling like, "no, I am not going to jail today" and did he attack the police officer to get away? Was Mr. Brown on any substances at the time of the incident that led to this? (Note; I know that some websites are reporting he was but none of that is known as of yet). We do know that his spontaneous memorial included alcohol bottles, Nyquil (used to make "lean" or "sizzurp") bottles and blunt wraps all placed by people who knew him (more information above).


Regarding the autopsy the family had done it seems many questions could exist about it. It seems that on 13 August, Messer's Crump and Park during a press conference indicated the autopsy was already done. But on 17 August Dr. Baden, the man reported to have preformed flew to Missouri to conduct the autopsy as reported by the New York Times. This is in conflict with Messer's Crump and Parks who said on the 15th of August that an autopsy had been conducted. This would make sense with the timeline that Prof. Shawn Parcells who he assisted with the autopsy and had appeared on the Lawrence O'Donnell show on 13 August to say he was contacted by the family. When asked about the autopsy at a 15 August news conference on Fox 2 News St. Louis, AAL Parks was ask, "have you seen the results of the results of the autopsy" to which he responded, "have not and were not going to talk about the second autopsy that we did there will be a time for that". The clear implication is that the autopsy findings were already done on 15 August when Mr. Parks referenced them in the past tense by saying, "the second autopsy that we did" (see video at link below; question and answer begin at approx. 15:46). So was the autopsy done on the 15th or the 17th? Mr. Crump during his interview with Anderson Cooper on AC360 that I will concede that small things can differ but two days? This strikes me as odd because after looking into some of this I discovered that Prof. Parcells has what can only be called an interesting history. Professor Shaw Parcells, was mentioned in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story in May 2013 where it was alleged he, “has inflated his qualifications and performed autopsies without a medical license.” That worried some coroners, who felt Parcells’ could “jeopardize criminal cases, potentially allowing a murderer to go free.” Did Prof. Parcells complete the autopsy and did Dr. Baden simply review it? If that was the case why not just say so? If that isn't the case why are the dates so confused? Look, I am an average guy. I am not an AAL like Messer's Crump and Parks or like Prof. Parcells and Dr. Baden and if I find this confusing how can such educated men not say, "whoa, wait a second, we need to correct this". More importantly why is it that the media seems to have not caught this?


Messer's Crump and Park demanded the Ferguson Police release not only the name of the officer but how many times Mr. Brown was shot refuse to release copies of the autopsy performed at the request of the family to the media. Why? If they demanded the police release information (and understand, I am fine with that demand although I respect the Ferguson Police deferring to the prosecuting attorney and St. Louis County Police) how is it they feel like they should not release the information they have. My bet is that if it supported the case they wish to make they would do so and do so quickly.


It is confusing to say the least and it not given any clarity when the Governor and others are out demanding a trial and "justice" before and indictment is even handed down.


Not to be outdone it is being reported that the DOJ had an autopsy completed on Mr. Brown on or about 08/19. I have no real issues with this but I do wonder why. Under the law the state is required to perform this task. Does the AG have evidence that the state is incompetent? Is the AG worried that the autopsy performed by the state will not provide the narrative he desires? Does the AG understand the precedent this could set and more importantly does the AG understand that if the findings the DOJ reaches are different then those of the state this case could provide a springboard for countless numbers of challenges to past findings by the state / county medical examiner. It is confusing.


I must also admit that I have been surprised at the President's involvement so far. In full disclosure, I am not a fan of Pres. Obama and have documented the many reasons that I do not believe he is worthy of my trust or respect as my President. That aside, I don't understand why the President has been briefed by the AG on a daily basis (according to the media). Do we not have some ongoing issues with ISIS (they just beheaded an American Journalist today 08/19). Syria (they still have not handed over the Chemical Weapons to Russia as promised last year - the deadline was June). The so called border Humanitarian Crisis (did that story just die off or what?!? seriously). Not to mention Gaza, Ukraine (Russia), Iran (were they not just identified as supplying part of the weapon systems used by Hamas) or our domestic issues. But, OK, the President wants to stay informed. No worries. Except according to both the President and the AG neither of them were aware of Fast and Furious (which killed one INS Agent (Brian Terry) and more than 300 Mexican Civilians). The AG was unaware of the DOJ tapping AP reporters phones or those of James Rosen (reporter). The POTUS has said that it is only through the media that he heard of the problems with the IRS scandal, NSA scandal, ACA websites and so on but he is aware and being briefed about this. Really. The Pres. was not present in the situation room (according to the White House) during the attack upon Benghazi but he is aware of this issue and is being briefed. Wow. Understand I know some will read this and think; "typical right winger". The problem is that I am not and more importantly all of those are issues within the federal government and are under the POTUS' command. The death of Mr. Brown, tragic and horrible as it is, falls under the authority of Gov. Jay Nixon and the State of Missouri first. Why not allow them to do the job they are task prior to simply moving in and starting a DOJ investigation?

In his remarks on 08/18 the president said, "there are young black men that commit crime" and that they "deserved to be prosecuted". He states that we can argue they do so because of poverty or poor education but they should be prosecuted. But . . . . he then says given the history of this country. Mr. President, with all due respect . . . enough.[color=orange][whembly: agreed!!!] WE elected you to represent all of us. Yet . . . when you come out and tell somehow we must be a racist society it is growing old. Does racisim exist? Yes. Are the majority of Americans racist? No. But many are being polarized.[/color] Is it racist to demand this officers head without knowing what happened because that is exactly what is happening. Yet . . . here we are. When will the POTUS call out Rev. Shabazz and those making racist statements against Mr. Wilson - show consistency. Call out the violence within the black community on a consistent basis (did you know more black men and women have been killed in Chicago from 2009 until today than have been killed in Afghanistan during the same time). Not everything can be racist. Can we just get some consistency, please. The parents of Mr. Brown have been consistent at asking for peaceful protest and were even willing to call out Rev. Shabazz and ask him to stand down on 08/20. To me that was leadership and is even more impressive when you consider that they actually are grieving at this time. [whembly: Indeed. And the media at large refuses to showcase that]

I also find it odd that the AG of the US, Eric Holder, will be in Ferguson on 08/20. Why wait if it is such a serious issue that you as AG must brief the POTUS and the POTUS must return to Washington from his Martha's Vineyard vacation. Why wait until the 20th? It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fact that is the day the St. Louis County Prosecutor has scheduled the Grand Jury Investigation would it? We know from the POTUS that the DOJ CRS group (Community Relations Services) is already on the ground in Ferguson. Look, my opinion; Gov. Nixon, MO AG Chris Koster, County Prosecutor McCulloch and probably AG Holder and the POTUS have already been briefed on the investigational findings. The County autopsy is completed and I am sure all of them know what it indicates. I would wager they already have an idea of the outcome and have planned for it. Are those in power getting ready to soft sell the fact that there may not be enough evidence to support charges against Mr. Wilson? Is that why the AG will have waited more than ten days to head to Ferguson if it was of such important. Is that why Gov. Nixon made a video demanding a prosecution. Is this political "CYA"?

Not to be left out MO State Senator Chappell Nadal has taken the advice from the old DMX song (Party up) and basically said, "y'all gonna make me act a fool, up in here up in here" as if "y'all" can make someone do something. Yet, Sen Nadal said it is the police (all the police actually) who are making this situation worse when she said; "the State Highway Patrol, the St. Louis County Police as well as the Ferguson Police Department may be trying to make this situation worse than what it actually is.“ Really. police cars shot at. Businesses burned and looted and the POLICE are to blame. Now that is leadership right there folks.

Here is the thing . . . . we don't know enough information to make a positive assessment right now but it is clear that the media and some politicians sure seem willing to try and convict Mr. Wilson. Hell, the New Black Panther Party led by Rev. Shabazz were chanting (08/16); "What do we what" (response) Darren Wilson "How do we want him" DEAD. But the media is ignoring that! Shoot Cpt. Johnson - who had walked arm and arm with Rev. Shabazz earlier (yes, literally as there are photos of this online) is doing nothing. But then again when Rev. Shabazz and his group printed "Wanted Dead or Alive" flyers in the George Zimmerman case neither the local authorities or the DOJ did anything then. The Pres., AG and Gov. Nixon all called the actions of the local police wrong and inferred they (police) were overreacted in Ferguson. The President as we all recall said the police acted "stupidly" in the past creating the "beer summit" but none of them have spoken out about the chants or other things that are clearly wrong. Why?


Seriously . . . how silly is all of this. Rev. Al Sharpton criticizes Gov. Christie (of NJ) in the media because during the Ferguson chaos he (Gov. Christie) appears on stage dancing with Jamie Foxx on the Hamptons! Really. It's the Gov. of NJ's fault?!? Hey, Rev. Sharpton, how about criticizing Pres. Obama who was on vacation - golfing and attending fundraisers during the same time and ironically also in the Hamptons. Oh, that's right . . you want to politicize this and make the "white" Gov. look insensitive to the "black community" prior to the 2016 election - am I right? Maybe someone should remind the Reverend that while we are all forgiven or our sins it is difficult to forget things like; Freddie's Fashion Mart, Twana Brawley and the "white interlopers" comments regarding the Jewish community in Harlem. Right. But is the President calling him out for this and saying he acted "stupidly"? In fact the very day Rev. Sharpton called out Gov. Christie the media reported that Pres. Obama spent five hours at a private dinner party or as one reporter put it . . more time having dinner and enjoying the company of friends than he did in the White House addressing Iran and Ferguson.


Not to be outdone the Washington Redskins Football Team (btw; isn't the media mostly against the Redskins because of the name. . . irony, right) took to the field on 08/18 with "hands up, don't shoot". OK, except the truth is we don't know if Mr. Brown was or was not making that gesture and the person most responsible for telling the media that (Dorian Johnson) has been shown to be untruthful in at least one instance. Further, what if Ms. Byers is right that at least 12 witnesses agree with the police version. Look we know for a fact the video tape (see above) shows at least one witness telling a story that paints Mr. Brown as the aggressor. Yet, the players with the Redskins took the field with political speech. Why? What happened to waiting until we actually have facts? Seriously.


At some point we need to be honest and say that in more than one high profile instances the cases just don't pass things just don't add up. Keep in mind; Tawana Brawley, Cornelius Weaver, Alicia Hardin, Duke University (District Attorney Mike Nifong), Madonna Constantine, Jena 6, and so many other cases that gain national prominence turn out not to be exactly as sold and they then fade into obscurity without anyone ever saying; wait, words, accusations matter and ought to have consequences. Bigotry in any manner is wrong and should be ferreted out and stopped. However so too is inflaming anger when it may not be warranted. Who is served when the community is divided? How profits from such division? Let's be honest, right. Somebody is making money by appearing on TV, giving speeches and flying from place to place making accusations otherwise they wouldn't do it. Right. In the end is this helping unite our Country?

Something is wrong here folks and it is far worse than just this tragic killing. I don't believe anyone should die over a petty theft. However I don't know if Mr. Brown assaulted a police officer or not. I know he clearly is being accused of assaulting a store clerk just prior to this incident. I don't know if Mr. Wilson is guilty of a crime. I also don't think we will find the truth. We will find what will make political sense for those in power. Mr. Wilson will be charged with something by the DOJ, I believe. His life will be over and Mr. Browns family will be left grieving.

This isn't about "no justice, no peace" it is about perverting justice to reach an outcome that is already being demanded by political and social leaders even if the evidence does not warrant it.

Understand . . . if Mr. Wilson is guilty of a crime he needs to be charged and given his day in the court of law. However that day should come without the assumptions of politicians and unelected so call community leaders tainting the jury. But in the end the truth is that we have come to this and really it is sad.

 CptJake wrote:
For what it is worth, Fox now saying cop did have orbital fracture.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.

Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?

Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, this issue is about race and the way law enforcement interacts with minorities all across the entire nation.

Or do you really think this is a case of "oh my god, the entire nation is freaking out and the media is totally focused on a single case where a white officer shot a black person and this has no implications on anything outside of Ferguson and is not a symptom of a nationwide problem now everybody go away everything is fine"?

Because if you really think that everybody is freaking out over a single shooting in total isolation of anything else that might possibly be going on and that there is absolutely zero history in Ferguson itself (never mind the rest of the USA) I can't help you.

Didn't the rioting start before the melanin deficiency of the PoPo was known or am I incorrect on that?

The entire nation is freaking out? I guess I better load Dad's M1. Oh wait, its not.

Just some town west of St. Louis.