WaPo’s Darren Wilson Article: Profile or Character Assassination?

Officer Darren Wilson commendation ceremony

The Washington Post has published a detailed article about Officer Darren Wilson, the Ferguson PD patrolman who shot and killed teenager Michael Brown, setting off a national furore about race and police militarization. The piece is headlined Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities. This is how it starts . . .

The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.

Facts, yes. But the clear implication: Wilson was part of a police force so racist it was disbanded. So Wilson’s a racist. Maybe. Probably?

To answer that question – which has no proven bearing on the Michael Brown shooting – you have to scroll down 34 paragraphs. Past the author’s condemnation of Wilson’s silence on the incident. Past information on Wilson’s divorce, his mother’s felony conviction for forgery and stealing and a history of the Jennings Police Department’s [allegedly] racially motivated misdeeds. Until, finally . . .

Robert Orr, the former Jennings police chief who retired in 2010, said of Wilson: “He was a good officer with us. There was no disciplinary action.”

And then it’s straight back to guilt by association. Wilson is an officer for the Ferguson PD. . .

an example of a police department staffed predominantly with white officers, many of whom live far away from, and often fail to establish trust with, the predominantly black communities they serve. Policing can become a tense, racially charged, fearful and potentially violent series of interactions. Distrust becomes institutionalized, as much a part of the local infrastructure as the sewers and power lines.

A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents — what the group calls a poor-people’s tax.

It’s one thing to say a mostly white police department in a mostly black community can become oppressive. It’s another to say that Ferguson’s PD is oppressive. And another to say that the police oppression is racist.

That passage is highly inflammatory. Kinda like repeating a version of events that makes it sound like Wilson murdered Brown – without offering an alternative, credible version which indicates the shooting was self-defense. Like this:

According to Johnson [the teenager with Brown at the time of the shooting], Wilson reached out, grabbed Brown by the throat and then grabbed his shirt as Brown tried to move away. At that point, Johnson said, he saw Wilson pull out a gun and shoot Brown in the chest or arm. Johnson said the officer hit Brown with another round as he was running away and fatally gunned him down after he stopped and raised his hands in surrender.

Given that the article uses considerable column inches to chronicle a pro-Officer Wilson rally – “most of them white” – the authors had space to detail information that’s emerged that supports Wilson’s innocence. Instead, the WaPo chose to assassinate Wilson’s character, impugn the motives of his supporters and fan the flames of racial tension. Am I wrong?

Before you answer that, check out the caption underneath the video of Wilson receiving a commendation from the Ferguson City Council: “Video shows Officer Darren Wilson receiving a commendation months before Michael Brown’s death. Residents say they saw a different image of the officer after the shooting.”

What does that mean? Is there any evidence that Wilson was a bad cop? A racist? Or is this “different image” of Officer Wilson a projection of [some] residents’ biased views? Or maybe the paper’s biased view?

comments

  1. avatar JM says:

    Yellow journalism at its finest.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Well since the WaPo is one of the few organizations I dislike more than cops….

      That was the best they could come up with using NINE reporters?

      So I wonder how many reporters WaPo will be using to scour the Gentle Giant’s past?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Well, how many did they send to root through dumpsters in Wasilla? And how many did they send to find Barack’s college transcripts? That might give you some idea…

  2. avatar pat says:

    I’m still withholding judgement if the officer’s actions were justified in the initial shooting, but it was the police response to the subsequent protests I have a real issue with.

    As to the question posed in the article: Yes, the paper’s biased views are on full display and it is merely an attempt to further inflame racial tension.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      ^^This about sums up how I feel as well. The whole thing is FUBAR. The lack of information, the police and MO state response, the yellow journalism and selective reporting to manufacture outrage and keep the local populace angry, the riots, etc… everyone has screwed this one up. I’ll wait for more info before I start condemning those involved.

      1. avatar Fed Up says:

        I’m ready to condemn EVERYBODY involved, with the exception of Darren Wilson.
        Wilson might be condemnable, but if he is I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of it.

        Brown, Johnson, looters, riot cops, Sharpton, Holder, the governor of Missouri, I’ve seen more than enough of their actions to know what sacks of feces they were/are.

  3. avatar Michael Nieto says:

    I’m am continually amazed ad the depth of the white guilt driven racism from the liberal elite

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Perhaps next they will solve Washington DC and stop lecturing “flyover” country.

      It does limit the diversity of your applicant pool for cops (and elected officials) when felons (or hoods) are eliminated. Not so much true in DC fortunately.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “Or maybe the paper’s biased view?”

    Or maybe the paper just wanted to stir up a hornet’s nest for ad revenue.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Exactly! They all have a vested interest in keeping the story arc going. Look at CNN, how many other officer involved shootings do they now have on their home page which would never have been even told before this story.

      It is BS like this is why people turn to new media

  5. avatar David_TheMan says:

    LOL
    Objectively detailing Wilson’s past is a character assasination.
    When you on this site champion him and the money raised for his defense like he is some kind of martyr, we are supposed to believe that you are unbiased?

    When the police department releases a video claiming micheal Brown robbed a store, yet deliberately doctor the video to cut the part of him paying for what he bought. Where were you when the shop owner told the press he never called 911 and no theft occured? where were you Robert Farage detailing how the Ferguson Police deliberately engaged in character assassination on the man they killed who was unarmed?

    Robert still no post on this site with regard for Ferguson PD breaking state law with regard for the incident report submitted that does not detail the incident.

    Why are you so biased in favor of the state robert?

    1. avatar Michael Nieto says:

      U are either a troll or not a regular to this site because Mr. Farago is very critical of both the police and the state

    2. avatar 16V says:

      David, Are you getting paid by Sharpton, or do you really believe the utter nonsense of the video showing him paying for the cigars? All that vid shows is him leaning in on the counter, then pulling a pile of packages out, after which the man comes out from behind the counter. Then Brown assaults him.

      So, lemme get your version straight, Brown comes, requests the box of blunts, pays for the box of blunts, then the tiny little clerk decides that he didn’t pay for them. Brown’s assaults on the man while exiting the store were actually shows of affection as well. Got it. This is especially interesting as Brown’s companion at the time has already stated to the FBI and locals that he was stealing the blunts.

      1. avatar dootdootbeep says:

        Where’s the fucking tape of the 911 call if Brown actually committed strong arm robbery? Where’s all the associated paperwork?

        1. avatar the ruester says:

          We all saw the tape of the strong armed robbery. If it really is true that the little guy getting lifted off of his feet by the throat didn’t call 911 or report the crime than so what? So I get to assault people by the throat on camera as long as they don’t call the cops? What if they don’t call because I promised to come back for their families throats? Or because his store was in a neighborhood where his customers will burn it down and paint “snitches get stitches” on the walls just for THINKING he called the cops? It’s so ridiculous, the last resort of their jihad is to intimidate witnesses into not testifying. You want to know what’s really ridiculous? If nobody called the cops that means the cops simply blanket checked all the security cameras in the immediate vicinity and got what they were looking for right away. The answer for Mike Brown here was to not be a criminal, not for society to punish people for having functional security cameras and furnishing their footage to law enforcement upon request.

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          You know, a week ago, the pro-thug Michael Brown mafia was bitching that
          his strong arm robbery video was even released. They claimed it distracted from the real case by smearing the thief and thug Brown as a, well, thief and a thug. Well.

          Now you want the 911 call released and now you wonder, after all the blowback from the video, why they haven’t released the 911 call? Make up your mind! Or do you just find whatever is and whine about what it isn’t?

          The police report already indicates the call came in at 11:51 a.m. The store owner, fearing reprisals, has already stated that they weren’t the ones to call, but rather a customer called 911. The store owner is terrified for his life and his livelihood and states that he doesn’t want to be any further involved, as he needs to run his store in that town for years to come. He doesn’t want any trouble from the pro-Michael Brown mafia.

          Now, if you have proof that no call whatsoever came in, despite the phone records, the personnel involved and the radio call of the robbery that went out for every officer and guy with a police scanner to hear, then by all means furnish your evidence to Holder.

        3. avatar Jay-El says:

          If there was no 911 call, where did the videotape come from? Don’t tell me the police seized, and then went through, every tape in every store in the area. And don’t tell me the tape is fabricated — if they could do that, why not fabricate a tape of Brown carrying a weapon or charging at Wilson?

          Puh-lease.

          PS: And don’t paint me as defending anyone. I am withholding judgment on Wilson’s actions until the facts are made public.

      2. avatar the ruester says:

        Based on his previous comments, officer Wilson violated Mr. Brown’s civil rights by not allowing him to finish beating him into unconsciousness, and by not just treating him like a person, because people are people and you should just treat them like people regardless of whether they are beating the hell out of you and grabbing for your gun or not. Your opinion of a person beating you to death has nothing to do with whether or not you can shoot them; THAT is determined by a handful of ignorant race card trolls.

    3. avatar bigfinger76 says:

      This abject nonsense is popping up everywhere all of a sudden. It actually bodes well for Mr. Wilson.

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Objectively detailing Wilson’s past is a character assasination.

      …so says someone who has an apparent conniption fit over release of evidence that Brown committed a strong-arm robbery ten minutes before his encounter with Wilson.

      …yet deliberately doctor the video to cut the part of him paying for what he bought…

      [citation needed]

      Really. I’d like to see the uncut video. Do you have a source?

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Use the force. Or google. Or Duck Duck Go. It’s rather easy to find.

        What you will see is Brown leaning across the counter, at no time does he go for his pockets during this alleged “transaction”. He doesn’t have a fist in either hand hen he crosses the threshold of the counter into the clerk’s area. So where the money? Invisible! Where’s the change? Mr. Brown just left it as a tip!

        By contrast, people who say we didn’t land on the moon seem plausible.

    5. avatar rosignol says:

      Why are you so biased in favor of the state robert?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      You must be new here.

    6. avatar Gregory says:

      Who in this forum witnessed the incident? Oh yea, no one. I do not know what happened and neither does anyone else, so let’s stop being Monday morning quarterbacks. As with anyone else, Officer Wilson is also innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the only people that forgot this little detail were the protesters, politicians and news media.
      For those who are not educated on determining whether an officer’s actions are justified, here is some information. An officer’s actions are judged based on what a reasonable person would do when facing an identical situation the officer faced and only having the information available to the officer at that time of the incident. Being a LEO, I can tell you shooting someone is a last resort. That being said, there are very few instances where we are justified in using deadly force on an unarmed person. One is when an officer is so overwhelmed by the suspect’s strength and violent actions that he/she will lose the ability to survive the encounter or will receive great bodily injury without utilizing deadly force. The other is when a suspect attempts to take an officer’s weapon. The moment a suspect intentionally grabs or attempts to grab an officer’s weapon, said suspect has engaged in the use of deadly force against the officer. If the suspect fails to obtain control of the weapon and again attempts to take the weapon then deadly force may be utilized to stop the suspect before he/she reaches the officer or weapon. The suspect’s action have already indicated he/she will kill the officer upon obtaining the officer’s weapon. It is quite simple, if one does not want to get shot then do not attempt to take an officer’s weapon, pretty much a no-brainer!

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        Except for the fact there are no FACTS coming from Ferguson PD….still shaping the narrative. As for the thug Brown being 6’4″ and 300 pounds. I’m 6’6″ 285, former Marine Mustang and got my ass kicked by numerous 170 pound guys. So I’m not buying Officer Wilson was in fear for his life.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          I don’t understand your reasoning. You’re saying that you, as a large framed and combative trained man, have been bested by much smaller and lighter men, repeatedly. (Why do you antagonize so many people in violent retaliation? Never mind.) So that means that this officer isn’t likely to have been fearful of someone much larger than he? How does that makes sense?

          Smaller opponent = I get my butt whipped. However, larger opponent (who’s already initiated violence, busted a police officer’s eye socket and struggled over his gun) = no biggie, just a casual, albeit animated, encounter with a townie?

          I don’t get it.

      2. avatar TT says:

        Well said, Gregory. Whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown will turn on one thing: Once Brown left Wilson’s cruiser and Wilson exited the cruiser, did Brown charge Wilson? The witnesses to the event tell conflicting stories on this point. I have heard two first-hand accounts that say Brown did not charge. I have heard one second-hand account that says he did.

        What Brown did earlier in a store, what Wilson’s mother did, what Wilson did in a previous job, etc. have nothing to do with it.

        Similarly, whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown has nothing to do with whether the post-shooting police response was appropriate or legal.

        I don’t understand the desire to turn this exceedingly complex series of events into an isolated good guy/bad guy narrative.

    7. avatar Bkbear1 says:

      You sir are a fool and LIAR. The THUG in question is a thief and bully. The tape was not edited or altered in any manner. Brown was a first class thug period.

      He got his ass handed to him when he tried to use his ham sized fists the second time that day on an armed officer.
      What happened was driven by Browns ego and his belief that might makes right and his was the might.

      He got what he deserved and was well overdue.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        It’s not exactly the two minute warning, or even half time, for that matter, but we are getting further into this thing and Team Thug is trailing badly in points already. We’ll just have to wait and see the fullness of the evidence, but so far, it’s looking like Brown went looking for trouble and found it. This is looking like the DGU of the Year.

      2. avatar Ken Hagler says:

        The hypocrisy is so thick you could walk on it.

    8. avatar David_TheMan says:

      Delusional racists seem to hate actual facts.

      Micheal Brown paying for cigars
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew

      Shop owner says no robbery occurred
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft

      Ferguson PD breaking the law with regard to incident report
      http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-releases-incomplete-police-report-on-death-of-michael-brown-221844542.html

      So outside of racism how can anyone call Micheal Brown a thug, except him being black.
      How can anyone claim there is a character assassination against Wilson, who has been protected completely by the state, yet remain silent about the tarnishing of Brown’s name?

      Easy, you are biased to the state, mix that with a healthy dose of racism and bigotism.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Actually, your first link clearly quotes the store owner as saying that a customer called 911.

        Thanks for playing.

        1. avatar David_TheMan says:

          I never said no one called 911.
          I said a robbery never occured.
          Learn to read and comprehend and try again.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I never said no one called 911.
          I said a robbery never occured.
          Learn to read and comprehend and try again.

          Why, do you suppose, the woman called 911? To report a lawful purchase of Swisher Sweets?

          I don’t suffer sophistry. Go troll someone else.

        3. avatar David_TheMan says:

          so now you are claiming that the word of someone in the store is greater than the supposed victim in the situation?

          the need to make Brown evil with you and others is down right strange.

          The store owner did not call or report a robbery.
          the police released a edited video cutting out Brown paying for the items he purchased.

          the ignorance of your prejudice has you blinded to the truth.
          Get that hate out of your heart.
          Al sharpton, jesse jackson, black people are a threat to you, the government who is lying to you and breaking the law is your enemy.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          so now you are claiming that the word of someone in the store is greater than the supposed victim in the situation?

          Please cite a source where the store owner claimed that he was not robbed.

          You can play your racist ad hominem on someone else, thanks.

        5. avatar David_TheMan says:

          There you go, for the 3rd time

          Shop owner says no robbery occurred
          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft

          You can keep wishing it means what you want though

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          There you go, for the 3rd time

          Shop owner says no robbery occurred

          Do you struggle with reading comprehension, or are you being willfully obtuse? Saying “I didn’t call 911” is not the same thing as saying, “My store was not robbed.”

          Three times, you’ve linked to the former quote. Three times, I’ve asked for a citation of the latter quote. Three times, you’ve failed to produce such a citation.

          The store owner never said that his store was not robbed. Perhaps you’re reading what he actually said, parsing it through your own prejudice, and ending up believing that the store owner said something that he never said.

          See, I don’t need for the store to have been robbed. Personally, I only need for the facts to become evident, in order to make an evaluation based upon those facts. If those facts show that Wilson was not justified in his use of deadly force, then I support him being prosecuted accordingly.

          If, on the other hand, the facts exonerate Wilson, and show that he was justified in his use of deadly force, can you say the same thing? Will you support him not being prosecuted, accordingly?

        7. avatar David_TheMan says:

          You seem to want to live in a never land where you absurd leaps of logic mean fact.
          They don’t.

          We know the shop owner did not report a robbery.
          We know the shop owner has said the person who called 911 thought they saw a robbery.
          We know Micheal Brown paid for the items he took.

          We do not know why the scuffle occured

          To claim the scuffle occurred because of theft and the 911 call that the owner refuted as being valid speaks volumes to your delusion.

          I’m sorry for you, but it is now clear to everyone in this thread what you are.

          🙂

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          We know the shop owner did not report a robbery.
          We know the shop owner has said the person who called 911 thought they saw a robbery.
          We know Micheal Brown paid for the items he took.

          As Ronald Reagan said: you’re entitled to your own opinions; but you are not entitled to your own facts.

          The video simply does not show an exchange of money for goods. It shows Brown grabbing a handful of boxes of Swisher Sweets, and turning toward the door – followed immediately by the store owner, obviously demanding payment, and then attempting to lock the door. We see Brown assault him, not once but twice, before the store owner relents. No evidence that Brown paid for anything.

          Further, we have a police report detailing a robbery.

          Now, let’s use common sense here. If the police responded to a reported robbery (which they did), and they interviewed the witnesses (which they did) and included their statements in the police report (which they did), don’t you think that common sense would dictate that, if the store owner didn’t believe a robbery had taken place, he would have told the police? But that’s not what we have; instead, we have a police report, based on the statements of the store owner and another witness (the female customer who called 911), describing a robbery, and the suspects of that robbery.

          Stop looking through your prejudiced lens, and see reality for just a moment.

          You can keep calling me racist all you want. I’m the one looking at facts, while you’re looking at skin color.

      2. avatar Sid says:

        falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

      3. avatar Alan says:

        Let’s all be clear about what happen. They jay walked and were told by cop to leave the street, as cop was pulling away report of strong arm robbery came in. Officer Wilson saw they fit description and had box of cigars in hand. He then called for back up and the proceeded to back his car up to the men. The two men struggled with the officer inside his car, beating the smaller officer ass and then tried to take his gun! At that point of trying to take the officer Gun all bets are off and even the citizens of Ferguson were no longer safe. Why? Because once Brown decided he didn’t care about the officer life anymore then he could have killed anyone who saw what he did. The gun went off inside the car, and the two men ran. As they ran an injured officer Wilson directed them to stop struggling to see, Brown decided to challenge the officer again. Wilson Fired to stop brown but he didn’t stop and the officer continued firing until he dropped.
        What is truly sad in all of this is that an 18 year old man became a thief, and tried to kill a police officer. The officer will have to live with killing this man. Then Media Blew it out of Proportion with out all the facts, showing a photo of a 14 year old boy on TV instead of the photo of a Man standing 6’4 and 300 pounds. That is know Kid! Furthermore Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton like to see themselves on TV the same as our government sending someone down. Why don’t they send someone to Chicago where thousands have been killed and hundreds since Brown death but you don’t see Sharpton or Jackson there. They want to be on TV and to mean something, instead of doing something by helping clean up the streets and educate these kids. Stop your arguing and be a part of the solution instead of making the facts sound like you want them to…Brown is Dead and Wilson was justified based on the law, on the facts we know at this point! If you need a Role Model it isn’t Mike Brown…..

    9. avatar Hobbitmom says:

      If Micheal Brown did not steal anything, why did the clerk try to stop him, and why did Brown push the clerk and then deliberately intimidate him (yes, approaching someone smaller that way is intimidation).

      The clerk or store owner was on local TV the day the tape came out saying, “I didn’t call anyone,” but he ALSO said that the reason he didn’t call anyone was fear of retaliation. He has clearly and consistently stated that he was robbed. The police said it was a customer who called; the incident report indicates the customer was a woman.

      There are photos of some pages of the police report floating around on the Internet. This Daily Mail article has all the ones I’ve seen down at the end.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725917/Ferguson-police-Officer-Darren-Wilson-cop-shot-dead-unarmed-teenager-Michael-Brown.html

      1. avatar David_TheMan says:

        Brown pushing someone away doesn’t mean he robbed from anyone or broke a law.
        the store owner has said no robbery occurred and he did not call 911.
        the video shows brown paying for his purchase.

        Why do you seem so intent of vilifying a person and trying so hard to justify something that is irrelevant to his shooting?

        the only reason I brought up the truth about the store is because so many of the idiots on this site seem to want to go out of their way to call this kid a thug or thief to justify in their minds why he “deserved” to get shot.

        Your prejudice against Brown is on clear display as well. You need to believe a lie that the store owner said he was robbed when he and his lawyer have said they were never robbed and never reported a robbery. Why are you so committed to believing and parroting a lie? The store owner never said he didn’t report because he was scared of the community, he said he hopes the community will not target him thinking he is trying to help the police excuse their actions, because what went on in the store had nothing to do with what happened in the street.

        http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/lawyer-store-didnt-call-cops-on-ferguson-teen-michael-brown/14138121/

        This isn’t gut feeling lady, I’m discussing documented facts.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …the store owner has said no robbery occurred…

          The store owner said that neither he nor an employee of his called 911; he did not say that a robbery didn’t occur. Can you cite a source (video, quote, police report, etc.) that says otherwise?

          There is plenty of evidence that a robbery occurred:

          1) The video of Brown swiping an armful of Swisher Sweets, followed by the store owner coming around the counter and obviously trying to prevent him from leaving
          2) Reverse camera angle following, showing the store owner attempting to lock the door, and Brown grabbing him by the shirt and throwing him back
          3) The woman’s 911 call, reporting a robbery
          4) The police dispatch reporting the robbery, based on the call
          5) The police report of the robbery

          …the video shows brown paying for his purchase…

          You’ll see what you want to see, but what you want to see is not what the video shows. The video clearly shows Brown swiping an armful of Swisher Sweets, and making a break for the door, with no payment exchanged with the store owner.

          Why do you seem so intent of vilifying a person and trying so hard to justify something that is irrelevant to his shooting?

          Hardly. It is completely relevant, since it took place only 10 minutes prior to the encounter with Wilson. It provides insight into Brown’s state of mind when being encountered by a police officer only minutes after committing a strong-arm robbery.

          the only reason I brought up the truth about the store is because so many of the idiots on this site seem to want to go out of their way to call this kid a thug or thief to justify in their minds why he “deserved” to get shot.

          Straw man. Nobody here has claimed that Brown “deserved” to be shot because he committed a strong-arm robbery; rather, the claim is that the evidence very well may show that Wilson was justified in using deadly force in response to Brown’s assault of Wilson, Brown’s attempt to get Wilson’s gun, the imminent threat Brown thus posed to Wilson and others, and Brown’s decision to charge the officer.

          Your prejudice against Brown is on clear display as well. You need to believe a lie that the store owner said he was robbed when he and his lawyer have said they were never robbed and never reported a robbery.

          He said he never reported a robbery. Please cite a source where the owner says that he wasn’t robbed.

          Here are the actual quotes from the link you cited:

          “It’s not about them. They didn’t call the police, they didn’t ask the police to come and take the video,” said attorney Jay Kanzler.

          “They would hope that the people of this community, who have consistently supported them, would continue to support them, and realize that whatever the police are looking at on the surveillance tapes has nothing to with what went on in the streets,” said Kanzler.

          (From the video, transcribed by me; any errors mine:)

          “It’s not about them. They didn’t call the police. They didn’t ask the police to come and take the video.” – Kanzler

          There’s nothing in the article text or either of the two videos that indicates that the store owner made the claim that no robbery took place. So, still: [citation needed] on that claim.

        2. avatar David_TheMan says:

          The store owner said no robbery occured, he even goes to say the 911 call came from a customer that “thought” they saw a robbery but not from the store or anyone employed by it.

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322560/-Ferguson-Store-Owner-Says-NO-ONE-From-His-Store-Called-Cops-To-Report-Cigar-Theft?detail=facebook
          ” St. Louis local news is reporting that the Attorney for the Ferguson store, Jake Kanzler said the the Ferguson store owner, nor any store employee called the police to report any shoplifting of cigars, but, rather, a customer called the police. ”

          So again stop holding on to a myth you’ve created in your head to justify a unarmed kid being shot.
          =

          there is no evidence in the video showing a robbery happened, it shows a cash transaction.
          On top of that again you have the store owner saying no robbery occurred.
          to claim that there was a robbery in light of the potential victim saying there was no robbery and there being video evidence of a cash transaction is ridiculous, and really shows how prejudice you are.
          Reverse camera angle can show whatever it wants what we see in the video is Brown buy cigars, and then place the original ones he bought back on the counter before leaving. Why would a theif place items back on the counter before leaving? Why would a store that was robbed not report a robbery?

          Why are racist and bigots ignorant? No one will know.

          Actually a theft would be irrlevant to the shooting because as admitted by the Ferguson Police Chief, Officer Wilson did not know he was a robbery suspect when he initiated interaction with him.

          so you are wrong factually, there is no relation between the two events at all.

          Yes you have gone out your way to justify him getting shot, why else would you refer to him as a thug and other derogatory names. Easy you want to dehumanize him and classify him as a criminal deserving to be killed. You can deny it but its easy for people to see, you know people who aren’t racist bigots

          A owner doesn’t report a robbery says via his lawyer that a 911 call did not come from him but someone else who thought they saw a robbery and we have video of him paying for his purchase and to you that means that a robbery did occur because the person who said they thought they saw a robbery trumps everything else. Wonder why that is, maybe again you have a underlying need to make someone who you don’t like and who threatens you love of the police state a person deserving of death?

          Yes that was the lawyer saying that in reference to how the video was acquired by the police. He says the police came and they followed their wishes they didn’t take anything to them.

          You hurt your credibility even more when you start taking quotes out of context, but that seems like standard operating procedure for your type.

  6. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The liberal paper is grasping at wisps of vapor and innuendo to assassinate the character of Wilson. No real facts as usual. he saw Wilson pull out a gun and shoot Brown in the chest or arm. I am guessing that Wilson is sort of behind Brown at this point?. Johnson said the officer hit Brown with another round as he was running away. I would think Wilson would have to be behind Brown now. The computer projected report on the TV screen had the chest wound trajectories coming fairly straight in front. As a matter of fact, all the projected wound trajectories shown on the news report seemed to be coming in front of the “Gentle Giant”.

  7. avatar Kris says:

    Right now divorce lawyers, pimps, porn stars and car salesmen across America are reading this article, shaking their heads and mumbling, “these people have no shame.”

    1. avatar Wood says:

      Hey now, what’s wrong with porn stars?

  8. avatar last marine out says:

    Tues. is elections day for me , VOTE 2A, and sent the MEDIA a pro – 2A letter, local counts the most……..

  9. avatar robndenver says:

    My first job in Law Enforcement was in a town police department that had been overtaken by the Sheriff, due to misconduct by several ranking employees. So you could say that I started in a “department that was troubled by allegations of corruption”. The rest of that story would read that I was hired after the former chief and a sergeant were let go and prosecuted, but the media, taking matters out of context would have lost no sleep mischaracterizing the situation.

  10. avatar GuyFromV says:

    I wish my police department had a good rapport with my community, if I ever see any of them out here in the county I’ll say “hi” to let them know where we are and to remind the sheriff to come by for cookies.

  11. avatar publius2 says:

    TL;DR: The lede could be re-titled, Is it “News or Progtard Meme Propagation”.
    The answer is yes, WAPO is spreading propaganda, as the nation’s leading paper focusing on DC.

    Another disappointment, but I guess not surprising, given the desperation on the left, and their media enablers in the StateRunMedia, for how badly its going on the whole Progressive Agenda.

    When WAPO endorsed Obama in 2008, I was disappointed, but understood they have to reflect the views of its readership. Hope and Change, etc.

    When WAPO endorsed Obama again in 2012, I could only marvel on the triumph of mendacity over truth.

    There is an urban myth, probably spread by his PR team, that Bezos read every consumer comment at Amazon, and ordered changes to fix things. When he bought out the failing WAPO, which was rapidly circling the drain following their failed digital delivery, but IMHO more due to the slow realization by older news readers that it was returning to its Pravda on the Potomoc ways of the 70s…and useless as a news source, I had high hopes that Bezos would turn it around, and was encouraged by early signs-
    letting Ezra Klein depart in a huff was brilliant- a signal that Journolista’s would not be tolerated, hopefully,
    and snaring Eugene Volokh, equally wise- not that Volokh was careful to give himself independence…and a way out, if he saw fit…that, in my view, will be a useful data point from the inside of the Alice in Wonderland world that apparently informs most liberals and the reason for their increasingly disturbed behavior- sustained cognitive dissonance does cause insanity in some cases, especially those who are dealing with real facts every day, and Krugman at the NYT is one well known example.

    Some rich guys buy yachts, others buy horses, others buy NFL franchises. Some they run like a business, some they run like old fools chasing their youth. Bezos didnt strike me as old enough or foolish enough, to allow WAPO to continue its death spiral, but he is from La-La-Land of SF Elites,

    but who knows, he’s only human and could be influenced by the apparently completely unethical business people in that world- Oracle comes to mind, or the Dont Be Evil Googlers, et al of the Dark Enlightenment world view, or simply following what works, among the politically correct nitwits at Mozilla or the guy who ran Microsoft into the dirt, Balmer.

    So, am I surprised that WAPO is participating in the predictable witch hunt? No, its the standard progressive game plan, tired but proven, of community organizers who dont have real world experience, and it works on the Low Info Voters, and WAPO and the editors have to sell content to the dogs, after all… everyone has to pay the mortgage, and buy little johnny his new shoes, y’know, and judging by Amazons stock price, Bezos has probably been less hands-off, than the PR would indicate…

    Just another failed narrative that we saw play out with Zimmerman, only slightly less surprising than CNN playing nothing but malaysian airliner, until that finally played out among the LIVs, until the Kardashians or Michelle did something more interesting. I mean, we have another year and a half to go, and you can only report on the Golfer in Chief so much, until its boring…then, theres that Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi, and ObamaCare is Just Not Working, and you know Christians being beheaded, NOTHING TO SEE HERE…
    so if it works, you go with it…

    RAAAASSSCISSTTTT!

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Just FYI, WAPO makes/loses jack diddly squat in newspaper operations. Before Bezos bought the paper side of the WAPO ops, the only reason it survived was that it made so much money off the Kaplan “educational” division it could be funded.

      Running the newspaper as something other than a hobby? Good luck…

  12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Dorian Johnson is not a teenager; he’s 22.

    Not that I would expect the Washington Compost to get basic facts correct.

  13. avatar mark says:

    A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents — what the group calls a poor-people’s tax.

    Law enforcement should not be used to raise revenue–that’s simply an abuse. This, unfortunately, is the most common experience many citizens have with police. The first step toward regaining the trust of the general citizenry is to eliminate such abuses.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    WaPo was merely fulfilling its mission as propagandist for the Democrat party. As such, this polemic was WaPo’s attempt to defame all white people, not just Wilson. Wilson is just being used as an “example” of institutionalized white racism.

    There are racial arsonists on both sides of the color line. Now you know where WaPo stands.

    1. avatar dootdootbeep says:

      Yea man you figured it out. The Wapo wants to alienate most of their readership. You know institutionalized white racism existed in our lifetimes, it didn’t disappear overnight COMMENT MODERATED

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        The only thing remaining of “institutionalized racism” in this country is the “white guilt” industry being funded by the Left. The WaPo is the corporate office.

  15. avatar Michael B. says:

    A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents — what the group calls a poor-
    people’s tax.

    Yet when libertarians say the same thing we’re decried as being against all government spending forever.

  16. avatar Accur81 says:

    It looks like character assassination to me. If diminutive Officer Wilson had in fact been accused of excessive force, professional misconduct, or anything else noteworthy, the mainstream media would gleefully report it.

    Instead we have innuendo and guilt by association from a previous police department. I’m curious if Ferguson PD patrols with video cameras rolling like most police departments, and if there are any specific, fact-based accusations against Wilson.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Well, let’s be fair. This could have been Wilson’s first attempt at racism, just like it was Big Mike’s first attempt at thuggery.

      What . . . what’s that you say? Big Mike was caught on tape? Let’s just put that aside.

      Wait . . . the big guy has a juvie record? Let’s just put that aside too.

      Wait . . . there are no complaints against Wilson in six years? Let’s forget that also.

      At this point, everybody has an opinion, but what are the facts?

      Wait . . . WaPo don’t need no stinking facts. Wilson is white. He shot a black guy. Ipso facto, racist.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        That’s pretty much the information I’m working with as well.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Wait . . . WaPo don’t need no stinking facts. Wilson is white. He shot a black guy. Ipso facto, racist.

        This is what I have the most problem with, and what is the genesis of most of the controversy. The shooting itself could have been right or wrong, based on the facts of the situation, but there has never been even a shred of evidence that Wilson acted with any racial bigotry or animus, whatsoever. This shooting was turned into a racial circus before the scene of the shooting was even processed – and the racial aspect remains utterly specious.

        I will assert rather confidently that, if the facts presented indicate that Wilson was not justified in his use of deadly force, those supporting his right to due process and presumption of innocence now will support his prosecution based on the facts. No racial issues required.

        Can the same be said of those calling for justice for Mike Brown, if the evidence presented ultimately exonerates Wilson?

  17. avatar ThomasR says:

    It’s the same way that the old media had already determined that the “white/hispanic” Zimmerman had been stalking Martin before any of the facts were in.

    And still; after the facts are in; the old media and the liberal/progressives still can’t admit that a jury of his peers had determined that Zimmerman was defending himself from an attack initiated by Martin.

    They will do the same with this situation. Once the the facts are in , the facts won’t matter if the facts don’t support the meme pushed by the statists.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The meme pushed by the Democrat media is that Martin was an innocent black youth who was killed by a white guy. Why? Because Hispanics vote Democrat and Democrats can’t afford to offend them.

  18. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    It’s par for the course when it comes to the so called main stream media. The story will further the narrative. The narrative will be set by the liberal elite.

  19. avatar 45acp says:

    This is a hit piece. Virtually no facts, but lots of hints and suggestions and innuendo trying to suggest that the officer has a problem. When I moved to DC over 20 years ago, I refused to subscribe to the Post because of their bias.

  20. avatar DrVino says:

    Johnson – the guy with Brown at the store and the shooting – is not a teen. He has a criminal record and neck tattoos to compete with Lil’ Weezy…

  21. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    The fact that Ferguson, a town with a 75-80 black population repeatedly elected white officials and supported a mainly white police department doesn’t fit racist narrative being spun for this hapless little town. America’s justice system was embarrassed and nearly humbled by the Zimmerman legal circus and was saved only by the steadfast courage and integrity of the everyday citizens that served on the jury. Now with officer Wilson, we see the same kind of ugly racism profaning what should be a fair and impartial legal process. My gut feeling is that happened on that street wouldn’t normally deserve action by a grand jury. Nonetheless, I fear Wilson is going to be forced into a political show-trial in the same way Zimmerman was. Meanwhile the race-hustlers, both political and private, fly first class. This whole thing stinks.

    1. avatar tdgrafton says:

      For what’s it wirth, one of the articles I’ve read state that only 12% of the black population in Ferguson vote.

      1. avatar last marine out says:

        make Sure you vote 2A,,, the local vote does count………….a lot……..

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        That doesn’t matter in the least. This is a free country and people can chose to vote or not vote. The fact that most blacks in Ferguson decide not to vote isn’t necessarily an indication of white dominance or lack of representation for blacks. It could just easily mean that most blacks in Ferguson don’t find a white leadership onerous. The fact is, Ferguson has had white politicians and cops for years and years of black majority populations. Of course, that doesn’t fit the narrative being written for Ferguson by the race-hustlers their lap-dog media. The absence of “representative” black leadership doesn’t mean much when people are free to vote or not vote. This is America in 2014 for cryin’ out loud. It is not the racist post-war south. End of rant.

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    One wonders what we could write about Brown’s life using a similar lens.

  23. avatar Gregory says:

    Who in this forum witnessed the incident? Oh yea, no one. I do not know what happened and neither does anyone else, so let’s stop being Monday morning quarterbacks. As with anyone else, Officer Wilson is also innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the only people that forgot this little detail were the protesters, politicians and news media.
    For those who are not educated on determining whether an officer’s actions are justified, here is some information. An officer’s actions are judged based on what a reasonable person would do when facing an identical situation the officer faced and only having the information available to the officer at that time of the incident. Being a LEO, I can tell you shooting someone is a last resort. That being said, there are very few instances where we are justified in using deadly force on an unarmed person. One is when an officer is so overwhelmed by the suspect’s strength and violent actions that he/she will lose the ability to survive the encounter or will receive great bodily injury without utilizing deadly force. The other is when a suspect attempts to take an officer’s weapon. The moment a suspect intentionally grabs or attempts to grab an officer’s weapon, said suspect has engaged in the use of deadly force against the officer. If the suspect fails to obtain control of the weapon and again attempts to take the weapon then deadly force may be utilized to stop the suspect before he/she reaches the officer or weapon. The suspect’s action have already indicated he/she will kill the officer upon obtaining the officer’s weapon. It is quite simple, if one does not want to get shot then do not attempt to take an officer’s weapon, pretty much a no-brainer!

    1. avatar 16V says:

      “For those who are not educated on determining whether an officer’s actions are justified, here is some information. An officer’s actions are judged based on what a reasonable person would do when facing an identical situation the officer faced and only having the information available to the officer at that time of the incident.’

      While I wouldn’t argue in very, very, general terms… Justification definitions vary greatly by state.

      1. avatar Gregory says:

        This was addressed in “Graham v. Connor”; would a reasonable officer have acted the same way facing the same circumstances? It is a constitutional checkpoint in courtrooms and police-training programs around the country

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Graham v. Connor was a ruling that should have required hiring officers with greater-than-room-temperature IQ’s. Can’t tell a diabetic is having a seizure? How the eff did they get out of 6th grade? Seriously, how close to Downy does one have to be to not know that?

          How is entering and leaving the 7-11 grounds for a stop, let alone grounds for anything resembling detainment? No report of incident, but they’re gonna ‘check anyway’? And drag you from the car while they do? Not only that, but cuff someone?

          What kind of statist nation do you seek?

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Well maybe all this mess could be avoided if LEO organizations supported this simple rule…..

      Buy body and car cameras for all cops before MRAPs, flashbangs, and battering rams.

  24. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Hey, it’s the WaPo – “All the news that fits to print.”

  25. avatar Madcap_Magician says:

    As an aside, getting a job in law enforcement is fraught with these little dangers. When applying, a candidate will likely not know the full extent of a department’s community relationships. It’s entirely possible to find yourself working for a department that has a bad reputation, whether fairly or unfairly earned.

    This can follow you the rest of your career, as departments to which you apply in the future will always wonder whether you were a part of your old agency’s problems.

    Or in this case, the Washington Post can talk about how there’s no evidence that Wilson was a racist, all the departments he worked for were mos def racist…

  26. avatar Tom says:

    Thanks for this post, Robert. I read the Post article yesterday and you have articulated my disgust better than I could. Even allowing for the Post’s obvious bias, I’m amazed they would publish such garbage.

  27. avatar Parnell says:

    Whatever happened to “Who, What, Where, When and Why?” in paragraph one of the Post story? Is it paragraph 9 or 10 before it’s mentioned that Officer Wilson was never accused of misconduct in the “racism” accusation. against that department.

  28. avatar john seagus says:

    I especially liked the part where it was disbanded because Darren Wilson reported the extent to which racism had taken over the force in the policing of the black communities.

    That alone should settle the issue of racism on Darrren’s part.

  29. avatar Jay-El says:

    Anyone else notice how the media have posthumously renamed Brown as unarmed black teenager Michael Brown?

    Sort of reminds me of motorist Rodney King. Like he was stopped while out for a Sunday drive in his convertible, while wearing a scarf.

  30. avatar BHirsh says:

    WaPo is blatantly progressive. So, why should we be surprised at this, especially after their treatment of Zimmerman?

    Trayvon was a dirtball-in-training. To WaPo he is a martyr. Brown was a violent thug the size of an NFL nose guard. To WaPo, he’s the new MLK.

    If I still had my parrot, WaPo would line the bottom of her cage.

  31. avatar loss diets says:

    Just want to say your article is as astounding.
    The clearness in your post is just great and that i can assume you’re
    knowledgeable in this subject. Fine together with your permission allow me to seize your feed
    to keep updated with coming near near post. Thank you one million and please continue the rewarding work.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Psst, admins: spam cleanup on aisle 7.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email