BREAKING: Officer Wilson Shot Michael Brown in the Squad Car

Michael Brown (courtesy salon.com)

Citing “government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter,” the New York Times has just published police officer Darren Wilson’s account of the Michael Brown shooting. “The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown . . . Darren Wilson told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.” Which raises the question . . .

Why did the Times use the phrase “it was fired” instead of “Officer Wilson fired his gun”? If indeed it was Officer Wilson who fired his gun. And what kind of retention holster was he using? The Times wants to know . . .

why, after he emerged from his vehicle, [Wilson] fired at Mr. Brown multiple times. It contradicts some witness accounts, and it will not calm those who have been demanding to know why an unarmed man was shot a total of six times.

That’s just the Times talking. The new information does little to change the important question: was Officer Wilson in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm when he shot Michael Brown – when the Officer was outside his vehicle.

But it does make you wonder why Brown, who may have not realized he’d been shot (adrenalin), would re-engage Wilson after the life-or-death struggle in the cruiser. It was probably a “fight, flight or freeze” thing. Those were Brown’s options when Wilson pointed a gun at him and ordered him to stop (presumably). If so, wrong answer. Obviously.

The Times recaps and recounts eyewitness accounts of the shooting, some of which cast Officer Wilson as the aggressor. And then returns to the facts of the matter, such as they are known.

The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.

Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County Police Department has said in interviews that Officer Wilson was “pushed back into the car” by Mr. Brown and “physically assaulted.” The department is conducting the local investigation into Mr. Brown’s death.

Spokesmen for the F.B.I. and the Justice Department declined to comment.

The Grand Jury’s been on this case since August. St. Louis County prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch told the Times he expects a decision by mid-November. Hopefully in the middle of snow storm.

comments

  1. avatar Steve says:

    Is anyone remotely surprised? The “community” erupted in anger before the body was even carted off of the street. We aren’t dealing with rational people, and it is irrational to expect them to act otherwise.

    1. avatar dakiwi13 says:

      irrational? not really, as i’m more surprised that the people came to the aid of that racist bigot cliven bundy, armed to the teeth. and yet no human being was injured or harmed by the govt. but 1 kid gets shot and their reaction is irrational?

      1. avatar 'liljoe says:

        Wow… racist and bigot?

        I think that narrative turned out to be somewhat false, and in accusing him of it, shows you to be somewhat of a bigot… but I won’t accuse you of being racist.

        1. avatar dakiwi13 says:

          i guess u just can’t keep up w/the news from april even detailed on ttag as well

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-racist_n_5204821.html

        2. avatar James says:

          lol@huffpo as a source for anything.

        3. avatar Excedrine says:

          @dakiwi13 — The HuffingtonCompost is not a reliably unbiased source.

      2. avatar dph says:

        I must have missed all the news about the riots at the Bundy Ranch.

      3. avatar Blake says:

        Does the word “context” mean anything to you?

        Bundy’s words were taken wildly out of context as the clip they kept playing ended abruptly, the media also ignored the fact that several of the militiamen and supporters were in fact, black and not offended by his remarks.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Let’s get back to the real story here of why they believe it was justified to burn down Ferguson MO and it’s not because Clive Bundy has opinions differing from others.

      4. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        “rrational? not really, as i’m more surprised that the people came to the aid of that racist bigot cliven bundy”

        Let’s take a read at what Clive Bundy really had to say.

        He said, and I quote, ““I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
        And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

        Racist? He was sticking up for American blacks against a dignity depriving, family destroying welfare state.

        You also said “…cliven bundy, armed to the teeth…”

        Good thing he was armed to the teeth, the government meant to steal his ranch for b.s. reasons.

        “no human being was injured or harmed by the govt. but 1 kid gets shot and their reaction is irrational?”

        Michael Brown was adult, you lie when you call him a “kid”.
        Yes, it was irrational. Rioting because someone defended themselves against assault, never bothering to wait for the facts, yes, that is irrational.

        1. avatar GenghisQuan says:

          You left off the part where he has many positive things to say about the Hispanic community. I believe the words “they may be better than white people” were used.

        2. avatar Lee says:

          Why can’t people realise there are too many people currently in power that want racial un-rest? Those of us that are not now, nor ever have been, racist are not believed because of the race hustlers.

        3. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          Yes, I ran out of time to post everything I wanted to say. I apologize. Clive Bundy deserved a full defense from that attack on his character.

        4. avatar John Galt says:

          Race hustling from both sides keeps us distracted from the Statists (regardless of party) who are attempting to consolidate more and more centralized power.

          It’s like a flash-bang meant to disorient us and keep us at each others’ throats.

          “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

        5. avatar SleeStac says:

          Making judgements about individuals based on their race is the definition of racist. I don’t know enough about western land use issues to know if Mr. Bundy is in the right on his main land use issue. I’m not happy with the BLM’s approach to enforcement, particulary their assault on Mr. Bundy’s son. But I think that if you claim Mr. Bundy’s statements aren’t racist, you do not understand what racist is. He is making sweeping generalizations about people based on their race, that is text book racist.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Bundy’s arguments (he would have been “smart” (aka PC) to have taken the golden opportunity to shut up), included his conclusions concerning some very concerning racial issues, but because he disagreed with the Fed’s conclusions does not make him racist, the Fed’s have led the country downhill in that regard for 50+ years. At issue is the advisability of the welfare state, which has destroyed plenty of white families as well as huge numbers of black and Hispanic families. If that comment makes me a racist in your eyes, you need to have your vision checked.

      5. avatar DrVino says:

        “racist”? He said nothing Thomas Sowell hasn’t said.
        “kid”? you just disqualified yourself from the discussion

      6. avatar juliesa says:

        One thing Bundy is not is racist. Also, FYI, nowadays, most white people who are smeared as such are not.

      7. avatar V. McCann says:

        Got it everyone? Race baiting, looting, and violence are rational because…hey look! A squirrel!

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You forgot arson.

      8. avatar Bob says:

        dakiwi13 says:
        “irrational? not really, as i’m more surprised that the people came to the aid of that racist bigot cliven bundy, armed to the teeth. and yet no human being was injured or harmed by the govt. but 1 kid gets shot and their reaction is irrational?”

        My reply is:
        “Name calling , slander, and hyperbole is a sure sign that the other person has lost the argument and has nothing else to say. We see this all of the time.”

        Hyperbole is bringing up something shocking, but unrelated, to distract everyone from the original subject of the argument. It might work on other blogs, but we’re on to that kind of tactic here.

      9. avatar publius2 says:

        daki, I think you lost your way, dood. the kos forums are way over there, out the door down the street, to your left…

        You’ll know you’re there when it gets dim, and smells really bad.

        Here, fire up this complimentary commemorative Michael Brown Special Stogie, and toddle on out, buh bye!

      10. avatar Powerwiz says:

        The kid got shot because he was a criminal engaging in misconduct. When you assault a Police Officer expect to die. What should the cop have done asked please? It pleases me greatly that the “Gentle Giant” narrative has fallen on its butt.

        Funny thing is most of America agrees and could care less about any of this. Have fun with the innocent ruling that is coming up in Nov.

      11. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        I’m not as familiar with the details of the Nevada case as many others here may be, but it doesn’t matter as that’s irrelevant to the Ferguson matter.

        Your suggestion that responding to an officer’s shooting of a suspect by immediately rioting in the streets and torching businesses is not irrational, is itself irrational.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      The “community” didn’t erupt. The gangbangers and their friends erupted when one of their own got taken down. How big is Ferguson and how many people from Ferguson actually participated in the riots or demonstrations?

      1. avatar DrVino says:

        It takes more than gang bangers and local misanthropes to agitate this effectively.
        There were no doubt fringe, radical political groups operating in Ferguson.
        And they knew how to stage things so that the media could get all the action in one frame but not see the empty and calm streets a few blocks over.

        1. avatar Andy says:

          Weren’t the Black Panthers in Ferguson stirring the pot ? That is part of the racial issue also unless you are minority and live off of the government from cradle to grave , and won’t even attempt to hold a job even if it is flipping burgers at a fast food joint . I get so tired of some folks who are the true racists trying to paint others as racists , along with the federal government trying to keep racism in the spot light to where it keeps us all divided , and those folks who profit from keeping racism out there too , we have more outstanding problems in this nation at this time , lets work together to help solve them . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

      2. avatar Steve in RI says:

        Any event like this just becomes an excuse to shopping for free stuff – breaking into local businesses and stealing merchandise under the false pretense that it has anything to do with the event. The event is just an excuse because when the shoplifters outnumber the police by 500 to 1 something like this will happen.

  2. avatar James says:

    Pants up, don’t poop…

  3. avatar dakiwi13 says:

    still sounds fishy. i tend never to believe anything on a police report. as it is just 1 account of what happened and tends to be extremely biased. such as the christopher dorner incident where the police shot 2 newspaper delivery women in a truck that didn’t even look anything like the one they were looking for belonging to dorner

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      vs. the level-headed, coldly rational and highly consistent reports garnered from the friends, relatives, bystanders and so-called “witnesses” (some of whom have reported seeing things that the medical evidence indicates was simply impossible, such as “He was shot in the back”).

      Yeah, far more reliable.

    2. avatar MRESODALL says:

      I’m old and crotchety, but am nonetheless willing to loan you a few capital letters to make your posts more readable, if you’d like.

    3. avatar John Galt says:

      Pick the best answer from below.

      Those two innocent women were shot because the officers:

      a) were amped up on adrenaline
      b) had itchy trigger fingers
      c) were bored
      d) had inadequate training
      e) did poor threat analysis
      f) were doing typical policing for LA
      g) combination of the above
      h) other

      Regardless of the reason, they got a pass.

      Police Officers Who Shot at Two Innocent Women 103 Times Won’t Be Fired
      http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/

    4. avatar Accur81 says:

      Well, the shooting is being investigated, and the facts again point to the narrative of the Officer Wilson. Clearly there isn’t much interest in black on black violence, whether justified or not. Since this was a white cop shooting an unarmed black man (and given our current activist / scumbag attorney general), it will be thoroughly investigated by the Feds.

      As the facts, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, continue to come out, Wilson’s narrative continues to be supported. It still seems to me that Brown was a thug and needed to be shot. I probably would have shot him under similar circumstances. He doesn’t get extra points for his race. Well, except by the media, and maybe certain the government. Hence the race rioting, with potentially a whole lot more if Wilson is not tried or found to be not guilty.

    5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “as it is just 1 account of what happened and tends to be extremely biased. “

      This makes about as much sense as trying to cite hupo as a source for INFORMATION.

      You’ve obviously never taken or read a police report. The purpose of the report is to document facts as they are available at the time the report is written. Very often, police reports contain narrative outlining multiple sides of an event.

      Comments like the one quoted are really harming your credibility. You can choose not to trust police reports as much as you like, but doing so and announcing such is not elevating you to some high ground of superior thinking as you seem to think. In contrast, it makes you look like you have no clue how the real world works.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Plus, the theories you seem to “trust” never got around to even a HINT of why the officer might have decided to assassinate this fine example of young manhood on that particular day. One side says “he was trying to kill me”, the other side says, uh, what? Come up with a reason. 2 minutes earlier, cop was minding his own business, which was keeping order, no evidence I’ve heard says he even KNEW Brown. Why kill him? No answer equates to your argument is silly and groundless.

    6. avatar H says:

      Plus the state wants the woman to pay the taxes on the new truck they bought her!

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        Don’t forget the police also “mistook” a white surfer for Dorner.

        Torrance surfer shot at during Dorner manhunt to receive $1.8 million
        http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-torrance-settlement-dorner-20140724-story.html

        Fire, aim, ready!

  4. avatar Jolly Roger Out says:

    Doesn’t this mean there should be some dash cam audio/video of the incident? Something that would shed some more light on the incident? Even if it’s just the camera shaking when this incident supposedly occurred?

    1. avatar Icabod says:

      Based on the news reports, none of the police officers or cars had cameras that would have show this. Yes, they now have some cameras

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        IOW, yes, there should be video, but there is not. Which is not the fault of the officer.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Many camera systems record only if the emergency lights are activated or the officer pushes a button to start recording (indeed in some states the officer must tell people he is recording due to state laws). In a case where the officer doesn’t put the emergency lights on and doesn’t think he’s about to get assaulted the camera might not be turned on. I know people will say “the camera must always be on!”… I’m just telling you that’s how many camera systems work.

      Or, as in the case of many places, half the electronic stuff in vehicles (cameras, computers, etc) might just not be working.

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        All the more reason why everyone should have their own dash cam.

        Why Almost Everyone in Russia Has a Dash Cam
        http://www.wired.com/2013/02/russian-dash-cams/

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I have heard that before, and I am seriously considering it. But, I would want a looping video and on full time, with time stamp, don’t know if there is such a thing.

        2. avatar John Galt says:

          There’s a pretty wide selection, and prices keep dropping.

          There are models with combined forward/rearward facing cameras.

          Here’s one site to check out:

          Dashboard Camera Reviews
          http://dashboardcamerareviews.com/

        3. avatar Andrew Lam says:

          I also review dash cameras as well and spent a lot of hands-on time in creating my reviews both video and articles. I have a summary of the best cameras I’ve found after many, many hours of work. Hope you enjoy:
          https://www.carcamcentral.com/guide/best-dash-cams-car-dvrs-black-boxes-of-2016

    3. avatar Adam says:

      http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close

      “The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That’s simply not credible. “Law” “enforcement” in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns …but not a dashcam. That’s ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It’s about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is.”

      1. avatar jules2u says:

        You do realize or maybe you don’t that many police department obtain the equipment you are talking about from the federal government or through grants that cover the cost of the items. Cameras are something that is usually not covered by grants or provided by the government, which means the department is required to pay for those items. In addition, cameras in a car usually does not have the capability to record inside the vehicle or any direction other than straight out of the windshield. This would mean that even IF cameras were on the vehicle, not much of what took place would have been recorded.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          Two words:

          Body cams

        2. avatar juliesa says:

          @John, yep, our village police just got body cams, and already footage has been used to exonerate a cop.

        3. avatar John Galt says:

          Police benefit from the cameras as much as the public.

        4. avatar publius2 says:

          wonder how many body cams you can buy for the salvage value of an MRAP turned suburbsn swat toy…

          They are also easier on gas and maintenance I hear.

          Hey, if it just saves one life (qouting my esteemed Congresstard Nany Pelosi) its wort it, right?

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        “Law” “enforcement” in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns …but not a dashcam.

        So, you do know that there’s a difference between the Ferguson PD and the St. Louis County Police, right?

      3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        ““The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why?”

        Physical evidence is a thing, too. If there was a shot (or more) fired inside the car, there IS evidence of it. GSR on Brown’s body will tell a lot, too.

        Geez. Some people seem to think homicide investigation did not exist before dash cams and body cams were prevalent. It’s just ONE kind of evidence, but it has the advantage that even idiots can understand and interpret it.

        I’m not arguing cams are a bad thing, but even in the absence of cams, there IS evidence so its not like “oh noes, all is lost” without video evidence.

        Source: My own years of homicide investigation experience, not one single one of which was recorded on video.

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      For one, Officer Wilson’s vehicle was facing the other direction. For two, who is going to start filming two guys waltzing down the middle of the street when a police officer pulls up and suggests that they use the sidewalk? This incident was over in very little time. Brown was down before anyone turned on their phone, as far as is known.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Hey. My car has a GoPro mount on the rear deck, which does an admirable job of covering all 4 side windows and the front windshield. The reason for it is that it’s a convertible and therefore it takes a great video of spectacular roads and scenery with the top down, which is why I put it there. But in a police car it would pretty well cover everything that happened in that police car, and has nearly 7 hours of recording ability in HD (if supplied with a power source other than the battery), and the damn thing cost $400. Sorry, no excuse for patrol cars not having BOTH windshield and rear deck HD cameras, running on a 7 hour loop, continuously from the time the engine starts until several hours after it is shut off. And the MicroSD cards are becoming available to double that recording time. This entire episode would be over, and Brown’s accomplice would be in prison for perjury by now. As it is, the costs of the trial alone (not counting destruction of the city) would pay for such coverage in every patrol car in the damn STATE! No excuse.

  5. avatar PeterC says:

    It’s a cover-up. The truth is, Colonel Mustard did it in the library with a rope.

    1. avatar IdahoPete says:

      WRONG! “Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight…” Clearly, it was the evil, gas-guzzling, carbon-spewing, mean-spirited SUV that caused the gun to discharge.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        All of ya are wrong. Since “It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation”.
        We all know it was the evil guns fault. Those darn things are just ‘going off’ all the time. Why, there was a story just yesterday about one at a gun club.
        I’m going to have to turn mine in at the next ‘buy back’ before it tries to injure me.

        1. avatar Jay-El says:

          I think the report uses the passive voice (“The gun was fires in the SUV”) because the investigators did not have evidence indicating who fired it, or they did not wish to reveal that. “The gun was fired” is not as egregious as “the gun went off,” a phrase often used by media who believe — and advance — the myth that guns fire themselves.

      2. avatar Bryan says:

        “Gas-guzzling, carbon-spewing” maybe, but “evil and mean-spirited never. They’re called “Black & Whites” after all.

    2. avatar Tile floor says:

      You’re a racist.

      It was clearly Mrs. Peacock in the kitchen with the candlestick.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        Well, then, sexist at the very least.

        1. avatar Jim R says:

          I really don’t want to know what Mrs. Peacock is doing with that candlestick, but I’d rather she not do it in the kitchen.

        2. avatar DJ9 says:

          Seconded. All in favor…?

    3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Col. Mustard is still a white man. Al & Jesse continue to race hustle.

      1. avatar AJ Peyerson says:

        Huh. And all along I thought Colonel Mustard was yella. Probably with liver spots, since he’s been around so long!

  6. avatar 0351 says:

    As someone who is continuously disgusted by police misconduct and excessive force, it is still important to remember that we generally only hear about the bad or questionable events. The officer deserves the benefit of a doubt, as in innocent until proven guilty, as do we all. Now if only we could deal with the dammed double standard… This is why I fully support cameras on every officer. It can quickly and clearly absolve an officer behaving incorrectly, as well as provide proof of misconduct.

    1. avatar dakiwi13 says:

      as proven by many depts across the country cameras can be turned off conveniently

      1. avatar 0351 says:

        Well hell, take the option to do so away – there’s no good reason to do so, except maybe to use the restroom. Either penalize turning them off or make it so a supervisor can only do it with justification or something.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          I agree. Make the turning-off of any police camera system(s), or the “loss”/corruption of the video, an automatic win for the opposition in court (like the exclusionary rule, in reverse), and that crap would stop immediately.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          When every copper finally has a bodycam, there will be one of two outcomes. Complete lack of caring what it records, because they know there will still be no punishment…

          http://thefreethoughtproject.com/disturbing-body-cam-footage-shows-alleged-cop-calling-dog-killing/

          Or, the same thing that has always happened with every bit of video that would have showed how that suspect somehow magically beat himself and then hung himself in that holding cell. Or what really happened on that ped stop where the old woman gets punched repeatedly by the wild animal cop – it’ll be a ‘technical malfunction’. Which is to say that any bad cop who has 3 functional brain cells and a convenient neodynium magnet can corrupt it, unless they’re smart enough to just turn it off. As always they will illegally take any bystanders phone as well and erase it too…

          http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/19/new-orleans-police-officer-turns-off-body-camera-minutes-before-shooting-suspect-in-forehead/

          http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/journalist-recovers-video-of-his-arrest-after-police-deleted-it/

          http://www.copblock.org/39829/waukesha-police-sued-federal-court-beating/

          http://www.cnet.com/news/police-accused-of-erasing-cell-phone-footage-of-fatal-beating/

          Of course that last link is in Kern County…

          http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/kern.asp

          On the bright side, they will function perfectly for every false accusation made against an officer, so while no cop will face any new discipline for their misdeeds because of the bodycams, they will have the excuse that they are falsely accused all the time pulled off the table. Which is a good thing for all.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Oh, fer shure. You already know (it has been proven repeatedly just in the current government) that hard drives just “fail” at the worst possible times, must then be completely destroyed so the virus doesn’t spread, or something. I’m sure that applies to inconvenient cameras as well.

          OTOH, if there were several cameras (front, back, and body) and ALL were turned off, lost, accidentally destroyed, etc, the reality would be pretty clear.

    2. avatar Adam says:

      Most cops are, IMO, actually more decent people than average, and the people who go into policing as a career tend to do so for the right reasons. But there are bad apples (bullies, hotheads, outright criminals and psychopaths) everywhere, and–in policing–they can do a huge amount of damage. Police unions and administration also tend to cover up for them.

      1. avatar Taylor TX says:

        But the point I think, is that those bad people specifically choose said profession because of the power it gives them to lord over others and the immunity that comes with it.

      2. avatar John Galt says:

        While we expect them to be, police are not better than average.

        It’s actually the opposite.

        For example, there’s more domestic violence among police officers than the general population.

        Police Have a Much Bigger Domestic-Abuse Problem Than the NFL Does
        http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/

      3. avatar John Galt says:

        It seems CCP holders are more decent than police:

        Concealed Carry Permit Holders are One Third as Likely to Commit Murder as Police Officers
        http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html

  7. avatar Icabod says:

    Mention of Brown’s blood inside the police car seems to get dropped from the story.
    “Gun fired twice in car
    FBI forensic tests showed the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown’s arm while the second one missed, the newspaper said.
    In addition to Wilson’s uniform and gun, forensic tests found the teen’s blood on the interior door panel of his car, The Times said.”
    As for the “Gosh, he fired after Brown was outside the car?” It was the officers duty and responsibility to stop a criminal. Would any of us be sweetness and loving towards a man that had attacked us?

    1. avatar IdahoPete says:

      Yeah, I wonder why the NY Slimes hasn’t mentioned that a police officer who has been attacked has a duty to attempt to arrest the attacker? And let’s face it, the “teenager” was not a Sunday school student on his way to college classes. He had just completed a strong-armed robbery with assault on the much smaller storekeeper, and was probably looking for a fight when Wilson stopped to tell him and his accomplice to not walk in the middle of the road.

      And if we are going to throw around charges of racism, how come Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Eric Holder never show up when a cop shoots an “unarmed white teenager”?

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Sometimes I think they don’t care as much about white people…

    2. avatar dakiwi13 says:

      right becuz brown’s blood couldn’t have ever been put there to cover up anything

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        You probably think OJ was framed in ’94

      2. avatar BillC says:

        Go away, troll.

      3. avatar TheyChippedMyBrain says:

        I hear ya dakiwi13. It is a cover up. The same people that filmed the moon landing right after they shot Kennedy are still in business decades later dressing up police SUV’s to look like an innocent child was attacking a bloodthirsty cop. No one will believe us! The only thing we can do is keep spreading the word!

      4. avatar bigfinger76 says:

        How do you explain the (revised, more accurate) eyewitness accounts, kiwi? It’s obvious by now that you’ll never be satisfied with anything released by authorities or any other version of events that indicates Brown’s guilt and culpability.

        So what do you make of the recanted, “updated” eyewitness accounts? I’m truly curious to read it.

  8. avatar DerryM says:

    This raises more questions than it answers for me, but it does seem to support the claim that Brown initially aggressed Wilson. particularly if supported by forensic evidence from inside Wilson’s Cruiser. Once they were outside the Cruiser…well that evidence will be reflected in the Grand Jury’s decision. Pointless to speculate based on the “facts” we have at present.

  9. avatar JeffR says:

    The forensics corroborating his report of a struggle in the car would seem to absolve him. I don’t practice criminal law, but once he was attacked in that manner, wouldn’t the fleeing felon rule apply to the shots fired outside of his car? Does it even matter if Brown turned back to attack him? Unless Brown turned back and was clearly surrendering, I don’t see how this is a bad shoot.

    1. avatar 0351 says:

      My understanding of the fleeing felon business is that a cop can’t shoot them and if they are fleeing. However, if the cop ordered him to stop and he instead turned and charged then he’s no longer fleeing. If he fired on him while he was running away then it’s illegal. However, if the situation is such that he attacked the officer in his car, the officer was roughed up, and when he got off of the officer, the officer fires on him, I can see it as mitigating circumstances – someone attacks you in your car, and you aren’t likely to see anything beyond blood for the next minute…

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “My understanding of the fleeing felon business is that a cop can’t shoot them and if they are fleeing. However, if the cop ordered him to stop and he instead turned and charged then he’s no longer fleeing. If he fired on him while he was running away then it’s illegal.”

        Tennessee vs. Garner gives us the courts guidance on “fleeing felons.”

        Deadly force can be justified for fleeing felons if the threat to public safety is great enough. There is no blanket “it’s illegal” or anything…no bright line rule in place. Each case is unique.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      There is no fleeing felon rule anymore. Unless a suspect presents an imminent threat to the officer or someone else they are allowed to flee all the want, per the Supreme Court.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        CA Cops can indeed shoot a fleeing felon (even in the back) if the following conditions are met:

        1. Violent felony with the actual or threatened use of deadly force
        2. All other reasonable means of apprehension exhausted
        3. Clear down range.

        I’m not sure about all the other agencies out there, but apprehension shooting absolutely does exist and is considered to be justified. Heck, I’d shoot a fleeing murderer in the back if I had to.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          And given those ROEs, as long as they were followed, I’d be 100% behind you.

          Sorta like our last 2 cause celebres here in Da ‘Lou. All the evidence released (and unreleased) points to them both being good shoots. While I’m not approving of the ‘cover fire’ nonsense in an urban area, the fact remains that both of these ‘victims’ had nothing to leagally expect but that which they received.

          So sad, because if these idiots actually picked a truly ‘bad shoot’,.they’d have support from people who actually can change the system. As its stands, they’re nothing but criminals and race hustlers setting their own cause back with every ridiculous demonstration.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        TX citizens can shoot a thief in the back if he has stolen something worth in excess of $500, as I understand the law, which was in place when $500 was a large amount of money.

    3. avatar TT says:

      Wilson has not claimed he shot Brown because he was a fleeing felon. Wilson claims he shot Brown because Brown charged Wilson outside the vehicle. None of the witnesses have said Brown was fleeing when he was shot. Fleeing felon is irrelevant.

      The only issue is whether Brown charged Wilson. If Brown charged, Wilson’s use of force was justified under the circumstances. If Wilson shot Brown while Brown was standing still, deadly force was not justified. Everything else is a sideshow.

  10. avatar libtard says:

    Mr. Brown was a teenager but he was no boy. Reports of his drug use and other “troubles” have been characterized as “normal teenage behavior” and did not make him a bad person. I’ll concede that. Strong arm robbery, however, is not normal teenage behavior. I’m not sure we will ever get the whole true story and it probably wouldn’t matter anyway. Take a look at that picture at the top of this post. Mr. Brown is now a hero, martyr and victim all rolled up into one and that is how he will be characterized and remembered by people who have a lot of skin in the game.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      IN DC I’ve see T shirts with Brown, Trayvon, and MLK in a collage. A significant portion of the population currently equates these three with the civil rights movement/

      1. avatar Bear The Grizzly says:

        After reading this post I am done with the Internet for today.

        1. avatar Taylor TX says:

          Id have to agree, its hard to bear 🙂

      2. avatar KB Dave says:

        I don’t even know what to say to that.

    2. avatar TT says:

      Should strong armed-robbery be punished by allowing police officers to perform summary executions? Should a person’s generally bad character allow police to kill them when they don’t pose a threat? If you answered “no” to those questions, then what does Brown’s robbery have to do with Wilson shooting Brown? Wilson did not know Brown was involved in a robbery when he shot Brown. Deadly force events should be evaluated based on what happened at the time of the shooting. Heading down the road of saying a person’s generally bad character justifies the government killing them is a very dangerous path to go down indeed, even if you have nothing but contempt for the dead person.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Should strong armed-robbery be punished by allowing police officers to perform summary executions?

        Well if this isn’t the mother of all straw men. Do you honestly believe that such tripe deserves a reasoned response?

        Should a person’s generally bad character allow police to kill them when they don’t pose a threat?

        Another straw man, though admittedly not quite as over-the-top as the former straw man. It’s also irrelevant to the situation at hand.

        If you answered “no” to those questions, then what does Brown’s robbery have to do with Wilson shooting Brown?

        It is relevant, because it informs regarding the state of mind of Brown at the time of the incident. The robbery took place not ten minutes prior, and Brown’s (otherwise illogical) behavior can likely be attributed to him still being amped up on adrenaline from the act he had just committed. It may also inform regarding Brown’s motivation in response to Wilson’s attempt to detain him, since he knew that he had just committed a felony, and such interaction with a police officer represented the risk of being busted for that crime.

        Wilson did not know Brown was involved in a robbery when he shot Brown.

        Not true.

        What is true: Wilson didn’t know that Brown was involved in a robbery at the time of the first encounter, when he merely asked the two men to get out of the street.

        What is also true (based on clarifications from the Police chief, and alleged Wilson testimony): at some point, Wilson heard the report of the robbery over the radio, including a description of the suspects. After first encountering Brown and Johnson, and driving away, Wilson determined that the two men matched the description, and backed up to engage them a second time.

        Thus, at the time of the second encounter – up to and including any shots fired – Wilson had identified Brown and Johnson as fitting the description of suspects who had just committed the strong arm robbery.

        Deadly force events should be evaluated based on what happened at the time of the shooting.

        Fortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening, via the Grand Jury.

        1. avatar TT says:

          When this post generates comments like this — “[i]t still seems to me that Brown was a thug and needed to be shot” — my questions are not straw men in any way, shape, or form. Several comments to this post say or imply that Wilson shooting Brown was OK because of the kind of person Brown was, regardless of whether Brown posed a threat to Wilson when Wilson shot him. That’s giving the OK to police carrying out summary executions based on a person’s character. I don’t think these folks have thought through the ramifications of saying police shootings are OK as long as the person who got shot was a bad actor.

        2. avatar TT says:

          I think it’s worth pointing out that the person who wrote the line I quoted above is a police officer. So, yes. We are talking about summary executions, not strawmen.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          TT, While I understand your general direction and concerns, the point is that violently assaulting a cop will likely get you shot/killed as the cop defends himself. That is about 20 miles from summary execution. There’s plenty of cases that fit your metric out there. This ain’t one of them.

          Brown’s immediately prior acts of strong-arm robbery would have justified his killing in self-defense by the clerk he assaulted. Sadly the clerk didn’t do it himself, would have saved much trouble.

          His prior acts are relevant as they speak to state of mind for the perp. He just committed one felony, that he would commit another a few minutes later is highly relevant.

        4. avatar TT says:

          A claim of self-defense, or in this case justified use of deadly force, focuses on the events occurring outside of people’s brains and then on whether those events would give a reasonable person in the defender’s shoes cause to use deadly force. What’s going on inside the perpetrator’s brain is largely irrelevant to whether deadly force was justified.

          As I’ve said before, this case turns on one thing: Was Brown charging Wilson or was he standing still when Wilson fired the fatal shots? Three witnesses said Brown was standing still, at least one of which said he had his hands up. The reported forensic evidence can be used to argue Brown was not standing still. What Brown did a few hours or even moments before Wilson fired the fatal shots, has nothing to do with whether Brown was standing still when Wilson fired those shots.

          What I see happening here is people taking a situation where there is a conflict in the evidence about what happened and resolving that conflict by using a person’s character to rationalize the outcome. Some people are implying that Brown’s life wasn’t worth much because he was a thug. Therefore, the rationale goes, it doesn’t matter whether Brown was standing still when Wilson shot him.

          Indeed, we have a policeman on this board saying that Brown “needed to be shot.” That is exactly what I’m talking about: Making it OK for the police to decide when someone should get shot based on the person’s character. What else can that statement mean? Summary executions are not far away at all from saying its OK to shoot people because they need shooting.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Agreed. Now, address the fact that the only reason put forward for why Wilson DID shoot Brown was that Brown was trying to kill Wilson. No one has even suggested another, racism isn’t going to cut it when Wilson had been an officer in that same location since Brown was 12 years old, hadn’t killed him yet, why that day? No answer. Case closed, save the money about to be spent on a show trial.

  11. avatar Jumbie says:

    I want to say congrats to the moderating team who it seems removed an incendiary and dumb comment from the page made by J**.

  12. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    key phrase in the article I DOJ doesn’t think there is enough evidence to bring civil rights charges against Wilson. . . even Holder doesn’t have the balls to bring high profile charges that he knows aren’t even colorable in any fact. . . it ain’t even gray.

    get ready for the riots, kids.

    I AM DARREN WILSON.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Maybe not. They got an extension of the grand jury, so they can drag this out a bit if they want to do so.

      If they drop the no-bill decision right before the holidays, and with winter weather being less-friendly to protestors/rioters/looters alike, timing and circumstances could help to defuse much of the angst that might otherwise be expressed in a violent manner.

      There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of protest/riot photos with snow in the background.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Makes sense. Wait until the first 15 degree F. cold snap before you announce the no bill.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      My Indiana LTCH finally came in the mail this week, and I’ll be back home next week to pick it up. That means that, when I come back in town the following week, I’ll at least be able to shelter-in-place in my hotel with more than a desk lamp to defend myself, if the riots move south from Clayton.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        The Galleria/40 dividing line isn’t the Bev Center.

        There are several vaults full of hardware that could heavily arm thousands in Ladue and Clayton alone. Let alone outlying suburbs. Dozens of collectors who have more guns and more rounds than the Natty Guard. Doubt the idiots would make south of Olive anyway – lots of ‘Hebrew Hammers’ in Olivette. And it’s far too long a hike for the human garbage ‘protestors’.

        In all seriousness, none of the LA insanity will ever happen in STL. We just won’t put up with it, and will do whatever we have to do to defend civilization.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The Galleria/40 dividing line isn’t the Bev Center.

          I’m literally right on that dividing line. My hotel has a single access to 170/40/Brentwood, with a metro stop acting as a virtual gate (if you know the area, you can probably guess where I’m staying). So yes, if there are riots, and they decide to spread, I’m concerned about my location.

          Doubt the idiots would make south of Olive anyway…

          Except that the riots could start in Clayton, at the courthouse. Also, J4MB rabblerousers have already been downtown (Cards/Rams games), in Frontenac, South City (near Shrewsbury), and possibly even at the Galleria (fight that closed the Galleria very early on).

          In all seriousness, none of the LA insanity will ever happen in STL. We just won’t put up with it, and will do whatever we have to do to defend civilization.

          I believe that. But it doesn’t mean that things can’t get bad in localized pockets when the Grand Jury returns its decision. And it’s not like I’m still living in Hazelwood or Breckenridge Hills. If it weren’t for the Clayton courthouse being the possible/likely epicenter for future shenanigans, I wouldn’t be worried about this area much at all.

    3. avatar 16V says:

      Dirk, You’ll have plenty of support from like minded folks in Da ‘Lou, just remember…

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    Mr. Brown was having a bad day, clearly. First that scene in the market went wrong then the parade down the center of the street got the attention of the police officer. Next thing you know a Caucasian man is telling him what to do and where to walk, the nerve of some people,

  14. avatar cmeat says:

    rev. sharpton has declared this to be breast awareness month.

  15. avatar Wildman says:

    Most firearms are carried for self-protection and, in this case (as in the Saint Skittles case), it paid off. What’s so difficult to understand about protecting your own life?

  16. avatar Taylor TX says:

    Lets be real here, If I went up and punched cop inside his car, I would expect to be room temp shortly after.
    Doesnt matter if I am D-bo or a 100lb white meth head.

    I had just assumed dash cams were pretty much SOP for police departments in America. Kind of surprised that there isnt one.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      It would be nice, but cameras aren’t that inexpensive. Couple that with evidence. If you have to turn in your “chip” or other media, it would need to be stored in evidence lockup. How long do you store it? 1 year? 3 years? Before it can be recycled…
      If an officer works 4/10’s, that’s 17-18 days per month. One chip for the car, one for the body cam. 36 chips per month times how many officers.
      My department had roughly 28 road officers. That’s 1,008 chips or other ‘media storage devices’ per month. 12,096 chips per year. At ten bucks per chip, that’s a bit over 120,000 bucks per year. I would have welcomed cameras personally. They were just never in the budget.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Evidentiary videos are expensive and time consuming. Our department has a full time evidence guy, full time computer guy, and a full time evidence video officer. Plus, the cameras break. There’s hard use, 24/7 use, overheating issues, maintenance, batteries die, Bluetooth mics out of range, disc issues, hard drive issues, crash damage, windshield obstructions, upgrades, etc. On any given day, about 30% of the systems we have aren’t working properly. It’s not like you can just stay inside – the beat goes on whether your equipment is 100% or not.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          So what if “evidence” is expensive and time consuming?

        2. avatar Tom in Wisconsin says:

          Why is it that people that maintain equipment out of their own pocket seem to keep it running while people that maintain equipment at the expense of others seem unable to maintain it regardless of how many times taxes and budgets are raised?

        3. avatar Accur81 says:

          @Tom in WI

          There are a couple of issues. One of the foremost is the famous government “low bid” process. The cheapest vender is used that meets the specifications requested. And the specs are either done by an outside agency or by pencil pushers in a corporate office someplace. Also, the life of a police cruiser and the equipment therein is a whole lot harder than most non-LEO applications. That car might be run 24/7 for days. There are also hamfisted rookies that break stuff, too.

          But if you can fix all of our equipment, or help us get better stuff, you are more than welcome to come on down.

      2. avatar John Galt says:

        Why do there need to be 36 chips per month per officer?

        You just transfer the data to a computer and reuse the chip.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Yeah, each officer plugs his bodycam in at the end of shift and d/ls the file…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Good point. I bought a 2TB backup recently for $110, and I’m sure commercial versions would be far cheaper. And if nothing happened, there is no reason to back it up anyway. Each officer should only need to show someone his 5 minutes of crucial video around 10 times in a career.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Have to disagree, Tom. I’ll buy $120,000 the FIRST year, after that a cost of zero. And If I were a cop, I’d supply my own cam and chips if the dept would allow it. But it wouldn’t be for a year, it would be dependent on whether anything happened that day which I considered worth keeping it for. I bet the average department will not allow personally owned cameras, right? Something doesn’t smell right.

  17. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    You guys just don’t get it. Brown was black man oppressed by a hegemonistic political structure. Steeped in white privilege, it routinely fooled the majority black population into keeping it in office. Sure Brown made some mistakes, but we have to understand he was a young man and undoubtedly frightened by a confrontation with the police. We also must see his actions in the larger context. Both Brown and Wilson were both victims but Brown’s actions on that street must also be seen as an act of defiance by a young black man who was protesting against his own oppression. [heavy/sarc]

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Brown couldn’t spell “structure”, much less “hegemonistic”, not to mention define them.

  18. avatar Bunny says:

    From what I understand police officers can shoot if they believe a fleeing suspect is a danger to public. I’d call it a good shoot.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      A bank robber, holding a weapon, running towards a group of school children is a threat.

      Someone who is running away from police (and not towards anyone) and has no weapon… that’s basically the exact situation in the case where the Supreme Court found that an officer can NOT shoot them.

      But that’s not necessarily what happened here.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        that’s basically the exact situation in the case where the Supreme Court found that an officer can NOT shoot them.

        No, that’s not correct. Garner requires that before an officer may use deadly force on a fleeing felon, the officer needs probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

        A firearm or other weapon should support such probable cause, but it’s not the only basis. Violent resistance certainly could qualify. In Garner, the felon was a burglar who simply ran away. He was a small man who did not fight or injure the officer.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Since Brown had no wounds to his back of any kind, the subject is of little interest here.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    Re: retention holster

    One can imagine officers in that department are equipped with high-retention holsters. But it really doesn’t matter that much in terms of response. A higher retention will delay someone trying to get your gun, but you can’t trust it to stop them.

    Unless I missed it in the article I don’t think it says the gun was holstered at the time. It’s also possible Wilson felt the need to draw his firearm to try and cease Brown’s attack at which point Brown went for the gun.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Article says Wilson said he drew his gun from right-hip holster.

  20. avatar Don says:

    Well that’s a lot different than the “truth” the media had fabricated and proliferated. Street protests and race riots are good for ratings!

    -D

  21. avatar SD3 says:

    Oh, n-o-w I see….now I understand the timing of Eric Holder’s resignation. AG Turd-factory wasn’t going to get the show trial he’s dreamed of his entire life, so he’s quiting.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Try again. Holder’s resignation becomes effective upon confirmation of his successor. I don’t think a successor has been nominated yet, much less have their been the Senate hearings. I doubt that Obama will announce a candidate until after the election–why give the Republicans open season on a democratic nominee just before the elections? That would make no sense, politically speaking.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Agreed. In fact, it would be honest, and honorable, transparent and worthy of a hopey-changey presidency, obviously will not happen.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    If The NY Times is “reporting” it, it is not worthy of belief.

    I’ll wait for the actual Grand Jury report, and forget what this bottom of the birdcage rag has to say about anything.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      You’re saying you trust grand juries to ever find fault with the police?

      You mean like the grand jury that no-billed the SWAT team that flash-banged the infant?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        First of all, I trust grand juries far more than I trust the New York Times.

        Second, I said I’d wait for the Grand Jury REPORT, not the Grand Jury finding of probable cause or no probable cause. The finding is subjective, the report should not be. The DA has stated that he would unseal the Report right away, so we will get to read what the GJ heard.

        Understand? Or should I use smaller words?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Indeed, once the No Bill is returned, the evidence released should put the matter finally to rest – for anyone willing to evaluate the situation objectively.

      2. avatar TT says:

        Many disagreed with the Georgia grand jury’s decision to exonerate the policemen who threw a flash bang grenade at a baby. To them, the Georgia decision was no good because the grand jury process allows prosecutors to unfairly manipulate grand juries.

        More often than not, juries, grand or common, exonerate police officers. It’s a safe bet that the grand jury will exonerate Wilson. However, some of the folks who questioned the integrity of the grand jury process in Georgia think Wilson is innocent. These folks somehow trust the grand jury process in Ferguson but distrust the same process in Georgia.

        These same folks tend to get worked up when you point out this inconsistency.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          However, some of the folks who questioned the integrity of the grand jury process in Georgia think Wilson is innocent. These folks somehow trust the grand jury process in Ferguson but distrust the same process in Georgia.

          These same folks tend to get worked up when you point out this inconsistency.

          The Grand Jury process was not the issue in Georgia; rather, it was the Grand Jury’s justification for returning a No Bill. They based their decision not on facts and law, but on their belief that the officers involved were “sorry” for what happened, and that they “felt bad” and had “suffered enough” already (paraphrasing).

          If the St. Louis Grand Jury returns a No Bill, stating that based on the evidence, Wilson acted justifiably in self-defense, then there’s absolutely no comparison between the two matters. (If the Grand Jurors were to return a No Bill, stating that Brown was a thug who got what he deserved? Sure. Fire at will, with both barrels.)

          It is possible, and logical, to disagree on principle with the determination of one Grand Jury, while simultaneously agreeing in principle with the determination of another Grand Jury – all while believing that the process/system is fine.

  23. avatar meandmealone says:

    Guarantee there’ll be little to no rioting. Maybe some perfunctory burning/looting but that will soon pass. All of these incidents have a certain life to them, and the passion in this one is waning. Couple nights, then everyone will go back to their porches where they will wait briefly until the next shooting.

  24. avatar DonFromCT says:

    I’m not one to immediately take a cop’s side. In fact, I’m guessing that part of this report has police lies. But one thing is clear to me. If Mr. Brown, all six foot something and 300 lbs of him was in the car on tip of the officer, the officer had a legitimate reason to fear for his life. On your back, is the last place you want to be with someone that large.

    Even still, I’m willing to let this one play out before I come up with any kind of opinion.

  25. avatar Ronald Pottol says:

    Read about how the law treats people in that county, and you will understand why this was just the spark that ignited a powder keg. I don’t trust the police reports, nor the FBI, but, really, it doesn’t much matter. If the city is making 1/3 its money from fines (and that’s common in the county), you have a bomb that is just waiting for something to set it off.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/16/why-we-need-to-fix-st-louis/

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Oh, bovine excrement. Nothing in that WaPo article has anything to do with a giant thug, amped up on weed and the thrill of just having committed a strong arm robbery, assaulting a police officer, and then thinking that he, with his self-proclaimed fists-as-his-ammo, could take on that officer and his gun.

  26. avatar Tominator says:

    Dear God help the United States of America…

    My adult daughter[Mother of 2] was murdered by 3 blacks….stabbed over 40 times. She went missing for almost 4 weeks. Dumped in a lake. Her mother had to identify the body by a tattoo on her ankle. It took two long years for that event to finally kill my wife of 31 years. Christmas of 2006….wife gone in Feb of ’09.

    Because of my Christian upbringing and Southern Heritage, I remain a person that does not blame a person’s color for the ills of society but instead blame the ‘diversity movement’ in which we are supposed to accept every deviant activity as ‘normal.’ Drugs and alcohol KILL! …..need I go on?

    Combine THAT with the prevalent BLACK attitude that ‘WHITEY’ owes them something….. results in a very different culture that drags society down to abysmal levels.

    Speak ENGLISH!

    GO TO WORK EVERY DAY!…It may not be much to begin with but work BUILDS CHARACTER!

    NO tats! Do you REALLY know who you will work for in the future?

    NO DRUGS! Any good paying job will require a test…you ain’t gonna beat it!

    I could go on….

    BTW, I know who murdered me daughter……names….and in one instance an address…..Snitches Get Stitches…remember THAT scrolled on the side of the building as they burnt the Quik Trip in Ferguson?

    Corporate is evacuating…Quik Trip will not rebuild and closed another facility nearby. Kmart is closing….and when the upcoming riots ensue upon the [obvious] finding that Officer Wilson was not at fault, many more business will go bankrupt and leave.

    THIS….is the result when America capitulates to the LEFT!

    Elections coming….PLEASE VOTE!

  27. avatar At Louis Blues says:

    Just let Wilson go to trial like any one of us would, so a jury can sort it out. Simple as a that. I was a Missouri prosecuting attorney more years than half the website readers have been getting colonoscopies, and equal justice for all means just what it says. You want cops as judge, jury and executioner? Move to Brazil.

    1. avatar Tominator says:

      Just let Wilson go to trial like any one of us would,

      Really? You need CREDIBLE evidence! None exists!

    2. avatar Aaron says:

      uh, don’t prosecuting attorneys have to have a REASON to indict somebody before hauling someone to trial? a trial seems a little premature unless you have evidence of a crime.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      And the evidence that supports probable cause that a crime was committed and that Wilson was not acting in self-defense is…what, exactly? If you want show trials instead of fourth and fourteenth amendment protections, move to Moscow.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The evidence is nearly exactly the same as that used to send Zimmerman to trial. To spell it out, “Racist mobs demand prosecution”.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          To spell it out, “Racist mobs demand prosecution”.

          Which, for those who believe in living in a society under the Rule of Law rather than mob rule, is exactly what drives many to oppose said mobs.

  28. avatar Aaron says:

    What can you say. The AA community got upset about the officer who fired BACK in St Louis and killed the shooter.

    Doubt we are going to hear any mea culpas from the race grievance industry. They will just pretend this latest news didn’t happen.

  29. avatar Lance H says:

    Sorry but this doesn’t add up…..lol Mr. Brown Handcuffed in the back of a squad car managed to reach for his weapon.

    Sure.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Where do you find anything about handcuffs or Brown being in the back of a squad car?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Lance, I’m thinkin’ you had a whiskey dream, here, or you subscribe to Al Sharpton’s newsletter. Even Johnson, Brown’s accomplice, did not claim that.

  30. avatar esitue says:

    Horst Wessel

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