“Two police officers were shot outside the Ferguson Police Department just after midnight Thursday,” huffingtonpost.com reports. “The shootings came during protests following the Ferguson police chief’s resignation on Wednesday afternoon. In a press conference outside the hospital where the officers were being treated on Thursday morning, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said that a 32-year-old officer from suburban Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41-year-old officer from St. Louis County was shot in the shoulder, according to the Associated Press. Belmar said the injuries were “very serious” but that both officers were conscious, and that he assumed they were targeted because they were police officers. Police had no one in custody in connection with the shooting.”

113 Responses to BREAKING: Two Ferguson Police Officers Shot During Protest

  1. It’s never enough, is it?

    I think some people in Ferguson won’t be happy until the whole town is burned to the ground.

    • It is, until it isn’t.
      Then it isn’t until it is.
      And why not loot and burn down a store while they’re at it.
      Because, free TV’s!

  2. Liberal Logic: “F**k tha po-leece!!!!” … Two days later… “Only the police and military should have guns!!!!”.

  3. A few resignations doesnt seem like adequate punishment for a municipality that was abusing residents for so long for such a petty reason as revenue.

    If it came out that my local PD and courts were railroading folks for cash I’d sure like to see the whole city burned to the ground.

    TPTB treat it like an inconvenience. The lives of the victims don’t seem to matter one bit. Like it’s a simple thing to miss work for court dates, to be brought in on manufactured charges, to be threatened day in and day out with fees and fines you cannot pay for months or years.

    The entire course of an individuals life is altered so a town can make a few bucks.

    Resignations arent enough. Jail time isnt enough. I’m not sure exactly what is enough if anything ever could be.

    • You’d like to see the city you live and work in, and your family lives in, burnt to the ground because of unethical or criminal behaviour on the part of a few?

      • Well, the PD and the town hall anyway. There’s no point in going for the market or residences.
        Ideally there’d be a magic button I could press that would make everyone who isn’t me or mine disappear off the face of the earth but that’s just a dream.

        • Of course, once the Shire-Man pushed the button and realized there are no more people he can fantasize about controlling or eliminating he goes insane. Kinda sounds like a really good episode of “The Twilight Zone”.

        • I like how a desire to be left alone to live my life as I see fit is endemic of a desire to control others. Is it opposite day? Or is it just impossible to imagine a human being not wielding control over others? No desire to control. No desire to be controlled. Apparently I’m an aberration.

    • That take is a bit melodramatic, don’t you think? What is happening in Ferguson with respect to the city filling coffers with enforcement of petty offenses is no different from most any municipality in the country.

      The DOJ report was a hit job, not a serious statistical analysis.

      • Don’t you think that two of Eric Holder’s staffers should be assigned to replace those police officers while they recover? And Holder can be acting police chief at the same time. I mean, if he knows enough to second guess everybody involved, we should be privileged to observe how he would do it himself. Y’all get out there in the street at midnight and show us, huh?

        We’ve already seen the about-face from Rahm Emmanuel, Holder could be a second feature.

      • Nothing. Policing for revenue is a global problem and corrupt courts are plentiful.
        It’s pretty much a forgone conclusion that our cops and courts and more are screwing us.
        Hell, the schoolboard is under investigation for stealing millions and two principals just took “early retirement” and left the state.

        There aren’t enough people upset about it yet to really do anything. So I just bitch, moan, and keep trying to invent that button to make them all go away.

        • Sounds like someone just got a speeding ticket for going 45 in a 30 on a Sunday morning.

        • Havent had a ticket in 30 years. Havent had any contact whatsoever with any on-duty cops in at least 8 years save renewing my pistol permit.
          I just don’t like being screwed.
          If you found out the Mafia was running your little town and decisions they made affected your life you wouldnt be peeved at all? Just brush it off as one of those things that happen?
          I don’t get how theft and corruption is just okay with so many people. It’s like how chavs from the UK just accept random fist fights as normal and acceptable behavior.

          Life doesnt have to be difficult at all ever for anyone. It’s all this trying to screw each other over and accepting it as just the way it is that makes it difficult.

        • I don’t get how theft and corruption is just okay with so many people.

          Now you’re moving from melodrama to straw men.

          First, no one has claimed that theft and corruption are okay. Second, since when is passing municipal ordinances, and then enforcing those ordinances, considered “theft and corruption”?

          Don’t like the city ordinances (jay walking, traffic violations, fines, etc.)? Elect new council members, and enact new ordinances.

        • This revenue collection nonsense is another Radley Balko style attempt to undermine the concept of law. There is a simple way not to become part of the city’s revenue stream — don’t break traffic laws. There are more than enough people willing to do so that the cops don’t have to manufacture violations. Speeding tickets and other moving violations are nothing more than voluntary taxation. You are simply paying for the privilege of saving some time by exceeding the speed limit, rolling through a stop sign or rushing through a red light. You seem to be very successful in avoiding this tax and you know anybody can do it. That’s what great about America. Some of our taxes are voluntary.

          The attack on traffic fines is just an attack on traffic laws. The real agenda is the abolition of these laws, including DUI/DWI laws, vehicle registration and driver licensing.

        • There was a story on the radio last weekend where a guy was pulled over and searched because he was obeying the traffic laws while others were speeding. Thus suspicious. The cop stated that.

        • Don’t like the city ordinances (jay walking, traffic violations, fines, etc.)? Elect new council members, and enact new ordinances.

          Because voting always works for the minority opinion. I don’t think a candidate or measure I have voted/worked for has ever won,
          I’m pretty much set AFAIC. I’ve moved to a very rural area onto agriculturally zoned land outside of city limits and rarely step foot off of it except for when I absolutely have to.
          Change isnt going to happen. People love their nanny state and they always get a kick out of watching a neighbor get screwed so I’ve just decided to opt out as much as possible and as long as I have no visitors and keep my mouth shut it’s almost like having my own private island where I can do whatever I want.
          The state and my peers won’t permit liberty in my lifetime so I just have to take it for myself when I can.

        • “The attack on traffic fines is just an attack on traffic laws. The real agenda is the abolition of these laws, including DUI/DWI laws, vehicle registration and driver licensing.”

          I don’t see the connection. I thought the first part of your post was on point – but I haven’t heard anyone calling for the abolition of DUI laws.

        • tdiinva, oh really? Is that why various municipalities have been caught decreasing yellow light times all the way down, and sometimes below, the minimal safe limits, to entrap more people and get more cash?

    • This is and has been the way government works. EVERY town, city and municipality in the US is guilty of similar transgressions.

      Having said that, the police are in the middle. They don’t like it, but it is what they are told to do.

      I could sit at any stop light/sign in St. Louis County[or any other area in the US] and write tickets all day for traffic infractions. Every one of them legit. People have no respect for the law at all.

      Throw in a Section 8 housing complex and ‘the poor’ [drug users, alcohol abusers, dealers and just lazy people] and they will always disobey laws more than responsible citizens. Then it follows they get fined more often.

      Now, in St. Louis County, there basically is no law enforcement. No police officer wants to be shot. Not one wants to shoot anyone. A simple traffic stop can now escalate into violence. The crooks know that and exploit the situation and that leads to more crime of all sorts.

      • “I could sit at any stop light/sign in St. Louis County[or any other area in the US] and write tickets all day for traffic infractions. Every one of them legit. People have no respect for the law at all.”

        Think about what you just said, you have reinforced the most extreme claims here. If no one obeys the law, nobody enforces the law, and people survive and go on about their business every day, then the problem is WITH THE LAWS! Frivolous and useless, allowing enough enforcement to bring in the revenue, otherwise simply intrusive and unnecessary. Red light cameras are a fine example, bringing in millions every year to each of thousands of communities, with no other positive result. The revenue then applied to the salaries of leftist cronies of the leftist government, in search of even more control.

        • Name me one, just ONE society in world history that governs by a Libertarian Philosophy….

          Ain’t any…..society would fall completely into chaos.

        • The idea that laws have to be sensible, and that when virtually no-one is obeying the law, it’s not sensible, is not at all specific to libertarianism. I’m more of a liberal, but I agree with the concept. For that matter, why would anyone want obscure laws, or laws that no-one cares to follow? Other than the people cashing in on violations, that is.

        • @Tominator: “Libertarian societies” are somewhat default. IMHO, many human groups have lived more “libertarian” than nations we see today. If you meant to type “country” instead of society… well, that’s like saying why aren’t there more atheist churches. Purely libertarian ideas don’t translate well into hard, defined governments. I think that the first chapter or two on the history of policing style in Rise of the Warrior Cop describes the more libertarian style of policing as it transformed again and again into the more authoritarian style we see today. The antis drone on about how the United States has the most guns per person as some sort of point along the lines of “nobody else does this so why should we?” This nation was founded on something different than what was existing in Europe at the time. The idea was individual sovereignty and government subservient to the people. Those are libertarian ideas. I’m glad that the colonists didn’t want to clone Europe. We have guns. We were founded on the notion of Liberty. What’s wrong with going back towards our roots on both? IMHO, most of the nation’s ills nowadays are precisely because we strayed far from our foundational ideals. If not libertarian and armed, what do you propose then? Statist and armed? I’m not sure that would work out so well as the two are actually incompatible.

          http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/has-a-libertarian-society-ever-existed/

        • I’m not sure if it makes much sense to talk of a “default”. There isn’t really any point in the history of humanity at which you can point and say that it’s the “natural” state, and everything else is a deviation. Humans themselves evolve, and so do their societies. Many people take the primitive hunter-gatherer societies as some kind of baseline, but I always found it arbitrary: why are we stopping there, and not going back all the way to our hominid ancestors, for example? Why not even further back?

          Anyway, if “default” means hunter-gatherers, or agrarian societies in very early stages of development – like say most Native Americans, or Maori – they aren’t particularly libertarian. I would actually dare say that they’re more socialist than anything, because they have strong communal welfare (it goes along family lines mainly, but they track families much further, so in practice it covers most everyone), but most importantly, because they don’t have a concept of abstract private property – i.e. the notion that you own something ipso facto, as opposed to ownership by virtue of occupation or usage. In particular, most tribes don’t have any notion of private land ownership, and the philosophical implications of this were recognized by some of the Founders, and in particular, Jefferson:

          “A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.”

          “It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all… It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.”

        • @int19h: Are you more classical liberal or progressive liberal because, IMHO, libertarianism is classical liberal. Progressive liberal is mostly statist in substance.

        • Liberal in “social liberal” sense.

          I don’t have a problem with the word “progressive”, either. It implies actively working to make things better, and historically, it has been behind many causes I find worthwhile, from abolition of slavery and women suffrage to the civil rights movement. Most of the Founders were hyper-progressives in their age. Progress is good, and I kinda resent that right wing made it a derogatory word.

          Some (perhaps most) progressives today are statists in a sense that they believe that government should fix things, and ignore the side effects of that altogether. A few are pure anarchists who believe that things will just magically work out without a centralized system of societal oppression in form of the state. I’m somewhere in between: I do think that in some cases state intervention is necessary to correct injustice or achieve important social goals, and I don’t think that things will just magically work out by themselves (or even if they don’t, that a stateless world will be better on average, as many ancaps believe). OTOH, I do recognize that state intervention is always backed by violence or threat of violence at its core, which is generally bad; it’s just that sometimes it’s still better than the alternatives. Many minarchist libertarians hold similar position, but I disagree with them on the scope.

          For example, a well-functioning social welfare system requires collection of quite a few extra taxes, and taxes are, again, taking wealth from people by force or threat of force. But the absence of such system, or a poor implementation, as seen in the USA, results in significantly higher crime rates, disease rates, and indirect spending to alleviate those problems or deal with their consequences (e.g. high crime rates -> more money spent on police and prisons). So here, the net balance is on the side of public welfare – the coercion inherent to such a system is less harmful to the freedom of everyone involved than the consequences of letting things just run their course.

          On the other hand, I don’t think that regulation should be done “just in case” or “because it’s common sense” or some such (and definitely not because “the majority thinks so”). Basically, in every case where a limitation of freedom is imposed by the state, it should be extremely well justified, preferably with an example of actual, quantifiable harm that stemmed from the lack of regulation, and an experiment or a trial showing that this particular limitation will indeed remedy the problem (i.e. trying new laws on a small scale before scaling up); and limited in its scope to the absolute bare minimum necessary to put things right. And furthermore, the loss of freedom inherent in any such regulation should be accounted for when determining just how far it can go. In other words, even if there’s a pressing social objective, it doesn’t justify arbitrarily extensive measures, even if they are necessary to resolve it fully, if those measures carry with them limitations on freedom that are disproportionately high in value with the achieved objective.

          To give a specific example of that, I think that the Civil Rights Acts were justified back when they were enacted (because without them, a large group of people was effectively denied many essential services by private parties who acted in an implicit agreement), but some if not all of their provisions are no longer justified today.

        • Humans themselves evolve, and so do their societies.

          Modern humans haven’t been around long enough to evolve. I’m not so sure societies actually evolve. The nature of government is take as much power as it can. I’d say that societies tend to devolve for the most part. There are probably exceptions but, by and large, they devolve and then fail.

        • Modern humans have most certainly evolved, if by “modern” you mean in anthropological sense – i.e. what is referred to as “anatomically modern human” (aka Homo sapiens sapiens). It covers the period of 200,000 years, more than enough for evolution to be observed. Remember that evolution doesn’t just cover physical appearance and traits – behavior evolves as well; in fact, it evolves faster than many other things.

          Also keep in mind that evolution doesn’t imply that something is better or worse, only that it is different from what was there before – more adapted from the perspective of survival and further propagation. A society can be more evolved from the perspective of ensuring survival and spread of that society, by sacrificing the same for some (or even most) its members.

        • @int19h: Evolution, in the sense that you first used it, requires change in the structure and/or function of some part. That includes the human brain. My contention is that while our technology has undoubtedly advanced, the person has not. Humans today are fundamentally the same as they were during the Roman Empire. The same limitations, including but not limited to greed, are the same. Governments and societies are composed of people. The tendencies of the ancient Greek, Roman, Norseman, etc still drive the typical human today. The founders of this nation reached far but also warned about how fragile such a system is. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. When we make government responsible for social welfare and a host of other things, we till fertile ground for tyranny. Statism is repugnant to a free people because it will destroy a free society. Progressivism is rot on a truly free nation. It has a place in the societies of Europe but not here. We’ve all but cut our own throats in America by allowing it to grow as it has. Along similar lines as gun control; there are people who believe that statism is dangerous to Liberty and will fight it at every turn (libertarians, some anarchists, and the like). There are people who don’t like it but believe that civilized society cannot operate without it or want the temporary conveniences that they perceive it offers (probably most people, a small subset are minarchists). There are people who believe that statism is the only choice for a civilized society (neoconservatives and progressives). I believe in the very least amount of government, if we have any at all. Anything more than the barest minimum will eventually decline into tyranny.

        • Tominator,

          “One can imagine a bewigged intellectual ancestor of Lind discussing politics in a London coffeehouse, perhaps after enjoying a new performance of Wycherley’s bawdy comedy The Country Wife. This 17th-century Lind would inveigh against the presumptuous Earl of Shaftesbury for his “A Letter from a Person of Quality” opposing the divine right of kings to absolute rule. “Thank God that good King Charles II has been restored to the throne!” he would say. “Look across the world. History manifestly teaches that there have been no truly successful countries that were not ruled by absolute monarchs.” -Ron Bailey, Reason, http://fee.org/blog/detail/why-are-there-no-libertarian-countries

          Next question…

          Your defense of laws and a system that squeezes blood out of a turnip is nothing short of disgusting.

          Be a good little statist and enjoy your tickets. Especially in light of bullshit like this going on http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/12/cops-use-traffic-stops-to-seize-millions-from-drivers-never-charged-with-a-crime/

  4. Obama, Holder and Sharpton are probably high fiving each other right now. This is what they want and have been working towards. State and local police can’t handle their business, so the Feds will have to step in and take over. Sad….

    • That is the agenda. Nationalize the police force. If the feds can’t use the military on our soil, then they will assemble their own.

      • If that is the agenda then We The People bear some of the guilt. If we accepted our responsibility and duty and removed these corrupt mayors, councils and chiefs from office we wouldn’t have these problems.

      • Obama talked about a “National Police Force” during his first presidential campaign. He’s got 22 months left. I guess he’s going for it.

  5. That really, really sucks , rank and file are paying with blood for what Admin did.

    Pot shot “Sniper” action?? or an “lee harvey” (ATF agent) with a AR pistol w brace….hmmmm* Write it on a rock folks, we are gonna see some nut with an AR pistol do something horriable in the near future.*

    On the brightside, nobody standing around will be late for work in the am……….

    • Early this morning FOX news was calling the shooter a sniper. I instantly thought they will claim they were shot with a green tip armor piercing bullet next. If that comes to be the story I won’t be surprised, nor will I believe it.

      • The description from the police chief of the county (I didn’t know there was such a thing, but the city police chief has resigned, so…) sounded to me like the shots which hit the cops were fired from above them. Also sounded like rimfire.

  6. All of this shit is getting out of hand….i wish everyone from every race had good morals and ethics but hell that’s not the case.

  7. The NYPD has the correct response to this. Stop enforcing laws the protestors and their supporters like. Ten years ago the Cincinnati Ohio police had several police officers killed in the line of duty. The police stopped responding to calls for the police in certain neighborhoods for about 45 days. The result was over two hundred shootings and a quadrupling of the murder rate. The protests stopped. Sometimes everyone needs to see what anarchy looks like.

    • At this point I think we are beyond that, because the police are getting shot at when they’re not even doing anything.

      Honestly, I think everyone in that police department needs to leave. And who will take their places?

      • Poor guys need jobs, won’t get hired at any other police dept, but I agree. They need to just quit, and leave the community. That doesn’t mean they can.

        • True, there will be people who can’t get jobs anywhere else (for some reason) who might be willing to work there. I wonder how that will go.

      • Why does anyone need to take their places? If people actually took responsibility for their own safety and well-being, we wouldn’t need cops.

        • +1

          If the State gets out of their way, individuals will have to be responsible for themselves. IMHO, government these days seem far more interested in preventing people from being responsible for themselves than it is in leaving people alone.

  8. The DOJ report was an investigation with a pre-determined conclusion.

    Every municipality and police force is funded in part by simple tickets written for traffic violations and other small time violations.

    EVERY.SINGLE.POLICE.FORCE.ENFORCES.THE.LAW

    I refer you to Jim Carey in “Liar, Liar” for the simple solution. “Stop breaking the law!!!!!!” <-Child safe quote included.

    Don't want the cops to pull you over for speeding? Stop consistently traveling 15 miles over the limit through a school zone! Don't want to get the violation for not mowing your grass? Mow your damn grass and get the damn car on blocks out of your front yard! Don't want to pay the town 100 bucks? Make an attempt to stop at the 4-way intersection!

    How do you want the police funded? Kickstarter?

    • @sheepdog6 – The concept that any Police force should be primarily “self funded through enforcement” as you assert is asinine at best and dangerous at worst. Come on, use your brain guy. The Police are funded through Federal, State, and local funding sources with monies raised from non punitive (Ha!- meaning sales, income, property, excise, etc) taxation.

      The shooting of these two officers is shameful and I hope the shooters are caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Between Police misconduct and the spectrum of homeland security threats the specter of a nationalized police force is hovering. It doesn’t take a foil hat to think the next executive order could very well be for that.

      Rightful Liberty is convulsing in a death throe as we speak. Very sad indeed.

    • Where is your proof of your claim? If all police departments were funded by ticket revenue we would have some awful poor departments. Any money generated from court goes to the court. Most fines I see I’m court either get dismissed or lowered to about 50 dollars and then they pay court costs.

      In all actuality, most departments are funded by, surprise, federal funding and local taxation. My department has a 58 million dollar operating budget, I’m pretty sure we aren’t writing 58 million dollars in tickets

      • “If all police departments were funded by ticket revenue we would have some awful poor departments”

        I disagree. What you’d have is excessive enforcement of unnecessary laws, eventually resulting in a huge police department with a starting salary for the janitor over $100K/year, solid gold badges and every man his choice of a personal machine gun. Although, I suppose that might be what you meant by “awful poor departments”.

    • Even if what you claim is true, ask yourself: how were the police departments funded before there was such a thing as “traffic violation”?

      As to how they should be funded, why, the same exact way schools, post offices, fire departments etc are funded – from taxes. Mostly property taxes in case of police.

    • BTW, if you fancy yourself a “sheepdog”, does that make other people sheep? And who’s the shepherd that owns you and feeds you mutton?

    • Another badge worshipping worm you are.

      Just stop breaking the law huh? http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

      Get off your fvcking high horse. You no doubt break laws like everybody else does. In fact, the system was designed primarily for you to http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307396061/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687662&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1594035229&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0T0NCMV9K598HJ0NZFFX

      now go grow up.

  9. If you don’t wear your seat belt, you’re going to get pulled over. License? Suspended, okay. Probably don’t have insurance, huh? Awright, let’s run your name…your name, not your cousin’s. Just piling up the offenses aren’t you? Maybe you should start wearing your seat belt.

    • Laws that deserve no respect often achieve no respect.

      When they pass a law banning all magazines over 10 rounds – you better comply – you recommend so yourself.

  10. The Michael Brown affair has always been about turning control of the city over to the gangbanger mob. That has been the objective equally of the race hustlers and the Reason crowd. It is now an accomplished fact. How’s that working out for you?

    • Actually, it works for me just fine. Let them kill each other, and burn the city to the ground, other than those businesses whose owners protect their property with firearms.

    • LOL you think the NYPD is any better? they basically are a gang of criminals running a city.

      Without them, let the gangbangers do their thing. Maybe the soft poofters on manhattan can get a good view of what kind of monster they have created.

    • The First Amendment has rarely been a legitimate issue in the Ferguson. A demonstration, no matter how peaceful, that interferes with police trying to put down a mob burning down the city is not covered by the First Amendment. Such activities divert police resources needed to restore the peace. Protest that block traffic and violate other people’s property rights are also not covered by the First Amendment either.

  11. Given the “morality” of the protestors so far, it looks like plain old-fashioned attempted murder. I can’t speak to the corruption of the local admin, but the crimes of the protestors are readily apparent. Glad I don’t live there.

    • @ .32 seconds one of the more moral protesters taunts the police who were just shot. “Acknowledgement nine months ago would have kept that from happening”. Sounds like one of our Universities’ finest.

  12. Anti -American Honkey hater, Holder and Obama backed by the Democratic Party {Sig Heil} have given a free pass pass to the Lazy, Illiterate, and incompetent non working, fatherless baby makers for Benefits { Money. food stamps Housing, Medical, etc. } to do what ever they want! Hey your special because!! Our Government is Attacking The Non Blacks in this Country because they can! Where is The Justice for the White men shot
    Obama is trying to inflame the Races so he can declare Martial Law, Suspend the Bill of Rights, and become a Dictator supported by the power hungry Socialistic Democratic Party, Ruby Ridge, Waco is only the beginning, This is about Racism perpetrated by and from the highest offices in the land, promoting willful civil disobedience in that Name too further their agenda

    • “Where is The Justice for the White men shot”

      I’ll go you one better.

      Where is the justice for the black men shot that don’t fit the political narrative?

      Blacks are victims of violent crimes every day, and yet those victims don’t seem to get the special attention from the Administration and DOJ. One has to ask what is unique about THIS case (and those that do attract that attention).

      This issue is not “blacks get special consideration” it is “some blacks are better than others and THEY get special consideration.” The ones that get declared “better” and that merit this special attention are the ones that fit the narratives and political goals.

      The Administration does not care about Brown or Martin as individuals; they only care about the message they can project about themselves while stepping on those selected bodies.

  13. False flag. This follows too closely upon the heels of the ATF being handed its own butt over the stupidity of the M855 ban. I’d not be the least bit surprised to see that the projectiles were in fact of the aforementioned description…

    • When you see hoofprints in North America, do you assume a herd of zebras just went by?

      Jeez, some people need to adjust their tinfoil and realize that not everything that happens in the world is about their ammo.

      • Given this administration’s history of bloody shirt waving, blatant lies, and false flag operations, they’ve made it pretty clear that their idea is “gun control at any cost”. It’s not paranoia to recognize a pattern and be skeptical of events that could fit it.

  14. I guess that after all the “peaceful” protests in Ferguson, every store in town has already been looted, so the only fun left to the locals is shooting cops.

    Pull the cops out and let the peaceful protesters shoot each other, m’kay?

    • Larry, that’s exactly what I thought when I read that too. People get along just fine without petty laws that are made up just to collect revenue.

      We may have become a nation of sheep where it counts, but the spirit of America lives on in our defiance of petty, pointless, big-brother traffic laws.

  15. I heard the news conference going in the background this morning so I might have mis-heard…I’m pretty sure the guy said they believe a handgun was used from 125 yards away (it might have been 125 feet). They found bullet cases and are going to see if they belong to the bullet(s) found. Anybody know if it was feet are yards?

    • 100 feet would place the shooter in the parking lot across the street. Witnesses said the shot came from up the hill. That would be up Tiffin Ave. and Harrison Ave. That intersection is about 125 yards away. It was a luck shot for sure but when you shoot into a crowd you will likely hit someone.

      • Two lucky shots in a row, hitting two officers in such a way as to kill them? That’s an awful lot of luck.

        • There was a line of police officers standing shoulder to shoulder. Four shots were fired. Two hits on a 50′ wide 6′ tall target is not far fetched at all.

  16. So…basically what most of you are saying is that the cops who were shot had it coming? The comments spiraled into police corruption pretty quickly, and now very few seem to care that someone used a crowd of protestors to commit attempted murder. All thanks to the skillful trolling of someone named Shire-man.

    • Yeah, gonna have to ditto the request for a recount.

      I did a page search for “had it coming” and the only post those words appeared in was YOURS, Joe.

      I suggest you go back and re-read Shire’s post. He was making a general comment about punishments for corrupt departments. He specifically mentioned retirements and jail time. Not one single word he wrote could possibly be interpreted to mean these particular officers deserved to be shot.

      And even if HE was…that’s far from “most.”

      Troll effort failed.

  17. Thanks for throwing Ferguson cops under the bus odumbo and eric…I’ m a mite surprised they have any cops left.

    • Im not sympathetic. Their behavior provides much justification for outrage. Those two police officers are also victims of political gameplaying and stupidity by elitist politicians controlling that city.

      It seems like state and federal governments believe they’re above the laws of “Cause/Effect”. Well, gee, when you treat people like animals and occupy their neighborhoods like an army, “cause/effect” results in a body count.

  18. no matter how many times things like this happen no one thinks to change their behavior. I have no idea why the concept of blowback is so hard to understand we don’t live in a vacuum you hurt people they will hurt you and yours back, frankly all parties in Ferguson with the exception of the businesses that were attacked behaved poorly. rioters attacked people who were in no way responsible for police misconduct, police ignored rioters, didn’t protect businesses and assaulted people innocent people in their homes with tear gas. The right thing to do for the people who have been so abused by the police department of Ferguson would have been to organize and form their own city government for their community, armed themselves and formed an armed community watch and tell the city of Ferguson to pound sand, but unfortunately they let the police do whatever they pleased and burnt down a qt, cause you know qt has been responsible for robbing the community and assaulting citizens of the wrong color for decades.

  19. Apparently these officers were shot from over 100 yards away, with a pistol caliber? I can’t imagine the perp being a neighborhood hoodlum.

    • “Pistol caliber” can include .22LR – and I have heard speculated that .22LR was, in fact, the caliber used. (Realistically speaking, anything much larger, and I would have a hard time believing that the trajectory of the head shot – through the cheek, and lodged behind the ear – wouldn’t have been fatal.)

      A scoped .22 (think a 10/22 with a cheap scope) is not difficult to fire 100 yards. Heck, I’m no great shot, and I can hit a head-sized target at 75 yards with bare iron.

      100 yards is well within the range of larger pistol-caliber carbines, as well. They’re often used for hunting in places like Indiana that don’t allow rifle calibers.

      • That is a likely conclusion, however just as likely was my guess that it was not a trained assassin but just a pot shot. If the cop hit in the face was alone, then it would be agreed that it was a skilled shot. The fact is the cops formed a line 50′ wide and 6′ tall which makes for quite a large target. 3 or 4 shots were fired and only two hit that wall of police.
        I think this is a case of “The bullet that doesn’t have your name on it is the most dangerous”.

        • I don’t think our conclusions conflict. In both cases, the hits did not require a shooter with any particular skill. The point remains: scoped or iron, making 2 hits out of 4 shots from 100 yards, using a rifle, at a target 6 feet tall and several dozen yards wide is not difficult.

Leave a Reply

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