Grand Jury to Begin Investigation of Michael Brown Killing

After a night of more unrest in Ferguson, a few shootings (reportedly not by police) and at least 30 arrests, officials are calling for calm.

A grand jury is scheduled to begin hearing evidence in the shooting death of Michael Brown tomorrow.

President Obama has dispatched AG Eric Holder to Ferguson. DOJ is conducting its own civil rights investigation. [More....]

This thread is not about whether Brown stole cigars. That topic has been exhausted in other threads. Please stay on topic in comments.

< ISIS Response to U.S. Aiding Kurds at Mosul Dam | New ISIS Video Warns Obama and Shows Beheading of U.S. Journalist >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Police Caught in Lie (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    Why lie about the numbers and where they are from when your integrity is on the line.  Because they can, because they do, because the truth doesn't always favor the police ?  I don't know, it doesn't make sense, only establishes a pattern of not being honest.

    Jail records obtained by NBC News show that at least 78 people were arrested overnight at the protests in Ferguson, Missouri -- more than double the total reported by authorities -- and that the overwhelming majority of them were from Missouri.

    Of the 78, all but three were arrested for refusing to disperse, the records show. Two people, both from the St. Louis area, were arrested for unlawful use of a weapon, and a man from Rockton, Illinois, was arrested for interfering with an officer.

    Authorities had reported early that 31 people were arrested overnight. Authorities early Tuesday blamed people from out of town for some criminal activity.


    Power to the people! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:20:24 PM EST

    And the hits just keep on comming (none / 0) (#1)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    That new video where Wilson is just standing.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    there over the body, and none of his fellow cops are tending to him doesn't match this report.

    In what way does it not match this report? (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    You forgot about the black helicopters (none / 0) (#5)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    Several witnesses have claimed Brown and Wilson had a physical confrontation.  Given the size difference the report that Wilson suffered a fracture to the eye socket seems reasonable.  Unless you are claiming aliens in black helicopters landed and fractured Wilson's eye socket, got back on the helicopter and left, and were able to erase all the video of them doing that.

    Not only do you need black helicopters but several govt officials to be involved in the coverup.  Maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee.


    I've never heard of the Gateway Pundit... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    But given the 1000 nauseatingly racist comments, that he used a file stock photo of a orbital fracture and that he cites two unnamed sources, and that my twitter feed on Ferguson has no mention of this supposed breaking news.... I cry BS.

    And to answer Sarcastic above, the video shows Wilson walking around talking to a fellow cop, standing there, no hand to the face, no evidence of injury.


    Gateway Pundit (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:41:18 PM EST
    The report I saw on this said "sources" within the County Prosecutor's Office said he had these injuries to his orbital socket.

    But why would sources within the County Prosecutor's dare leak something like this just one day before going before a Grand Jury when he is being close mouthed on everything else -- everything.

    And if I were the County Prosecutor and I knew it was leaked [unless I didn't want it to] they would be finding new employment.

    And as far as the reporter with the Twitter feed of those alleged 12 witnesses -- she is a crime reporter who has now been suspended from her job because of this tweet which did not meet the credibility standards of the newspaper.

    BTW we know that Mike Brown was a Hulk 6'4" and 292 -- but do we have anything on the officer's height and weight???

    In the picture I have seen he towers over his captain and may even be taller than Brown was which means in a wrestling match it would likely to have been an even match.

    [I hope this comes out right as it is my first post here]


    Welcome uncle (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:45:50 PM EST
    I think I read he is 6'6"

    I'll see if I can find that.


    Wilson's size -- (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    Thanks Capt Howdy --

    6' 6" ehhh

    Interesting that the PD and media have kept drilling home how large Brown was but not a word from them about the fact that Wilson is taller, with very long arms, and as a hockey player thus quite capable of taking Brown in a one on one mano to mano.

    If that was the case then what was there really to fear of an unarmed man who you can take whether he was coming back toward you or not.


    I have not been able to find that (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:17:26 PM EST
    But unless I dreamed it I saw it someplace.   Also about the prosecuter - while I was reading your comment I was watching tow MO state senators demand his removal.   There have been many calls for this.
    Apparently he has said he will remove himself IF the governor asks him to.  Apparently because he does not expect the governor to ask him to.   So people are really trying to pressure the governor.  
    It seems that many people think the reason he is using a grand jury is so he can use them as an excuse for not indicting Wilson even though pretty much everyone knows a prosecutor can usually get a grand jury to, as they say, indict a ham sandwich.

    County Prosecutor (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    Thanks for trying -- it will surface somewhere -- as I look at him 6'6" appears about right. When he goes in to the Grand Jury room he will probably wear flats.

    The County Prosecutor is a Democrat that has been in office 20 years. He defeated his primary opponent 70 to 30 -- AND he is such a lock that he has no Republican opponent.

    Protest leaders are now calling for protests to move from Ferguson tomorrow to the county seat of Clayton to his office to pressure him to step aside.

    Being that it is Clayton with all that wealthy real estate they said that they wouldn't dare use tear gas there.

    It will be interesting to see what happens --


    Background on County Prosecuting (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 10:14:48 PM EST
    Attorney, Bob McCulloch:

    FERGUSON, Mo. - The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown has deep family roots among police: his father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for St. Louis' police department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect.

    Sufficient grounds to warrant a request for him to recuse himself IMO.


    Are you in the area? (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:46:50 PM EST
    Curious.  I lived there for many years

    I would almost (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:53:23 PM EST
    Take a road trip to see tear gas in Clayton

    Clayton (none / 0) (#171)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:03:20 PM EST
    Yep -- the guy organizing this Clayton protest is a financial advisor who I think works down there -- Wash Univ only a mile down the road --

    This will be interesting.


    Teevee news says (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:36:58 PM EST
    The governor WILL NOT ask the prosecutor to step aside.

    Btw (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:19:14 PM EST
    Both said if the governor does not he will have blood on his hands.

    That struck me as strong language.


    Context (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    Today The Gateway Pundit is a leading right-of-center news website. The Gateway Pundit has 4-5 million visits (Sitemeter) each month and is read by over 600,000 individual readers. It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations. Jim Hoft was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013.

    From the "about" page


    Thanks. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:23:50 PM EST
    I still don't believe the report. Given how the police chief has inappropriately provided "robbery" details and that Brown might have had MJ in his system, I very much doubt that the chief would suppress this information.

    "facial injury" (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:13:15 PM EST
     Could Wilson have shot so accurately with that serious injury?

    Very Unlikely (none / 0) (#197)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    30 feet away with a minimum of serious eye tearing?

    No way.


    Didn't the family hired ME.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    say that there was no sign of a struggle or injury on Brown's hands. Wouldn't punching somebody hard enough to break their face cause an injury to the puncher's hand?

    IMO (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    If there was a scintilla of evidence that supported the police version it would have been released days ago.
    Either officially or "leaked".

    I've seen accounts that say that (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    Wilson first yelled at Brown and Johnson to "get the fk on the sidewalk," drove past them a short distance, then threw his vehicle into reverse and came alongside the two, nearly hitting them.  Wilson reportedly hit Brown with the door of his vehicle as he was throwing it open - is it possible Brown slammed the door back trying to push Wilson back into his vehicle and it hit him, possibly fracturing his eye socket (if, in fact, Wilson sustained such an injury)?

    There was no GSR on Brown's hands.  If they were struggling for the gun when it went off, is it possible Brown wouldn't have any residue anywhere on his hands, arms, neck?  What about the vehicle?  If a shot was fired in the vehicle, was there residue or blood/tissue found?


    Link (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    Anne I am confused about the GSR tests (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    Baden said he did not find any GSR on the body, but also said he did not have a chance to examine Brown's clothes for GSR something he wanted to do.  I would guess the clothes are still in the police evidence room and have been,or will be, examined for GSR.

    Once Brown's family took custody of the body the chain of evidence was broken.  More to the point it may have been cleaned by the funeral home removing any GSR, or not.

    As to your speculation that Brown forced the door into Wilson injuring his eye my response is in addition to wanting to see the medical report on Wilson's injury I also want forensics on the door to see if there is any of Wilson's DNA on it and anything else that sheds light on your theory.

    I would bet as time goes by there will be more twists and turns in the drip, drip, drip of evidence causing me to want the answer to more questions.


    If the funeral home had washed the (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:09:24 PM EST
    body, I'm pretty sure that's information that would have been taken into account, as in "we did not find any gun shot residue on the body, but we were advised that the body had been washed prior to our examination."

    I can't seriously entertain that someone of Dr. Baden's experience and training would be so incompetent as to leave out that information or fail to inquire about the conditions under which the body was maintained throughout its storage either at the medical examiner's facility or at the mortuary.

    Not that it isn't possible, just that it would be quite a stretch of the imagination.


    problem there (none / 0) (#181)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:22:02 PM EST
    The body had been embalmed before Dr. Baden's preliminary examination.

    Regarding GSR. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    It's occurs just the way you think it would make sense. Just like turning on your garden hose, if the hose is not pointed at you, you don't get any water on you.

    There is a bit of a "spray" pattern to the GSR, like you get from the spray nozzle on a bottle of Windex, but if you are outside of that pattern, no GSR.


    This is a good question. (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    That linked right-wing communication presents an  orbital blowout, which sounds ominous and can be.  But, it also, can provide forensic evidence--the most common of such injuries is a fracture of the orbital floor.  The causes of such are many, blunt force of an auto accident, being hit by a tennis ball and the like.

    The treatment of the injury may also provide information--was surgery required (often, surgery is postponed for a few weeks to permit the swelling to subside);  surgery may be needed if there is a sunken eye or persistent double vision. But, usually, the injury heals spontaneously.  Sometimes orbital injuries are what is known by medical experts as a black eye. .many causes for that.  And, inflated or false reporting could have occurred...many causes for that.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:54:39 PM EST
    An orbital fracture leaves the victim bind for a few minutes. The eye tears quite a bit and it is very hard to focus.

    To shoot someone so accurately with that kind of injury seems unlikely if at all possible.


    of the fracture, though you would expect some kind of impact on his vision. Maybe that has something to do with why most of shots are center-left? Purely speculative convo, of course.

    If a police officer (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    finds that he can't see, has blurred or double vision, it would be irresponsible for him to shoot.   Call for back-up help, he did have communication capabilities.

    The other side of the coin could be (none / 0) (#125)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    that if a cop, or, even, civilian, is in immediate and significant threat of serious injury and/or death from another person, it is reasonable for that person to defend himself with the force necessary.

    Even in that case, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:11:07 PM EST
    sightlessness or severely impaired vision would impact the situation and justification  Firing away literally, blindly, on a busy, public thoroughfare would be the third side of that coin.     In this case, as Professor Parcells mentioned, one shot entered a nearby house.  And, we know there were people nearby, e.g. witnesses.  

    I wonder where police training and judgment were, even under the most dire circumstances. Based on what the police officer did know, it was not as if John Wayne Gacy broke away from his custody and was a threat to the officer and youngsters  everywhere in Ferguson.

    But, a defense of death by blindness in the face of significant threat may downgrade potential charges, from first to second degree/manslaughter.


    to hit Brown with 6 shots, I'm not sure the concept of
    sightlessness or severely impaired vision [...] Firing away literally, blindly
    is really appropriate, but, like you, I have no idea what effect any of this might have on any charges he may or may not be brought up on.

    Yes, he apparently could (none / 0) (#137)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    see well enough to shoot to kill a fleeing suspect (or a stopped suspect, or one returning to give himself up, or one brought down by bullet wounds, or one charging back to get the officer).   And, he did't hit any bystanders.  

    And, it brings us back to that "orbital blow out."


    reputable report about that.

    There are several kinds of orbital fractures (none / 0) (#149)
    by Green26 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    and varying severities. I've had one. From a huge blunt force trauma. Somebody I irritated on a message board punched me out. No, actually, while tubing hard and fast behind a boat and on a wide turn, my daughter lost her grip and clobbered me in the eye with her head. I was stunned. Blood all over the place within seconds, and eye swelled shut instantly. Hurt, but really just felt like I'd taken a good punch in the eye from a big strong guy.

    Took several doctors an hour to remove my contact. Horrible black eye for several weeks. A large area below my eye was discolored for 4 months. The eye didn't feel too bad by the next day, but I had a patch for several days. Fracture healed on its own.

    I couldn't and wouldn't have been shooting anyone, but then I was in the water. If the officer has one, I would guess it was fairly mild and more like a normal black eye (but where there is a little fracture). I would guess that many people who get bad black eyes from a punch or something similar may have a fracture, but never even get it checked.


    Maybe that is why he (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:04:22 PM EST
    just kept pulling the trigger.

    Shouldn't there be injuries on the hands? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:20:16 PM EST
    Not necessarily.

    Here we go again. Trayvon part #2.


    is Wilson?

    Blonde crewcut. (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    Standing to right of fellow cop in that one scene.

    Nevermind, the woman who shot the video (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    said the one on the right is Wilson. We'll have to see if that's actually him or not.

    Here's a couple photos of Wilson.

    He looks thinner in those photos than either of the cops in the video and also has a very distinct "V" shaped baldness pattern on his head, which neither of the cops in the video have, as far as I can see. The one on the left seems to have a pretty good head of hair and the one on the right seems to be mostly chrome up top.

    But, that said, it possibly could be him.


    She witnessed the shooting.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    so she could identify which cop shot Brown.

    Probably so. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    More than a dozen (1.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    More than a dozen witnesses have backed up the account of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the controversial shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, police sources reportedly told St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Christine Byers.


    This plus the autopsy showing Brown was not shot in the back and that his arms were not up in the surrender position pretty well locks up that the 6'4" 300 pound Brown was running at the officer.


    With the entry wounds being on the underside.... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    of the arm, he either had his back turned to cop when shot or had his arms raised when facing Wilson. (Try to run with the topside of your forearm facing backwards. Then turn around and try to have the underside of your arms face forward without raising your hands in surrender).

    My understanding is that the wounds are (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    on the top side, indicating that his arms were down.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    No Capt (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    Case closed. Jim has it all figured out. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    All I know is what I read in the papers (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    ..a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found.......

    Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.



    Hi Jim (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cashmere on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    The confusion is that it is the "anatomical front" which is as if one was standing with arms turned so that the palms face in the same direction as the face.   That exposes the particular gunshot wound surface (for entrance)in question when one is walking away (back facing the shooter).  Those who performed the private autopsy also stressed that the arm is such a mobile part of the body, that this same surface can be exposed from the front when arms are raised or when arms are bent at the elbow and moved across the front of one's body.  Therefore, this particular wound is inconclusive as to whether it was shot to Brown's front or backside.

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:58:39 PM EST
    Sorry, but if the arms are raised the natural position is for the rear of the arm to be exposed, although it is possible to rotate the arm.

    So claiming it is inconclusive based on that is, to me, pretty weak.


    Not if you are trying to shield your face with (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:17:24 PM EST
    your arms.  Then either side of the arm could be front facing.  

    There are numerous scenarios in which he could have been shot in particular places.  We'll need to wait until there is more physical evidence before making up our minds what happened.  


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    but your side first.

    I'm on the side of waiting for the evidence so we (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    can try to determine the truth.

    Good we are on the same side (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:05:25 PM EST
    Jim (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cashmere on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:18:03 PM EST
    I was just pointing out what Dr. Baden and team said in interviews.  They specifically pointed out that the front arm entry wound could have occurred without the arm raised as if to surrender... e.g., with the arm bent at the elbow and crossed over the body, and also not being shot from behind.

    Inconclusive (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:23:42 PM EST
    Thank you.  That is by far the best word that describes the arm injuries.

    It's a state grand jury.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 12:38:55 PM EST

    I saw the mayor on teevee (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    This morning making a string of the most stunningly clueless statements I have ever heard.  It was such a great example of the fact that the powers that be have no idea what a powder keg they are sitting on.
    I was looking for the video.  Doesn't seem to be up yet but it will be.

    the Powers that be (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:37:41 PM EST
    I doubt there is much misunderstanding about the dangerousness of the situation in Ferguson. It has been action after action to enrage, intimidate and control the citizenry deliberately. This many stupid and counterproductive to peace and the orderly application of the law actions make a pattern of deliberate decision-making.  

    You have a point there (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:42:37 PM EST
    Just heard a lawyer say something I would be interested in knowing if lawyers here agree with.

    She said if a prosecutor is interested in getting an indictment they do not let the accused testify they would just present the evidence.  Wilson will be invited to testify.


    Yes, Ferguson (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    has a mayor, council, its own fire department, police department and other city services.     As do all the other St. Louis collar suburbs.  No metro consolidations.  Pretty expensive--about l/4 of the Ferguson budget comes from court fees/costs.  Traffic stops/citations are depended upon to provide funds to meet the budget.   All, the more reason to have effective community policing and good community relations.   Sounds like this city has clueless for a motto.

    The (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:13:40 PM EST
    This is one witness report. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    Of course, don't know if it's accurate. She said that the officer was trying to get Brown into the police vehicle, but Brown was big and got away from the officer (saw this in another article).

    "Instead, a shot went off, then the teen broke free, and the officer got out of the vehicle in pursuit, the women said."

    "I saw the police chase him ... down the street and shoot him down," Crenshaw said. Brown ran about 20 feet."

    "Michael jerks his body, as if he's been hit," Mitchell said.

    "Then he faced the officer and put his hands in the air, but the officer kept firing, both women said. He sank to the pavement."

    "After that, Crenshaw hit record on her cell phone. News of the killing spread fast through the neighborhood, and Brown's uncle walked up to the body to see if it was really his nephew, Crenshaw said."

    In another article, I didn't long to the audio long enough to hear anyone saying that Brown charged the officer, as this article suggests. The article also says this:

    "They say he had his hands up and everything, and they just shot him anyway," the unidentified camera operator says."

    "With the police vehicles to the camera operator's left, and Brown's body facing them, a purported witness describes how Brown ran from the police."

    "He was running away?" one man asks. "Why his body come this way, though?"

    Again, has anyone seen how far the officer and Brown were apart when the shots were fired? I've now seen 20 and 30 or 35 feet, as how far Brown ran or was away, but nothing on shooting distance. Thx.

    Statement doesn't match autospy (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    "Then he faced the officer and put his hands in the air, but the officer kept firing, both women said. He sank to the pavement."

    If his hands were in the air the gun shot wounds would have entered on the underside of the arms.

    They didn't.


    For your consideration (likely a waste of (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    time, but others may find it of interest)

    1) Three bullets entered the inside arm and one bullet entered in right palm: suggesting Brown had his arms in the surrender position.

    2) Bullet in the top of Mike Brown's head was "likely the last of bullets to hit him" illustrating his head was down which supports an eyewitness statement that

       "when Brown then raised his arms, the officer shot him two more times, killing him"

    and another eyewitness who said

       "Brown turned around with his hands in the air and said, 'I don't have a gun. Stop shooting!' The officer then shot Brown several more times, killing him"

    From Dr. Baden's press conference:

    8:11 AM PT: Says shot to lower arm "consistent" with either facing away or having arms up to surrender.

    8:12 AM PT: Dr. Baden says no gunshot residue found on skin, meaning shots could have been from one to two feet away ... or 30 feet away.

    8:13 AM PT: Dr. Baden says there was no evidence on Brown's body of a struggle.

    The Blaze (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:03:01 PM EST
    Must not have reported that

    Ann (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Cashmere on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    "YOU" neglected to comment on how Dr. Baden's partner in performing the autopsy has mentioned multiple times in interviews that the gunshot wound in question could have occurred from being shot in the front, with the arm bent at the elbow, and the arm in a position across the front of the body.  He stresses the arm is very mobile, and therefore it is inconclusive from what is known thus far if the arm shot was to the front or the back.

    Even I can't buy that one (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    1) Three bullets entered the inside arm and one bullet entered in right palm: suggesting Brown had his arms in the surrender position

    Getting shot in the inside arm and palm is suggestive of any number of things, one of them being, yes, arms in the surrender position. Or his arm outstretched at any other angle away from his body.

    I frankly so far find no reliable witnesses in this case on either side, so I don't think I will ever be convinced either way.


    You can believe the Daily KOS (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    and "keepemhonest."

    I'm taking the NYTimes


    Huh...so you're taking the NYT (none / 0) (#73)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:30:10 PM EST
    as your source...that explains the pigs I just saw flying by my window...

    I imagine your readership must be seeking treatment for the massive aneurysms they've all likely suffered as a result of your association with the liberal rag that is the NYT.


    Anne, regarding (none / 0) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:02:21 PM EST
    the alleged fight, or, physical altercation, between Wilson and Brown, your rendition was pretty close to what I heard, with a couple of differences.

    After Wilson (regardless of his tone) ordered Brown, and, his friend, to get out of the road the two boys said something along the lines of, "the corner where we're going is just a few feet down there, we'll be off the road in a minute." However it was said, it, apparently, and, predictably, infuriated Wilson, and, this is when he slammed on his brakes, threw the car into reverse, and, stormed backwards at a high rate of speed. He initiated one of those NASCAR, winner's circle moves where the car makes a circular spin, and, comes to a screeching halt right where he wants it to stop. Anyway, it ended up at a perfect right angle to the fence, and, his vehicle stopped just in time, nudged up against, and almost touching, the fence.

    Now, here's where a little nuance is needed to understand what allegedly happened next. My source says that Wilson, (and, now, please allow some poetic license here) exhibited some self-satisfied machismo at having executed this intricate maneuver perfectly..........well, almost perfectly. It seems the car was parked in such a way that opening the driver's door only left a couple of inches between the door and the fence. Not realizing how close he was to the fence at first, Wilson, instinctively, began exiting his vehicle, but, found that, instead of this being a perfect "Starsky & Hutch" maneuver, it turned into an "Abbot & Costello" Faux Pas. He's caught with one leg out of the car, and, not nearly enough space for the rest of his body to exit.
    The source that I'm citing says that this further infuriated Wilson, and, in a situation we've all experienced his frustration spilled over, and, whatever he did with the door the result was that it sprung back, and, slammed into his face. That's how he obtained the injury. It was self-inflicted, highly embarrassing, but, unfortunately, Brown may have paid the ultimate
    price for it   .  

    Understand, I wasn't there, I'm not an eye witness. But, I trust this source, and, his account of what went down sure sounds plausible to me. Whether it's true, or, not, time will tell.  


    A) There there is no fence, and 2) Also no mention from any other of the, you know, actual eye-witnesses, of any such fancy "Starsky & Hutch" maneuver.

    Your entire post should be deleted.


    Are you sure those are Baden's findings? (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    Or someone else's opinion?

    Here's what I found from Baden:

    However Baden, the former chief medical examiner for New York City, was more cautious than the lawyers, stating that the findings in his preliminary report "could be consistent" with suggestions that Brown had been shot while charging at Wilson. "It's possible," he said.

    "There are many different witness testimonies," said Baden. "Many seem to line up in one direction, some in another direction. Right now until we get more information we can't, from a forensic science point of view, can't distinguish and can't make an absolute judgment."

    This is from Baden's assistant:
    Professor Shawn Parcells, a pathologist who worked on the autopsy with Baden, said that one shot, to the middle of Brown's right arm, "could have occurred when he was putting his hands up".

    I'm sorry - I thought that link would (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    take you to video of the actual presser; I took it that the time-stamps in the narrative were to what Baden or his assistant actually stated.

    Maybe there's video somewhere to verify; if I can find it, I'll post a link, but can't do it right now.


    I saw a guy (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    Who gave almost exactly the same summary but I don't remember who it was.  He demonstrated the different arm placements that could result in the wounds.  Hands up, defensive etc.

    I Googled (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    8:11 AM PT: Says shot to lower arm "consistent" with either facing away or having arms up to surrender.

    and followed it back to IGN boards

    and a commentator named groucho48 who is responding to a claim by someone that the NBC interview had him claiming that... he concludes:

    I watched the conference again from your link. He never states "shot to lower arm "consistent" with either facing away or having arms up to surrender."

    Some random assistant says maybe he could have been we don't know....

    First 30 seconds of your linked video Dr. Baden states, "they were from the front". So the actual expert says all shots were fired from the front.

    I did a little digging and found where you copy and pasted from.

    Your site is purposely misleading you and not giving you who stated what.

    Stop quoting dailyKOS. Or start linking to your actual site you got the info from.

    Which appears to come from KOS.

    I've tried to listen to the NBC family interviews and lawyer interview but can't get either to run. My take is that is the lawyer who claimed he had arms up.

    And I can find no credible source for the claim.

    Looks like a perfect example of how fake info gets spread around and believed by many.


    Jim you've stated your view (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:16:52 PM EST
    a few times on the arms. You are not stating fact. There are several news articles reporting the autopsies show the arms were up. First, do not state your opinion as fact. Second, do not keep repeating the same thing.

    Why Ferguson? (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:34:35 PM EST
    this post Uses the same racial population maps that were used in the Post Dispatch article I linked to yesterday that was being used to support the idea that segregation is not the problem.  And, like me, takes very different impressions from what they show.

    Why Ferguson? Of all the incidents of confrontation between African Americans and police officers, why is Ferguson more instructive, more illustrative of long term social structural problems?

    Article in the Atlantic (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    a few month back alluded to these same issues. Link

    As I said a few days ago, looting/rioting occurs because of impotence in the face of real and perceived long term efforts to keep certain people oppressed.

    As your link illustrates, evidence is there should people wish to see it.


    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    As I said a few days ago, looting/rioting occurs because of impotence in the face of real and perceived long term efforts to keep certain people oppressed.


    You can argue that rioting occurs because of impotence in the face of real...

    But not looting.

    Looting is just stealing by thugs and thieves.


    So sayeth the righteous one (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:58:32 PM EST
    I will simply say, in some cases yes, in others no.  Or, as I asked another poster the other day, on any given day, how many stories of looting do you hear of? Who does the looting when it occurs? Those that are well off or those who for whatever reason are not?

    Your comment makes no sense. It's understandable that people riot, but not understandable that they take what they can to assuage their station which caused the riot in the first place?

    I'm not condoning it, simply saying I understand it.


    So your claim is that (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    people riot because they are poor??

    Then we sure missed a lot of opportunities when I was a boy.

    Looting does not always occur with a riot. Remember Katrina's looting in N.O.

    But riots always seem to include looting.

    The burning and destruction of what, in many cases, is the rioters neighborhoods makes no sense to me.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:32:01 PM EST
    My claim is people riot and loot because they are disenfranchised.  Which you were probably not in spite of being poor.

    Katrina... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:33:41 PM EST
    was 99% scavenging, 1% "looting", in my opinion.

    Look at the media reports after Katrina...white person "finds food", black person "loots".  The government and police aren't the only ones with "race issues", to put it kindly.


    Kdog, Snopes has dealt (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    with that. As AP said at the time, if a reporter sees someone go into a store and take something, they called it looting. AFP did the other photo, and the photographer said a grocery store was flooded and people grabbed food that was floating by. Snopes

    I don't want to derail the conversation, but if anyone can email me personally, I've saved some of the original information. I worked for the New Orleans Times-Picayune before Katrina and had close friends who covered it.

    I don't know the percentages, but there was quite a bit of looting of stuff other than what people needed to get by. That's not surprising in a city that already had a very high crime rate and gangs.


    I here you (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    but along with people looking for food there were numerous reports of "scavenging" TV's and other appliances.

    Given the situation I understand the food thing.

    The other, no.


    Vic, not all oppressed people (none / 0) (#142)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:23:56 PM EST
    In general, young men (including older teens) do the great majority of rioting and looting.

    Oh, really. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    And exactly how many riots and lootings have you attended?

    Part of the longer term problem (2.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    Is voting.  Why does Ferguson have an almost white city government making decisions?  Maybe because the majority black community has checked out of civic participation?

    Maybe this event will make them check back in and frankly, that's the only way things are going to change.


    They are registering (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    Voters at the protests

    They have to vote (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:08:46 PM EST
    to make a difference.

    It's kind of hard to complain that you have a vastly majority white city government who doesn't represent you as an African American community, nor understand your needs, when you don't bother to vote in the first place.

    (Of course, that's a bogus argument to begin with, because if that's the case - that white people can't effectively govern black people - then the inverse must be true and Obama can't effectively represent most of the US.)

    I understand the need for more diversity in our local governments.  The thing is - this isn't the first time that the AA community has felt like second class citizens in their own town.  Where have they been for years?  Why aren't more black candidates being groomed in this region?


    I vote in every election; I often do not feel (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    that my vote has made one iota of difference.  And I'm not a poor person, although I am white and I am female.

    So, it's great to say that if you want things to change, you have to vote, but that isn't always what happens.  

    Five will get you 10 that if the people of Ferguson put up some candidates for election, Ferguson would rapidly develop some new initiatives to eliminate voter fraud...


    I feel the same way, and I'm a (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    not poor white guy.

    Me too. (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    All Things Are Not Equal (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:04:26 PM EST
    You may want to imagine what voting an taking part in civic participation is under serious racist conditions.

    And, it is no wonder why there are only 3 black people on the PD.
    Must be horrific.


    Well said sir... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    People tend to know when and where they are not welcome...who needs indignity piled on indignity?  Life's too short for that sh*t.  Cutting your losses is a totally reasonable reaction to institutional racism.  It takes a very rare special human being (a la MLK) to bang your head against the wall all your life trying to change the system from within.  

    Except (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    Even Al Sharpton isn't buying that as an excuse:

    To repeat Sharpton's message: "You all have got to start voting and showing up. 12% turnout is an insult to your children."

    So, in spite of your rhetoric, there really is no evidence to back it up.


    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    That would be my message too.

    I am not saying that it is a smart move to avoid the racists. but I certainly understand why it is horribly unappealing.

    It is called empathy.


    "Avoid the racists" (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    by voting in a majority black city?  

    Not sure where you get this stuff, but it seems like it would be empowering and not intimidating.


    Context (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:18:19 PM EST
    The nationwide fight over voter ID laws is heading next to the Show Me State. Missouri Republicans are working to amend their state's constitution as part of an aggressive push to require photo identification at the polls.

    The GOP-controlled legislature held a hearing Monday on two voter ID bills. One would place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, which, if approved by voters, would allow for a voter ID law. The second bill, to go into effect only if the amendment passes, would impose voter ID.

    The two-pronged approach is needed because of a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling which found that voter ID laws violate the state constitution's guarantee of a right to vote. A Pennsylvania judge this month struck down that state's ID law on similar grounds.

    National Republicans have pulled out the stops lately to clear a path for voter ID laws--a sign of the tactic's growing importance to the party's long-term strategy amid adverse demographic trends. Recent legislation in Congress to strengthen the Voting Rights Act went easy on voter ID, in order to win GOP support. And a bipartisan presidential commission on voting avoided the entire subject in order to achieve consensus.

    A majority black city by population, (none / 0) (#143)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:30:38 PM EST
    but governed by majority white public officials.

    It makes a difference.


    The answer is not so simple (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:29:26 PM EST
    That helps explain why majority-black Ferguson has a virtually all-white power structure: a white mayor; a school board with six white members and one Hispanic, which recently suspended a highly regarded young black superintendent who then resigned; a City Council with just one black member; and a 6 percent black police force.

    Many North County towns -- and inner-ring suburbs nationally -- resemble Ferguson. Longtime white residents have consolidated power, continuing to dominate the City Councils and school boards despite sweeping demographic change. They have retained control of patronage jobs and municipal contracts awarded to allies.



    From your link:
    The North County Labor Club, whose overwhelmingly white constituent unions (plumbers, pipe fitters, electrical workers, sprinkler fitters) have benefited from these arrangements, operates a potent voter-turnout operation that backs white candidates over black upstarts.

    Welcome to the South. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    While Missouri may be Midwestern in locale, it's actually quite Southern by culture and temperament.

    Ferguson voter registration (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:19:11 PM EST
    Many of us suspect one of the reasons for the ruling a couple of days ago: "All demonstrators must be moving at all times, no stopping" was because several voter registrations tables had been set up among the demonstration crowd. (Cops said 25 seconds was stopping, btw.)

    No Preliminary Hearings in Missouri? (none / 0) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    I will save those who haven't read it before my usual rant against Grand Juries and other relics of the US Legal System.  But in this case, for which the quicker the public knows the true evidence, the better off everyone is, wouldn't an open presentation of it before a respected judge, in order to judge if an indictment is warranted, be better than a secret GJ proceeding?

    I'm working on that question. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    If the .prosecutor has discretion to file a criminal complaint but chose, instead, to convene a grand jury, why?  Pass the buck?  Given the heightened emotion in the county and the fact there are no peremptory challenges, is this fair to Officer Wilson?

    Missouri law re grand jury


    The prosecutor has zero credibility (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:33:06 PM EST
    Calls for his resignation or replacement are coming from everywhere.  
    Fair to officer Wilson?   If officer Wilson is not charged with something this is going to get a lot more complicated.

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    if it's "fair to Officer Wilson" or not. It seems to me that in general, targets of grand juries would tend to not think it's "fair" at all.

    But your comment made me wonder about Wilson: what it would be like to know that one was sole instigator of a national sh!tstorm? To know that even the President of the United States of America knows what you have done?

    I'm betting he thinks that isn't fair at all. But my totally WAG is that he is feeling all around victimized right about now.

    Even though he lived.


    Thought this was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    From a magister link

    Aftermath: A friend of officer Darren Wilson, above, told MailOnline that Wilson was in hiding with his young child because the 'whole nation' is behind Michael Brown's family and Darren 'doesn't get that' support

    The guy probably thinks he did nothing very unusual.


    Do you think (1.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:37:41 PM EST
    Darren Wilson is a psychopath? Just wanted to shoot an 18 year old kid.

    Considering it is the starting point of the lynch mob's argument.  It is racist to the core.   The hatred I sense from many here is disturbing.


    Whatever hate you sense (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    Is your own.

    No I think he is a white cop in a city where white cops have rousted black people for a very long time.   What do you actually know about St Louis?  I lived there for many years.

    Lynch mobs are usually white.  FYI


    You didn't answer the question (1.00 / 4) (#173)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:05:12 PM EST
    But at least you're honest about what this is all about.  Past grievances. And for people that just want to fight because they're angry.

    You want your revenge for white lynch mobs 100 years ago with black lynch mobs now?

    Two wrongs don't make a right.


    For some reason (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:07:15 PM EST
    I don't think I'm the one with past grievances here

    No, actually, not "past grievances" (5.00 / 6) (#175)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:10:42 PM EST
    Current grievances.  Very current.  Which, yes, many people apparent to be quite angry about.

    "appear," not "apparent" (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:32:19 PM EST
    Why are typos not as apparent in preview mode, when the appear quite clearly once posted?

    "they appear," that is, (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:58:33 PM EST
    not "the appear."  Oy.

    Hmmm, Preliminary Hearing in the Usual in Mo. (none / 0) (#69)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:24:11 PM EST
    Your link doesn't work but this one does and it would seem that unless the defendant waives the preliminary hearing and they go to trial, it will happen.  Then can have a Grand Jury make the decision instead but the document is not clear on how the choice is made.

    Looks like the prosecutor's office has discretion (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    as to whether to go by complaint and prelim or by grand jury.  Thanks.

    Now the Next Question (none / 0) (#120)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    is why they prefer that route.  Without the public knowing the evidence, the decision or the GJ not to indict or a "nolle prosequi" from the prosecutor might cause riots.  With the evidence hanging out for all to see, the situation might calm.  Remember there was hardly any violence after the GJ acquittal.  I don't think there even would have been a trial if the State had been forced to show its evidence at a preliminary hearing.

    The members of the grand jury (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:28:51 PM EST
    are likely selected (at random) from the voter rolls. And it is likely county-wide, not city-specific.  What county is Ferguson in, and what are the county-wide population statistics? Is the low political participation of African Americans in that county a problem of low turnout, mostly, or of low registration?  If the latter, then the grand jury will be stacked also, and not a fair cross-section of the community, as it should be.

    Ferguson is in St Louis county (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:35:01 PM EST
    The county is majority, as a whole,white varying on where you are in the county.   I posted a comment with the subject "why Ferguson" that has several racial population maps in this thread.
    Part of the problem is that north St Louis is heavily AA and as those people have moved into north St Louis county the AA representation has lagged.

    Who is GJ? (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    The family and some interviews by news organizations say the will not be satisfied unless aofficer Wilson is convicted.

    GJ = Grand Jury (none / 0) (#126)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    Their attitude may stem from the fact that the real evidence is not out there yet.  They are saying the same thing as Trayvon Martin's relatives said in that case, but the prosecutor in Florida could avoid both a preliminary evaluation by a judge and one by a Grand Jury.  Not so in Missouri.

    you don't get a preliminary hearing (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    in most places when the case goes to the grand jury. The return of the indictment is a finding of probable cause, which is all a prelim is designed to do. I haven't looked up Missouri law, but that's how it works in federal court and many state courts.

    High profile cases are often taken to the grand jury, especially in states where the grand jury isn't widely used. (All federal cases go to the grand jury unless the defendant waives his right to indictment, because of the 5th Amendment which says:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

    Missouri Consitution:

    Grand juries--composition--jurisdiction to convene--powers.

    Section 16. That a grand jury shall consist of twelve citizens, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment or a true bill: Provided, that no grand jury shall be convened except upon an order of a judge of a court having the power to try and determine felonies; but when so assembled such grand jury shall have power to investigate and return indictments for all character and grades of crime; and that the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.


    Indictments and informations in criminal cases--exceptions.

    Section 17. That no person shall be prosecuted criminally for felony or misdemeanor otherwise than by indictment or information, which shall be concurrent remedies, but this shall not be applied to cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor to prevent arrests and preliminary examination in any criminal case.

    GJ link (none / 0) (#179)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:20:10 PM EST
    with some interesting points.  One thing of interest to me was the point about how quickly the GJ was created, even before the police investigation has been completed.

    Anyone know how long it normally takes for a GJ to be created.  Seems like the GJ that indited Perry took quite a while.



    AG Holder Going to Ferguson (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    same day the grand jury will convene? Coincidence?

    I'm sayin no (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    This was an interesting link on TPM.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    texts between Wilson and Wilson's friend. (No mention of injury, so Ragebot and Gateway Pundit are full of beans).

    That post also (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    Seems to confirm the person you identified as Wilson in the video you posted is in fact him.

    It has a still from that video.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    Early on (none / 0) (#35)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    the FPD said Wilson suffered injuries in the confrontation with Brown.  The lack of any mention of these injuries in emails between friends does not refute any claims that Wilson was injured by Brown.

    Have you seen the orbital bone.... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    breaking news on any site other than RW sites?

    Don't friends ask friends, "hey how's your eye?" if there's an injury as serious as that?


    how does that prove ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by crimebird on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    ...anything...just a couple of texts back and forth and all that.

    I was struck by this paragraph (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    He said: 'It's sad for Mike Brown and his family. Darren could have just Tasered him and Mike would have spent six months in jail or something and maybe got his act together after that.

    Is being tasered and then spending 6 months in jail really considered appropriate for the act of jaywalking? How casually they discuss this savage level of treatment for the non-white guy, and for something that is practically a non-offense.

    Not doubting the email said (none / 0) (#138)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:39:36 PM EST
    something about Wilson could have tasered Brown, but I have seen others post Wilson did not have a taser.

    Don't know either way, can anyone confirm one way or the other if Wilson had a taser.


    6 months sounds right (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:41:47 PM EST
    for robbing a convenience store and assaulting an officer.

    You need to stop trafficking in innuendo ... (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:04:55 PM EST
    ... here as though it were fact, when nothing you're saying has been established as such. First of all, nobody who was working at the convenience store that morning ever reported a robbery, and secondly, you really have no more idea regarding what went down in the street 10 days ago than I do.

    TalkLeft isn't Gateway Pundit or Fox & Friends. Your host here is a criminal defense counsel by trade, and I can assure you that she doesn't appreciate the unsubstantiated rumormongering.



    You shouldn't talk (1.00 / 5) (#177)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:14:35 PM EST
    Considering the preposterous theories you are contending about Darren Wilson still shooting at Michael Brown while he was running away. So spare me your bullcrap about unsubstantiated rumormongering.

    The robbery is on tape.  The violence is on tape. This wasn't 10 years prior.  It was 10 minutes prior.   Maybe it makes sense to you, but I absolutely do not believe the officer tried to "pull a 300 lb man inside a police car window"  


    Oh, really. (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 10:15:40 PM EST
    And what "theories" are those, exactly? I'm on record in these threads stating that we shouldn't speculate when we really don't know, given the volumes of misinformation and misdirection coming from several quarters.

    You state rather emphatically that the store video shows a robbery in progress. But does it really? Because there's another surveillance video from that store that morning, one that was NOT released by the Ferguson police, which appears to show the deceased paying for the same cigarillos that you claim he stole. Personally, I think people are seeing in both videos whatever it is that they want to see in them. Neither tape proves a damned thing.

    So, the bottom line here is that you really DON'T know what actually happened in Ferguson that day, any more than do the rest of us, given all the conflicting reports and so-called "evidence."

    The primary difference between us here is that I've freely admitted that I don't know, and I refuse to make any representations otherwise. Whereas you're just so full of yourself, you've only succeeded in proving to most long-time TLers -- and likely your host Jeralyn as well, once she finally has time to review your commentary -- that actual facts really don't matter at all to you, as much as your own dogmatic insistence that you're right and anyone who disagrees with your take simply has to be wrong.

    And given that, you've also proven that you really aren't worth any more of my time spent engaging you further on the subject.

    Have a nice evening.


    THNK YOU (none / 0) (#195)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:47:46 PM EST
    No that wasn't thanks to you Jack203 (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 10:08:28 PM EST
    Thank you to Donald from Hawaii

    As Donald says, no one at the Store made a police report.
    Futhermore, the sections of the video made public was selective. There is more footage on the video, including the time Michael is standing at the payment counter.


    That was Thank you to Donald from Hawaii (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 10:09:32 PM EST
    Am I the only one who thinks (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    The police suggestion that the protesters segregate themselves into peaceful during the day and violent at night (swear to god.  Google it) is almost frighteningly clueless about what is actually happening there?

    Why is this clueless? (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:36:05 PM EST
    It seems logical to me that the looters and shooters would do their stuff under cover of darkness.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    For making my point

    Make That... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    ...making your point twice.  You can kick a dog, but you can't make him bark.

    Sounds like Jim's cousin is running the show over at riot headquarters.  Hope he doesn't think any kids are shielding rockets...


    So your point is ???? (1.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    That young black Americans will go around attacking police with knifes???



    The point is (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by sj on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:38:38 PM EST
    ...that only the clueless would think that's a good idea. It is almost comical the way that you stepped right up there to prove it.

    But your arrival has likely triggered another endless episode of "No, You're Wrong!"


    Clueless?? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:44:39 PM EST
    My take is that the police was suggesting that the two groups do that themselves... The people who want to demonstrate do it during the day and the criminals wait for night.

    You know choose the time themselves.

    But you will argue otherwise and I understand where you are.


    Well, this should help things (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    I was going to post about that but didn't want to be OT.  but I really don't think it is OT.  There have been several protesters saying they were ready to die.  Hopefully this will be the last.
    Supposedly he was yelling "kill me" as he charged the police.

    As he charged the police (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    And waving a knife.

    This is not going to get better for a long while.


    You know what (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 02:57:00 PM EST
    The "this" in this is not going to get better is a big subject and I agree.  However IMO the situation in a Ferguson will be significantly defused if Wilson is charged.  With something.
    If he is not in think it is going to explode.

    I Don't Think It's the Charge... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    ...that is the powder keg, it's the police report.  If that thing reads as mumbled and bumbled as the handling of the situation to date, look out.

    If it's cleaned up and at least probable, Wilson will probably get charged just so they can pretend that he was judged and found not guilty by the community.  But there is zero chance of him going to jail without a video or audio recording of the event.  Even then...  It's a cops word against black witnesses.  In a US courtroom, that is like Jesus against devil.

    I would say a strong majority of people are defending the police already and they haven't even released their version of what happened.  Doesn't matter, they know it was a clean shooting, and that the scary black man instigated the entire thing.  The police report will only be a confirmation of what they already know.


    I wonder... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    if the leaking of the alleged robbery vid and the victim's toxicology report were intended as dog whistles of sorts...just in case any of the typically "pro-police all the time" people were having conscience pangs.  

    I wonder (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:50:00 PM EST
    the incident report (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Palli on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    Well, that has been plenty of time to clean it, edit it carefully and type it nice.

    "without a video or audio recording"  And don't you know, the  dashboard cameras were never installed have been in storage for months!


    You have (1.00 / 5) (#169)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:56:27 PM EST
    Violence and robbery on tape 10 minutes before.

    Drugs in his system.

    A shot fired inside a police car. The story that a police officer tried to pull a 6 foot 4 300 lb man through the police car window is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.  

    No evidence that Darren Wilson was a racist or unhinged or anything but a honest and accredited  police officer.

    There are at least some witnesses claiming Brown began walking/running towards Wilson.

    There is a lynch mob wanting blood.  

    All you are proven is you will take the black persons side against the white person despite all logic or reason. Maybe you have some sort of white guilt thing going or something.  Who knows. I don't.  I take it on a case by case basis.  For example, I'm probably a bigger fan of Obama then just about everybody on this website.  Definitely more than those on the far left.

    In terms of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Darren Wilson just decided to "summarily execute" an 18 year old kid.   You are nowhere close.

    I am quite confident the facts of this case will continue to be worse for your side.  But this is  nothing about the truth anymore, and all about the fight that some people want.


    Perhaps not for me to say (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:58:31 PM EST
    But I think this comment should be deleted

    Yes, I know (1.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    You prefer the posts that claim Darren Wilson "summarily executed" Michael Brown.

    You are nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.


    What posts would those be? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    I'm sure the cop appreciates all your anger on his behalf; after all, he's got a lot of life left to live.

    But at least he's alive.


    How much of a life though (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:43:29 PM EST
    He looks like he is going to be a pariah.

    Apparently you don't, but I do feel a little sorry for him.  And he has at least one young child.


    Why on earth would you assume she doesn't? (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:56:17 PM EST
    With all the stuff you are pullin outta your a$$ it must be roomy in there.

    He's alive. His child isn't facing (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 10:19:10 PM EST
    life without a father.  His parents aren't picking out a burial plot for their son.

    He's alive.

    Police officers are supposed to exercise judgment and make decisions that compensate for the sometimes-bad decisions of average citizens in ways that do not escalate situations.  They're supposed to be trained to make those decisions in the heat of the moment that don't make situations worse.

    Yes, he's human, and humans make mistakes, but the mistakes of police officers can get people killed; that's an enormous responsibility that shouldn't be in the hands of people who can't treat the people they serve with some respect.

    Yes, "the people they serve," a concept that seems to have gotten lost on some people.  We, as private citizens, do not exist to serve the authorities.  The things I have seen and read, and what journalists have reported about how they have been treated in Ferguson for exercising their constitutional rights in a peaceful way, suggests that in Ferguson, the cops think people exist to be bullied, pushed around, harassed and intimidated.

    Michael Brown may not have made the best decisions that day, but in my opinion, Wilson failed, miserably, in how he chose to interact with Brown and Johnson.  That's something he will have to live with - that and the fact that he killed someone who didn't deserve to die for walking in the middle of the street.  Wilson didn't know when he stopped him what had allegedly happened 10 minutes earlier, so the choice he made in how he confronted these young men says a lot about him, as a person and as a police officer - and it's not very good.

    And if he did know what happened just 10 minutes earlier, his actions are even worse.

    Feel sorry for him if you want.  I feel sorry for the people who have to live in Ferguson, in an atmosphere where the police seem to think they own the place.


    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    Violence and robbery on tape 10 minutes before.

    Possible shoplifting, minor confrontation.  A white kid and no one's batting an eye.

    Drugs in his system.

    Marijuana is legal in how many states now?  If this were Washington State, this would be meaningless.  But in Missouri, I guess it's "ooh, evil black kid on drugs, of course."

    A shot fired inside a police car.

    Really?  There's been proof of that?  

    The story that a police officer tried to pull a 6 foot 4 300 lb man through the police car window is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.  

    Maybe if the police officer is Barney Fife, but Darren Wilson is reported to be 6' 6" - so maybe not so preposterous.

    No evidence that Darren Wilson was a racist or unhinged or anything but a honest and accredited  police officer.

    Really?  Have you seen this?

    In a live interview with CNN's Don Lemon today, a woman recounts an alleged interaction she had with Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo. police officer identified today as Michael Brown's shooter.

    Woman: I was maced and I had come up to QuickTrip because they said I could use their sink. So I was trying to clean out my eyes with some water and one of the employees told me to go get some milk, because that would help. So as I was pouring milk in my eyes, the officers had come in and told me to get out.

    Lemon: When was this?

    Woman: This was like a month ago. I came outside and I was trying to pour milk in my eyes and Wilson told me if I poured milk in my eyes, I was going to be arrested. And I was trying to tell him that my eyes were burning because I was maced, but he told me to 'Shut the F up.' So, another man told me to get in my car and turn the air and put my face in front of the vents, so that's what I did.

    Lemon: So were you arrested? What happened?

    Woman: No, I wasn't arrested. When I got in my car and turned the air on and put my face in front of the vent. Wilson made me get out of the car and sit on the concrete and he took all my information and ran my name. And I was still trying to pour the milk in my eyes because I couldn't see, and he's telling me to 'shut the F up' and 'sit the f down' and I was looking at his name tag and I was telling myself that I would never forget who he was and what he did to me. And I prayed on it and I asked God to get revenge on him and I'm sorry this is the way it happened, but what's done in the dark always come to the light, and I saw the news this morning--

    There are at least some witnesses claiming Brown began walking/running towards Wilson.

    And there are some that are not; so this means you're right and anyone who's heard something different is just wrong?

    There is a lynch mob wanting blood.

    Sorry, but most of us here are just trying to stick to the facts and fight off the invasion of the right-wing noise machine.

    The rest of your comment?  Garbage.


    re (1.00 / 4) (#188)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:41:05 PM EST
    "Possible shoplifting, minor confrontation.  A white kid and no one's batting an eye."

    It shows propensity to violence within minutes of the incident.  Downplay it all you want, but it's damaging.  And stop with the white people get away with everything garbage.  It's irrelevant from this case, and only relevant for those that want this fight to take place.

    Right now I consider the marijuana in his system about as damaging as if he was drunk.  He was most likely on SOMETHING is the point.  
    I see again twice within 3-4 sentences you are using the "if he was white" argument in attempt to downplay.

    According to newsweek and every source I've read a shot was fired from inside the car.  Maybe they're wrong though.  This would be less damaging in my opinion to Michael Brown's side.

    The womens account (who was maced a month ago?) is a start.  I would expect more damaging information on Darren Wilson to think he would just "summarily execute" an 18 year old kid..

    I rarely rarely agree with the "right wing noise machine", but if you think there is not a BGI noise machine on this that is even worse, you are sadly mistaken.


    Don't disagree with any of that (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    But I do think that, short term, a charge would help to defuse the situation

    This has bothered me (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:12:45 PM EST
    Why all the night time protesting?

    I mean it's there right to do it and all but if motives were pure wouldn't an 8am to 8pm protest be sufficient?

    It's summer here in the Midwest so the sun doesn't even go down till about 8:30.

    My mother used to say only bad things happen after midnight.

    All this night time protesting is causing some of the problems.   I think the peaceful protestors go home and then the shenanigans begin.

    Not to say the police haven't totally bungled this because they have.


    Working Stiffs? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    Maybe people have to go to work, Then come home, have dinner and then go do their civic duty and protest.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#110)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    But how many people work till 7pm and then don't have to get up the next day to go to work?

    It's not winter.

    The sun is out for 16 hours this time of year.

    Plenty of time for protesting.

    Nobody protesting after 10pm is doing so because of scheduling.

    Just saying by the way.  Doesn't justify riot gear and all the rest but peaceful protests don't typically bleed into the midnight hours.  If they do people usually set up tents.


    Maybe they are protesting (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by sj on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    after 10:00PM due to personal conviction. This is a ridiculous conversation. Who started that train of thought? That daytime protestin' is good enough.

    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:31:29 PM EST
    Heat indices were into triple digits in these parts today.  And the last few days.
    If I was going to protest it would after dark.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by sj on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:13:44 PM EST
    I mean it's there right to do it and all but if motives were pure wouldn't an 8am to 8pm protest be sufficient?
    And hey! They could be going to a "Free Speech" Zone and not hanging out where ever they want! And if they protested for 12 hours in the hottest part of the day that would show they mean business, right?


    I neither know nor care if the crowds gather after dark because of the heat of the day, because they were there already due to daytime protests, because they are unemployed or if it's because they are coming after work. The constitution guarantees the right to peaceably assemble. Period.

    As near as I can tell the problem isn't that the peaceful protesters go home; the problem is that the police start picking a fight.


    So if it's shown that Wilson.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    wasn't injured, what possible reason can the prosecutor NOT charge Wilson? Is a police officer saying he was afraid sufficient to avoid an indictment?

    Do we know what gun is standard for Ferguson PD? Was Wilson 6/6 in shots fired hitting Brown, or were there more bullets fired that missed him?

    iirc, he went to the hospital, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    so it looks like there probably was some kind of injury.

    Although I'm not sure if injury, or even degree of injury, really is the metric that concludes whether he acted w/in the law or not.

    I'm not sure there is a standard sidearm, I don't know for sure but I believe LE often is given reasonable latitude to use the sidearm they prefer, within some limits of course.

    I don't think the info regarding shots fired, etc., has been released.


    How do we know that he went to hospital? (none / 0) (#103)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:29:10 PM EST
    I haven't read that.

    of your questions above.

    Googled the question... (none / 0) (#116)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    Chief Jackson, in the press conference where he said the "robbery" was the reason for the stop also said Wilson went to hospital. So I guess the hospitalization is etched in stone as fact...

    So now you have read it, but (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    apparently don't want to accept it. Coolio.

    It appears (none / 0) (#95)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    that he was injured.

    These are hard facts that are either true or not and will come out in a trial if it ever comes to that.

    I'm not sure what's better at this point.  No trial because the shooting was justified?  Or a trial that the prosecutor feels he has to bring that ends in an acquittal?


    I've learned within the last 12 hours .... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:27:50 PM EST
    that Gateway Pundit is a RW conspiracy site. Why are people linking this travesty of a site here?

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    Because, right wingers comment here too. For them GP must seem like a normal blog.

    Its true or its not (none / 0) (#113)
    by Slado on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    I love how political blogs (as if we aren't on one) are quickly dismissed when we don't like what they say.

    As for the truth it will come out.

    I will say it seems odd that this little factoid hasn't come out but that can be said about a lot of information so who knows.

    I just wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this.


    Maybe..... (none / 0) (#115)
    by magster on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    but there's 4000 and counting comments on that article, about 3/4 of which are blatantly racist (no exaggeration). It's disgusting.

    An excellent column by a police officer... (none / 0) (#153)
    by crimebird on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    about how to behave when stopped by a police officer.

    So much of this is common sense.

    I don't know why the link didn't appear (none / 0) (#155)
    by crimebird on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:25:56 PM EST
    Does it cover what to do (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:29:49 PM EST
    When the cop screams at you to "get the f@ck outta the street" then throws it in reverse and almost runs you over?

    This is what passes for "common (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:51:15 PM EST

    Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don't argue with me, don't call me names, don't tell me that I can't stop you, don't say I'm a racist pig, don't threaten that you'll sue me and take away my badge. Don't scream at me that you pay my salary, and don't even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?


    But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else's life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don't challenge a cop during a stop.


    Charlie Pierce:

    So, if you fk with me and my rights, and I respond by explaining to you that I am going to call a lawyer and sue you for abuse, you have the right to tase me, bro? I can't tell you how glad I am that this guy is training the next generation of Homeland Security goons

    he didn't say anything like that... (2.00 / 2) (#189)
    by crimebird on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:42:36 PM EST
    ...what he said was that people shouldn't get into arguments, let alone physical confrontations, with police officers. I don't get it...to me arguing with a police officer is just like arguing with a parent or a boss. You are NOT going to win and engaging in such an argument is going to virtually guarantee an unpleasant experience. And unlike your parent or your boss, the police officer has no way of knowing that you aren't an armed criminal or some sort of lunatic about to become violent. I'm not saying people shouldn't complain about a police officer's behavior but they should do it afterwards. They can get the badge number, the license plate, and the name and submit a complaint. Getting into a police officer's face, refusing to comply with his instructions, screaming obscenities at him, or angrily advancing on him is a terrible idea.

    that's one version of events... (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by crimebird on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    but in a complex event like this, there is always another side. The police officer may or may not have behaved the way you describe, and before you accept it as "the truth" you ought to at least consider the possibility that Brown's friend may have been dishonest in reporting what happened.

    Are you talking about the article in this (none / 0) (#158)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:31:06 PM EST
    morning's WaPo?  

    yes, I found that article (none / 0) (#194)
    by crimebird on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:45:41 PM EST
    online at the Washington Post's website.

    The author of that article isn't fit to be a (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:48:45 PM EST
    police officer.  

    That author is training Homeland (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 09:55:53 PM EST
    Security people. Just when you think things can't get any worse. . .

    Donald from Hawaii (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:05:04 PM EST
    Why so angry?  There is speculation coming from both sides here. Including you, who speculated the first shot was fired while Brown was fleeing with his back turned but that it missed.

    You gave me a long lecture, but didn't really challenge any of the case I laid out for Wilson, you did question the robbery, which I thought was already conceded from the Brown side.  Just like the shot inside the police car that Anne questioned, that is being reported from reputable sources, perhaps that is still in play too.

    Stop it with the dead people pictures.  Seriously?
    There is racial violence in this country I know.  It could be worse.  It could be better.  I don't think the rioting makes it better.  Maybe some on this site think it does, and maybe they're right.  

    Anne (none / 0) (#207)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 11:28:36 PM EST
    You've speculated with a few posts how the interaction between Wilson and Brown went down.  All of them having Wilson being the aggressor, belligerent, rude and generally responsible for everything that occurred.

    None of that is proven. And you are giving every benefit of the doubt to the person you want to be right.  

    The convenience store tape and the shot fired within the police car are big reasons for me feeling the way I do.   You seem to have your doubts that a shot was fired inside the police car.  I will concede if it turns out there was not a shot fired within the police car, that would change things in a big way.

    Especially since the source was the St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar

    This thread is full (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 12:58:59 AM EST
    we limit comments to 200. I'll start a new one.