Open Thread Discussion: 8/27/2014

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Good morning:

We have pressing errands to run today and will be in and out.

I have three sobering articles for you all to read to begin the discussion.

The first article is from Mother Jones by Mark Follman. The title: Michael Brown’s Mom Laid Flowers Where He Was Shot—and Police Crushed Them.

The second article is from the New York Times written by Campbell Robertson and Joseph Goldstein. The title: In Aftermath of Missouri Protests, Skepticism About the Prospects for Change

The third article is from Firedoglake written by Massacio. The title is: Studies Confirm Huge Wealth Loss of Middle Class.

See you in the thread.


398 Responses to Open Thread Discussion: 8/27/2014

  1. Malisha says:

    And Backatcha, here’s Djelem Djelem:

    • SearchingMind says:

      Oy, Malisha. What a nice performance (reminiscent of Ami Weinhouse; may she rest in peace). Indeed, ‘Frauen sind wunderbar’! Thanks for posting, Malisha.

  2. Malisha says:

    What county do they live in?

    • SearchingMind says:

      Hey, Malisha, how are you today? This is for like you and all the good folks here. It is one of my favorites. I hope you enjoy it.

      We all pray that the Professor and his will be fine – just like our City of gold..

      • Malisha says:

        Oh thanks. I just love Ofra!

      • JJ says:

        Thank you for sharing the beautiful Hebrew music with us. Looked around for more music and found Shema Yisrael sung by Micha’el Ben David.

        My cousin lives in Ashdod (about 40 miles west of Yerushalayim). She had quick access to a safe place whenever sirens blared warning residents of impending Hamas rockets.

  3. Michelleo says:

    Does anyone know if these folks are okay? I understand that they came under attack and had their home ransacked, and were looking to move elsewhere.

  4. ay2z says:

    For Crane, a Bardarbunga video, really cool fly over video.

  5. MKX says:

    It looks like there is a lot of legal room for Wilson to wiggle out of this one.

    If I understand all this text correctly, guilt for Wilson depends on how a jury interprets witnesses seeing Brown turn around and put his hands up.

    His defense will be that Brown feloniously assaulted him under 3(a) and it was immediately necessary under 3(2). And this language from 536.056 will be argued:

    “…justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody…”

    It seems that, if one of the shots fired as Wilson fled had been lethal, then Wilson would be not guilty.

    So the turning around and putting hands up becomes an issue for a prosecution in that, if this is reasonably interpreted as giving up on the part of Brown, then, IMO 33(2) would no longer apply and the lethal shots would be unjustified.

    Seeing that this community is the same or worse in aggregate attitudes about black people as Sanford Florida, I feel Wilson may not even be put on trial by the state.

    If anything, this tragedy should be used to tighten up the legality that police presently have in using lethal force in the USA.

    • ay2z says:

      Or, physical abuse of a cuffed behind-back person (with additional ‘straightjacket’ of the person’s jacket, or not) exiting a paddy-wagon with no place to go but into the cop’s fists.

      It’s becoming judge jury and justice delivery person(s) all rolled into one..

    • SearchingMind says:

      I really admire your analytically prowls, MKX, but those who are looking for a reason to acquit Darren Wilson may not be so reasonable/generous (depending on what Wilson will claim he thought/believed following his own version of what happened).

      My opinion is that the plain language of the Missouri Revised Statute §563.046 (MRS) at the minimum strongly suggests that MRS §563.046 is in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. As I posted several days ago, SCOTUS held in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) that “The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others”. This is The Law Of The Land.

      The most likely remedy in this case will come in the form of the ‘jury instruction’. Jurors will not get the language of the law read to them either during jury selection or during the trial. Instead, the Judge will formulate ‘jury instruction’ in such a way that MRS §563.046 complies with he “fleeing felon rule” as expressed in Tennessee v. Garner.

      I wonder how the Professor would approach the situation.

  6. cmaukonen says:

    From Fredric Leathenam:

    Sunday, September 7, 2014

    Good morning:

    Crane-Station and I were hacked rendering our computers inoperable. Our place was burglarized, our property vandalized and stolen. Our bank account was breached and money stolen.

    Our lives were threatened.

    We left Kentucky in a hurry to avoid a worse fate.

    I have kind of, sort of, gotten my computer to work but still have problems.

    Crane is planning on posting her Over Easy segment on Wednesday.

    I am still unable to access my site and would appreciate it if someone would go there and post a comment advising my readers about the situation.

    Thank you,


  7. SearchingMind says:

    “Chapter 563: Defense of Justification, Missouri Revised Statutes

    Chapter definitions.

    563.011. As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean:

    (1) “Deadly force”, physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury;

    (2) “Dwelling”, any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

    (3) “Forcible felony”, any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense;

    (4) “Premises”, includes any building, inhabitable structure and any real property;

    (5) “Private person”, any person other than a law enforcement officer;

    (6) “Private property”, any real property in this state that is privately owned or leased;

    (7) “Remain after unlawfully entering”, to remain in or upon premises after unlawfully entering as defined in this section;

    (8) “Residence”, a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest;

    (9) “Unlawfully enter”, a person unlawfully enters in or upon premises or private property when he or she enters such premises or private property and is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her purpose, enters in or upon private property or premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license unless he or she defies a lawful order not to enter, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of such premises or by another authorized person. A license to enter in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter in that part of the building that is not open to the public.


    Use of force in defense of persons.

    563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

    (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
    (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
    (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
    (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
    (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
    (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

    2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
    (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or
    (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

    3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

    4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

    5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.


    Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest.

    563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

    2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

    3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
    (1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
    (2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
    (a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
    (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
    (c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

    4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.


    Use of force to prevent escape from confinement.

    563.056. 1. A guard or other law enforcement officer may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2, use physical force when he reasonably believes such to be immediately necessary to prevent escape from confinement or in transit thereto or therefrom.

    2. A guard or other law enforcement officer may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only
    (1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
    (2) When he reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the escapee will endanger human life or cause serious physical injury unless the escape is prevented.

    3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.


    • Malisha says:

      Unless Wilson’s heartfelt description to the grand jury (about how terribly threatened he and the entire community was at the point when the cigar-stealing murderous thug turned around to destroy the world and life as we know it) results in the predictable “no-bill” that the prosecutor is hoping for/arranging.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Yes, Malisha. I am making a safe bet for an indictment. But if I tell you that I am not worried that the Grand Jury might return a ‘no-bill’, I would be lying. Let’s hope that the Feds to see the implementation of Tennessee v. Garner in this case.

  8. JJ says:

    The Michael Brown tragedy resonates with Austraiia’s indigenous people. Violence at the hands of police is not restricted to the United States, a point protestors made at a candelight vigil in Sydney yesterday. Max Chalmers reports.

  9. JJ says:

    Tonight at 7pm ET (4 pm PT), Fault Lines: A city under siege is being featured tonight.
    AlJazeera documents the reaction to Michael Brown’s fatal shooting and the militarized aftermath.

    To find AL JAZEERA AMERICA in your area,
    1. Click on “THE EPISODES” on the right sidebar
    2. Click on “GO” on right sidebar (under VIEW FULL SCHEDULE)

    • JJ says:

      Workers who were witnesses, provide new perspective on Michael Brown shooting.

      • Trisha0620 says:

        One of these guys is the guy who said he spoke to Brown that day and Brown talked to him about God, that interview is on you tube somewhere, I remember what the guy said, and everyone thought it was fake it appears its not, his co – worker just confirms it

        • willisnewton says:

          I’m one who questioned the sense that interview made, mostly because the witness called FOX news, and was “white-sounding” and seemed to make himself the center of Mike Brown’s attention that day, but now it makes more sense. It was also odd the distances the witness claimed the two figures moved in relation to one another, but now I see from the instagram video of the aftermath that their POV was almost “down the line” looking north to the sit elf the killing. My best guess is that they could not see the SUV, and what happened there, but witnessed both figures running towards their position (slightly askew) from around 200- 250 feet away. Distances would be very hard to judge from their perspective.

          Two witnesses so far are confirmed, but the aftermath video they seemingly posted to instagram shows two workers by their truck, one pantomiming the surrender he witnessed in disbelief while another voice remarks about the senseless shooting. So there may be a third worker-witness we’ve not heard from yet.

          Overall the two worker stories corroborate what others saw, in my opinion – a foot chase where the unarmed teen was struck from behind and then threw up his hands when he turned to surrender. At that point he was gunned down. They also heard him cry out, “ok ok ok ok ok” many times as he had his hands in the air.

          They seem to cite some nonsensical distances, as though Brown walked towards Wilson for 25 feet, but if he did that then he PASSED Wilson all together, given the distance they placed Wilson at. I think this odd description has to do with how they no good way to discern actual distances from their vantage point.

          link to what appears to be their instagram video.

          link to my diagram of where they seem to have watched the killing from

          workers witness shooting's end

  10. Bill Taylor says:

    serious question… what point are law abiding citizens obligated to follow the “commands” of police????? a person sitting in their driveway breaking no law becomes subject to their commands when please?…..and in the case where the officer got a commendation how exactly did he even step onto that private property? could he actually see inside the vehicle from inside his car?

    • SearchingMind says:

      Yours is a perfect example of a simple question that has no simple answer, Bill. Here are my thoughts:

      1. The short answer is this: because it is not always possible for the ordinary citizen to immediately know: (a) what is a “command/order” and what is not and (b) when a “command/order” is lawful and when it is not (except when you are told to kill/shoot someone or commit other crimes), the law abiding citizen should (c) always comply with all “requests” (regardless of the form in which it was vocalized) of a police officer and (d) complain later (through the proper official procedures), if necessary.

      2. You have a right to resist an unlawful arrest, refuse to comply with an unlawful command/order, etc. BUT you do so at your own risk. If the arrest/command turns out to be lawful, you will be in far more deeper trouble than you could have imagined. If the arrest/command/order turns out to be unlawful, the cost of resisting it (e.g. serious bodily/emotional injury or death) may outweigh any monetary compensation you might get.

      3. The overwhelming majority of police officers are good people just like you and me. They treat people properly and would even go out of their way to help them. Be friendly, polite and respectful to cops during all encounters – even when you sense aggression/violence from them or they are using actual violence against you. That does not mean that you are “weak” or “timid”, not at all. It means you are wise and strong enough to suppress your natural emotions/instincts in order to gain the upper-hand from an extremely disadvantageous position.

    • MKX says:

      This is a quote from the article:

      “According to the full police report, Brooks was interviewed by a separate detective the day after his arrest and admitted to having approximately six or seven ounces of marijuana. “He sells marijuana for $5 to $10 a bag to help support his family,” the detective wrote Brooks told him…”

      More of the War on Drugs (Blacks) BS.

      I am sure one of the Tree Humpers will be here to point out that he was a “dealer” and expect us to believe that no “dealing” of weed goes on in the perfect white suburbs. Or that cops don’t smoke weed, too.

      This tune, although over 40 years old, says it all.

  11. Nef05 says:

    Last I heard Dunn’s second trial was scheduled for Sept. 22, in about three weeks. Does anyone know if that’s still accurate or if it’s been pushed back again?

  12. MKX says:

    It is old hat for the bully-coward to hide behind the colors of law enforcement and call his victim a thug. In some ways, I see the current crop of conservatives as wee little bantam roosters who like to talk tough, beat when they have overwhelming force; and run like hell away when they have to fight their victim like a man.

    Not something to be proud of, IMO.

    That mentality was mocked in this Irish Rebel tune:

  13. Disappointed says:

    Malisha I too decided to comment because it is inappropriate to call a deceased individual a thug. Funny how the shooter is never the thug.

  14. Malisha says:

    JHA, I am guessing by design.

  15. Anyone had any contact from Professor?
    AOWL 4 more than 10 days.

  16. Malisha says:

    Royofan’s analysis:

    Why are you reality challenged people so misinformed?

    How about checking the incident report?

    Do you see the words “ROBBERY”” and “2ND-STRONGARM-CONVIENCE STO”

    along with the date of 08/09/2014?

    Well before the video was released…derrr.

    I expect most of you methuselahs are now feeling that sinking feeling in your guts most of you felt about 3/4’s of the way through the Zimmerman trial.

    LOL, you guys backed another thug and are going to look like fools again.

    Here is the link for you guys to digest..

    maybe limpapa can put the info into a video

    [link to video]

    oh by the way, the store owner obviously didn’t want his place looted and burned down, hence his denial…duh.

    In my own analysis, I can do a “simultaneous translation” of Royofan’s raciopompous declarations:

    Why don’t you people just agree to see things exactly the way I want them to be seen? How about being totally guided by the writings of the very people who want to exonerate a man who gunned down an unarmed teen in the street — writings they liberally edited after the fact so that their back-up story could be backed up?

    How about checking the incident report and simply taking everything said therein [calling a reported incident a “crime” before there was an arrest or a charge] to be proof positive of an unstated and completely unsupportable unrelated conclusion [that an armed and angry police officer shot a thug whose death should not be investigated because we are entitled to assume he was a criminal]?

    Do you see the words “ROBBERY”” and “2ND-STRONGARM-CONVIENCE STO” Don’t you understand that under American law that means that the person alleged to have “2nd strongarmed” said “convenience sto” must be shot six times until dead?

    along with the date of 08/09/2014? [wow! really?]

    Well before the video was released…derrr. [we know that nobody can write down a date after the sun has set on that day, don’t we?]

    I expect most of you methuselahs are now feeling that sinking feeling in your guts most of you felt about 3/4’s of the way through the Zimmerman trial. I mean, most of you by now ought to realize that disposing of a murder of an unarmed assumed cigar-stealer is even easier to get away with than the murder of an unarmed assumed MMA-interested candy-bearing hoodie-wearing boy.

    LOL, you guys backed another thug and are going to look like fools again. See, cops and wannabe cops are allowed to kill people they identify as “thugs” or even people I identify as “thugs.” It’s easy.

    oh by the way, the store owner obviously didn’t want his place looted and burned down, hence his denial…duh. I mean really, duh. I ASSUMED that the store-owner lied because the store-owner did not back up my fantasy. If the store-owner did not back up my fantasy, that means that not only did he lie but that the reason for his lie is obvious: Since Blacks are criminals and thugs, his reason for lying was that he didn’t want to invite retribution from thugs and criminals.

    It’s easy.

    But … uh … duh … does that explain why Wilson paced back and forth around the body of a slain “thug” without fear that his cohort “thugs” would shoot him dead from the tops of the buildings they all snipe from? Why was that officer so cool and confident marching around in that thug-ville without his gun drawn, right after having brought down a notorious criminal in the midst of his gang?


    • Sophia33 says:


      Please tell me that you aren’t wasting time arguing with knuckleheads? As someone told me last week.

      Not worth it! Walk away!

      • Malisha says:

        I wondered what the posts were about and I searched “Royofan” and I came upon that foolish quote and I chose to write a comment. I’m not arguing with “Royofan” but I am doing some writing that I choose to do. If “Royofan” wants to come up with some kind of rebuttal that’s its business.

        Sometimes I do what some consider “wasting” my time but given my situation, that’s OK.

  17. Michelleo says:

    Lord Help Us

    Judge Sentenced for Selling Kids into For-Profit Prison

  18. Disappointed says:

    Royofan you are rude. Actually most of us think Zimmerman got away with murder. It’s apparent since his release he’s had numerous run ins with the law. So who’s the thug??? As far as store owner calling police, are you saying his Attorney lied so his store would not be burned? Is that a fact or just another lie spread by racist like you?

    • JJ says:

      After responding to treehouse, finally figured out it would be better to ignore. If we ignore treehouse as if treehouse’s postings are nothing to read or consider, Treehouse will be wasting only Treehouse’s time and energy – not ours.

  19. Trisha0620 says:

    The guy pushing hard to make Mike Brown out to be a criminal is being investigated & has subpoena in Mississippi

    • SearchingMind says:

      The subpoena disclosed by Mr. Johnson also instructed him as follows:

      “You are not to distribute the existence of this subpoena. Any such disclosure could impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law”

      It seems Mr. Johnson has just set himself up for a POSSIBLE obstruction of justice charge.

      (Thanks again for posting. You do excellent job).

    • Two sides to a story says:

      That guy is past due for a licking.

  20. SearchingMind says:

    Darren Wilson’s begsite “GoFuckMe” shot down (I am not sure I got the name correct). But why, exactly?

    • girlp says:

      Lawyer told him to? It looks bad when most of your support comes from supremacist.

    • JJ says:

      Mike Brown
      I notice that the site for Mike Brown is still operational, and it appears Benjamin Crump and information has been added to lend additional credibility – how the money will be spent, for example.

      Officer Wilson begsites:
      Both begsites got shut down. Apparently the person who set the begsite up may have had plans to take advantage of people who wanted to support Officer Wilson. It part, the article says:
      “In a message to visitors two weeks ago, the anonymous Wilson fundraiser page wrote that it was working with Shield of Hope to become a verified recipient. That has not happened. The fundraiser also gave out a pseudonymous Gmail account to users seeking more information, but has not responded to a request to that account for comment.

      In its statement to The Times, GoFundMe’s spokeswoman said the anonymously run donation page had also been removed from its search results, adding that “this campaign no longer meets GoFundMe’s stated requirement of having a valid Facebook account connected.”

      • Trisha0620 says:

        Jeff Rooda is s the head of the police union, he’s behind the Darren Wilson fund, what he thinks trickles down.

          • SearchingMind says:

            Oh dear …. (!). I am absolutely mesmerized and speechless. Lots of barbaric thugs in the United States masquerading as policemen and ‘Judges in a court of law’! The teenager in the video is lucky they did not shoot him in the head and claim he committed suicide. Sometime one can’t help wondering what substantially differentiates us from the ilk of ISIL/ISIS, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. when it comes to at least the treatment of minorities, those in custody, prisoners, etc. Thanks anyways for posting, Trish. This is depressing.

          • Michelleo says:

            This man’s last words “That video should not be shown because it is used as a “gotcha head hunter tool” used against police officers” is the reason I no longer walk such shows as 60 Minutes. Back in the day, 60 Minutes actually used to show sweating corporate head honchos getting busted in their own lies. The lead reporter was Dan Rather, and he never ceased to embarrassingly catch these corporate crooks in lies. Now, that Corporate America is in control; 60 Minutes and other formats like it, don’t go after corporate giants the way they used to.

          • Malisha says:

            The underlying assumption is that nothing is valid if it is used against police officers. Even a video of actual events should not be used if it is “against” police officers.

            That is the only requirement needed to establish fascism.

    • Trisha0620 says:

      Searching when it was shut down it came out who was behind it,
      Mr Jeff Rooda , who was fired for being a dirty cop but Jay Nixon hired him back as the Missouri Safety Commission. the police dept were involved in that gofundme account, the when people started asking questions about the money and the union it all came out

    • Malisha says:

      shut down because of negative publicity and petitions.

  21. JJ says:

    #Ferguson is very busy today. There is an invite for a tweet chat at 2PM ET.
    Another tweet:
    Michael Brown ‏@BroderickGreer 5h
    Officer suspended for a facebook status that said Darren Wilson did “society a favor” … #Ferguson

  22. ay2z says:

    (OT upcoming event reminder next Thursday morning. The South Africa trial that has opened court procedures to the public via cameras in the courtroom for the first time, is due to have Judge Masipa’s decision read. Jury system, where in a country where apartheid was the law for too many years, where there are some 11 official languages spoken, bias was a problem. Juries were done away with and replaced with court in which a judge alone, with the support of two assessors, decides an accuseds guilt or innocence.

    The defendant has two defenses and is asking the court, it seems, to pick one. If one doesn’t work, then please pick the other. The state argues that the two defences are impossible to recoconcile, and Nel has pretty much, with Pistorius’s own testimony (defendants insistence on cross, that it was not two double taps, but insistened he remembered it was ‘rapid fire’ not two D-T’s), blown the automatism defense clean away. Judge Masipa needs to believe Pistorius in order to be acquitted.

    Pistorius is charged with murder, but in South Africa, there are four variations of murder, which Judge Masipa must consider and should she fail to convict the accused of murder, then she can consider culpable homicide.

    The four variations include:
    1. Premeditated Murder (nothing in SA laws that define this variation, but if the judge finds that the accused made a plan and carried out that plan, she may find him guilty of murder and sentence Pistorius to life in prison.

    (Nels has argued each of these variations, including premeditation to kill Reeva because he knew she was behind the door, had got his gun and had time to consider his choices as he walked the distance down the passage way to the bathroom. The defense hopes that Pistorius will not be disbelieved by the court.

    2. Murder dolus directus
    –person acts in certain manner, and knows if he acts in that manner that a person will be killed and acts in that manner. Important– there is no difference in persona, the decision killed a person, doesn’t matter who was behind that bathroom door.

    3. Murder dolus eventualis
    — where a person acts in a certain manner, knows that there is a possibility that someone will be killed through his actions, he reconciles himself with that fact and he still acts accordingly.

    Nel also says to the judge, even if you find him not guilty on premeditated murder or murder dolus directus, he must at least be found guilty of dolus eventualis because one knows if you take your firearm and you discharge four bullets (and Nel pointed out, the powerful nature of his firearm and the type of bullets whether Ranger or Black Talon, same thing) through a bathroom door and it is your perception that there is someone behind that door, there is a very real possibility that whoever is behind that door will be killed, you reconcile yourself with that fact and still act accordingly.

    4. Murder dolus indirectus
    — gross negligence

    (Nel argued that even if Judge Masipa acquits Pistorius on the first three variances of murder, then Nel argues that she must convict him on culpable homicide because his actions were SO negligent which is the negligent killing of another person, even if he thought there was an intruder, his actions led to the person being killed and that Pistorius was grossly negligent in doing that.)

    A primer for next week, hope this is basically correct, the source is from an interview with Ulrich Roux (no relation to Barry Roux, defense attorney) posted on Christopher Greenland’s youtube page.

    Roux says the importance of the premeditation variation vs the dolus directus, is the sentencing differences. A life sentence carries a term of 25 years before one can apply for parole. Lack of premeditation but conviction of murder, applies a ‘minimum’ sentence of 25 years, which allows for parole to be granted after 12 years.

    Hope this is correct, corrections welcome.

    Primer for next week. )

    • Malisha says:

      I really wonder why 3 racist black men were supposed to have shot him. Why not 4? Don’t most cars that accommodate 3 racists usually have room for a 4th?

  23. JJ says:

    Latest on #Ferguson on Twitter
    Global Grind ‏@GlobalGrind 23m
    DETAILS: Justice Department to begin investigation into #Ferguson police tactics #JusticeForMikeBrown

    • Annie Cabani says:

      Hallelujah! Eric Holder grew a pair – and a nice big pair at that!
      I hope they go full-tilt-boogey on this! I was so afraid they were going to “wait” for the locals to do their thing (or their no-thing).

      OK … I could potentially become a believer again in the feds as protectors of our civil rights!

      • SearchingMind says:

        Annie, if you – as you do – think that the feds are no protectors of Civil Rights, then you need at the minimum to (a) make that case (with words and sentences and in a coherent manner) and (b) present – if you can – (original) idea(s) as to how to STRUCTURALLY remedy the situation. Complaining, moaning and cheering sarcastically each time the feds INCIDENTALLY do something positive following a tragedy just won’t get you anywhere. The feds couldn’t care less whether or not YOU believe in them. In fact, the feds don’t even know that you ‘are’. So make them know that you ‘are’; that you have something concrete to offer (instead of complaining and moaning) and that the United States must listen. Can you do that?

        There are several reason why the Federal Government is not doing what may be reasonably expected of it re the protection of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. All of those reasons are systemic and of legal nature. However, none, and I mean ‘none’ of said reasons is not “growing a nice big pair” as you claim. ( And it seems you like that phrase – “growing a (nice big) pair” – a lot. Eeew!).

        • Annie Cabani says:

          There you go with all your assumptions, again, Searching! And, BTW, your little pretext of offering “advice” did nothing to mask your obvious, true intent to belittle, insult, and offend.

          Does your arrogance and pomposity know no bounds?
          Are you such a complete sham that you now feel compelled to add bullying to your repertoire?

          I pity you.

    • willisnewton says:

      read the DoJ press release. The DoJ is investigating Ferguson PD “policies and practices” and NOT the wider St Louis Co PD whose practices and policies shaped the 53 officers who work in Ferguson. While I applaud the action, I wish it were a wider probe. Does anyone really think fixing what 53 cops in ferguson do as SOP is going to make the change we need to see?

  24. Michelleo says:

    City settles with Brooklyn men arrested by NYPD cops who confused Jolly Rancher candies for crystal meth

    EXCLUSIVE: With their $33,000 payday, plaintiffs Love Olatunjiojo, Omar Ferriera and Jimmy Santos no longer have a sour taste in their mouths over the trippy busts last year in Coney Island.

  25. Trisha0620 says:

    There was no FOLA for the Store Video

    • Malisha says:

      Let me understand this: The store video was released by the police when they released Darren Wilson’s name, right? But there was, either before or thereafter, no FOIA or Sunshine request for it?

      I don’t get it.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        the chief released it trying to smear the victim pure and simple… the time it was released they knew there was NO robbery, they had already talked to the store owner and he said no robbery happened.

        • royofan says:

          Why are you reality challenged people so misinformed? How about checking the incident report? Do you see the words “ROBBERY”” and “2ND-STRONGARM-CONVIENCE STO” along with the date of 08/09/2014? Well before the video was released…derrr. I expect most of you methuselahs are now feeling that sinking feeling in your guts most of you felt about 3/4’s of the way through the Zimmerman trial. LOL, you guys backed another thug and are going to look like fools again. Here is the link for you guys to digest..maybe limpapa can put the info into a video………oh by the way, the store owner obviously didn’t want his place looted and burned down, hence his denial…duh.

          • JJ says:

            I looked at the incident report.
            Case Status: Exceptionally cleared.

            Someone reported a robbery in progress. Anyone can make a report – There are at least three possibilities: either intentionally false (“swatting”), true, or misinterpretation of the situation.

          • Motor City Lady says:

            Do you understand what “conditionally cleared” means? The dispatcher sent out a call on a “stealing in progress.” It was only *after* Michael Brown was killed, and the surveillance video viewed by police, that the incident was described as a “strong arm robbery” (complete with criminal code number). Are you so ignorant as to think when cops are dispatched, the person at the radio has taken time to look through the criminal code first?

            “Conditionally cleared” means that something happened *after* the call out that allowed the police to, basically, “fill in the blanks” in the incident report and “clear” it. In this case, they didn’t enter it as “stealing in progress” (“stealing” is a misdemeanor.) They entered it as “strong arm robbery” (which is a felony.)

            The original call was about a misdemeanor shoplifting. That’s all Darren Wilson could possibly have known at the time he shot Michael Brown.

      • Malisha could you please ask nimbril royofan why allegedly stealing Swisher Sweet is a bigger crime than Wilson’s mother stealing money from family and friends?

        A fair question.

      • “Online court records show that Wilson’s mother — Tonya Durso, also known as Tonya Harris — pleaded guilty in 2001 to a dozen felony stealing and forgery counts in Missouri’s St. Charles County just west of St. Louis and was sentenced to five years on probation, with the judge suspending a five-year prison sentence”

        A fair question?

      • Nef05 says:

        No, there was no FOIA or Sunshine request for the video. The press didn’t know it existed to request.

    • Motor City Lady says:

      I’d like to hear the 911 call on the “stealing in progress” and I’d especially like to hear the calls from the dispatcher afterward.

      They released the Kajieme Powell 911 and dispatch calls pronto. Why haven’t they released the same for the Michael Brown case? Several of these FOI requests specifically ask for them.

  26. Trisha0620 says:

    above in the video I said Id post the video of the guy talking in the background, well here he is ,

    • Susan says:

      These folks need to chill and stop doing so much talking! It might make for good You Tube videos, but they are doing the case in! This guy claims Mike was on his knees begging and the officer walked up to him, looked in his eyes, and shot him some more. No one else has made that claim. Even DJ didnt say that. The truth is coming and it’s not from this guys mouth.

      • Trisha0620 says:

        Susan this video has been out since day one, the Feds and DOJ have already talked to him, in Fact I believe this is the other guy with DJ and MB in the store, what also hasnt come out yet but will is Wilson ran over Browns feet backing up, and yes someone else has said this,

        • Susan says:

          I’m aware the video has been out for awhile. I’ve viewed it several times and IMO, considering his short reenactment he gave, its not creditable. I’m not saying he didnt witness the shooting, but he said a lot of detail that no one else has said. Not even DJ. I’m not sure how you know the feds and DOJ have already talked with him, but good if they have. I ‘ve also heard about Mikes foot being run over. If is true, then the autopsy would confirm that. I said a week or so ago that I wished these witnesses would stop giving so many interviews. The Wilson camp is silent. Nothing! I don’t know how you or others take it, but I see it as a smart. These videos with witnesses talking in interview after interview is going to be used against them. That is what my concern is.

          • Sophia33 says:

            I agree that they should chill on giving interviews and doing interviews. It could be used against them. But if they hadn’t spoken out I truly believe this would have been swept under the rug.

    • Sophia33 says:

      I don’t think it is credible because MB didn’t have a box of cigars.

  27. Trisha0620 says:

    Posted in: News Posted: September 3, 2014
    Juvenile Court: Mike Brown’s Record Has No Felony Convictions Or Charges


  28. Trisha0620 says:

    Everyone is wanting to know what the pause was in the shooting, well here is a witness that will tell you, she said Wilson stood over Brown and shot him, which means Brown was on the ground when the final 4 shots hit him

  29. Trisha0620 says:

    Michael Brown’s mother yells at police.

  30. Two sides to a story says:

    Professor and Crane – hope y’all are fine and just getting settled. XOXO

  31. Trisha0620 says:

    same with this video , but in this video you can hear someone else talking and Ill post that one,

  32. Trisha0620 says:

    Here the witness says he held on to Michael and was firing out the car

  33. Trisha0620 says:

    is there anyone on here that can delete the video’s I posted with AC360 on them, that is not what I wanted you to see, Ithey are part of a group of them and I posted the group link and not the single link

    • SearchingMind says:

      One barbarian down, Darren Wilson next to go. The law is the ultimate weapon – even when it misfires or jams..

    • Two sides to a story says:

      That seems fair and a good warning to armed and “fearful” self-defense yahoos. Compassion is revolution!

  34. Michelleo says:

    It was the 3rd of September…..that day I’ll always remember…..

  35. Michelleo says:

    Those are SOME errands, Fred and Crane be running. Perhaps they went to visit that Scandinavian town with the erupting volcano?

  36. Malisha says:

    OH LOOKIE: He was “walking around with an expired driver’s permit.”

    WOW. Doesn’t that prove he was a thug? Uh…wait a minute. Could be THAT was why he was “walking” and not “driving around”?

    So do African Americans now need a current driver’s permit to WALK while Black? Or face death by one-man firing squad? Do tell. Do write down all these laws so we can be sure to obey them.

    • MKX says:

      White cops with no clue about the black neighborhoods they are supposed to protect and serve often arrest or detain the wrong black person for a murder. And then, when they realize an error, sometimes, they let the guy go.

      A classic example is the white man in Boston who shot his wife and said “a black” did it. The Boston PD arrested a black suspect and were going to charge him until the brother of the white man came forth with the truth.

      IOW, an “arrest”, carries little weight with me.

      And note I said “sometimes”. IMO, police don’t give two shits whether or not “a black” they arrest is the right guy.

      These are my opinions based on what I saw with my own eyes.

      But, Faux News is an expert source of information about “the ‘hood”.

  37. acemayo says:

    Why is it white person kills a black the black must be an saint

    • Malisha says:


    • girlp says:

      You are right acemayo that perception exsit, however a prostitute can be raped, a gang member can be murdered by law anyone can be a victim although sometimes law enforcement could care less. I don’t believe there will be any record of MB attempting to or committing murder

    • SearchingMind says:

      Hihi, “why is it white person kills a black” hihi “the black must be an saint” hihi, hihi, hihi (: 🙂 Imbecile!

  38. Malisha says:

    Acemayo, that means a journalist is claiming that Michael Brown committed 2nd degree murder as a juvenile and he has that on authority from “officials.” Really? That’ interesting. He then goes on to say that a juvenile’s records can be released by law after the person is dead — and his evidence of that is not any particular law or statute or even US Supreme Court case, but simply the fact that in a wrongful death suit, some person’s juvenile records were revealed at some point in the past. The tweeter goes on to draw conclusions that are just as supportable as his rumor about MB’s juvenile records.

    He’s just an irresponsible journalist grabbing some headlines.

    The idea is if they say “Mike Brown’s a murderer” often enough, Darren Wilson can walk away from this without further ado.

    • Malisha says:

      By the time the rumors reached some of their intermediaries, the “committed 2nd degree murder” had become “was involved in a second degree murder.” So — uh — does that mean that there was a second-degree murder in his neighborhood (could have been by a cop or by anyone else) and he was brought in as a material witness. It could mean anything or, more likely, it could mean nothing. But it gives the indignant racists a chance to craft their chest-thumping hysterical comments.

      • girlp says:

        There is a picture going around the internet (just like in Trayvon’s murder) that supremeicist are saying is Mike Brown, smoking weed and drinking alcohol actually it is not Mike Brown it is a suspect in a 2cd degree murder. IMO this is what they are really going on.

        • sparger says:

          If this were true. We would already know it. The Ferguson police are nothing if not incompetent ass holes They would have managed to release the information on the same day they released Wilson’s name and the convenience store tape.

      • MKX says:

        This is all an attempt to get headlines that will taint a jury, if this ever does go to trial.

  39. acemayo says:

    would be in the news

    • Motor City Lady says:

      Well, immediately I think to myself, “Michael Brown graduated from a public high school just weeks before he was killed. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone from that high school say he was ‘gone’ for any length of time during his educational years. So, if he was allegedly ‘involved’ in a 2nd-degree murder case, why wasn’t he incarcerated until he was an adult? How could he have gone to high school?”

      My logical conclusion: he was either never arrested or charged or tried or convicted of 2nd degree murder. So this probably amounts to bullshit.

      It helps to remember that even if someone is arrested, that does not make them GUILTY.

    • Trisha0620 says:

      if that were true Im sure the cops would have put them out there like they did the video. the hack that is suing will be denied once again

  40. Trisha0620 says:

    MIchael Brown Shooting (Non-Mainstream Footage) Video Compilation

    • SearchingMind says:

      Trish, thanks for uploading the clips. They did answer most (not all) of questions I had as to what transpired during the initial stage of the encounter.

      I am inclined to think that Dorian Johnson’s attorney is a joke who stands next to him just for the publicity and the money. Dorian Johnson is not only credible and truthful (for numerous reasons), but also overzealous in trying to tell us the truth and make us understand. That’s not good news. You see, Trish, Dorian was not just saying what he (a) saw and (b) heard, but also (c) what Darren Wilson thought, (d) What Darren Wilson’s motives were and (e) What MB may or may not have thought. Dorian don’t know- and couldn’t have known the answers to ‘c’, ‘d’ and ‘e’ and yet he testifies affirmatively to them. That’s bad and they will use it to try to confuse/wrong-foot him on the stand and hammer away his credibility. I think, though, that they won’t succeed, because the motives Dorian ascribed to DW are actually favorable to DW. In any case, that jacka$$ attorney should have prepared him very well before the interviews and sternly instruct him to limit himself to what he himself saw and heard, nothing more and nothing less.

      • Trisha0620 says:

        Searching Im glad that this answered most of your questions but they are the wrong video’s , these all came grouped together by someone named Frog leggs on youtube and I screwed up and posted the group video’s instead of the single ones, what Dorian had to say I didn’t want you to hear it was the others

        • royofan says:

          Stealing Treehouse members videos? What’s the matter, isn’t limpapa on this case making videos with the same tenacity and probably the same results as the Zimmerman case?

          • SearchingMind says:

            Hey Royofan-sweety, take this to the doghouse ehh “treehouse” where you come from and shear it around: It’s a nice gift courtesy of Trisha. Enjoy it and don’t come back again, you hear?

            Anyways, Trish, the lady witnesses are excellent: they are calm, collected, confident, very consistent en commanding in their testimonies. They will make excellent witness. (and psssst! they are beautiful too). The story of all the five witnesses match superbly re all relevant legal facts.This is rare. If Darren Wilson is not indicted and convicted for murder, it will not be because there is not enough evidence, but because of some of “Wündewaffen-evidence” we are not (yet) privy to or a willful decision by the prosecutor and/or jurors to get it wrong. Unlike the “Fogen I case” where there were no eyewitnesses, we have here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 witnesses who bear consistent testimonies.

  41. Trisha0620 says:

    this witness said he Wilson was firing at Brown out the window

  42. Trisha0620 says:

    The Police Telling Michael’s mother to settle down

  43. Trisha0620 says:

    here the guy is saying he held that boy firing out of the car

  44. Trisha0620 says:

    ok in this one the witness can be heard saying in the background, that Wilson stood over Brown and Shot him

  45. Trisha0620 says:

    More video is coming out now

  46. ay2z says:

    OT, Bardabunga video from euronews.

    Live cams are black with white specks right now as it’s pitch black, no red showing. Don’t know what time dawn is in Greenland, but darknness = shouldn’t last too long that far north.

  47. Trisha0620 says:

    Fundraising Web pages for Ferguson cop still closed; it’s unclear why
    The page “Support Officer Wilson,” which raised $197,620, is run by a St. Louis police charity called “Shield of Hope,” which has been certified by GoFundMe as a valid donation recipient.
    The three officers listed on Shield of Hope’s state nonprofit records are Joseph Eagan, Timothy Zoll and Jeffrey Roorda. Zoll is a public information officer for the Ferguson Police Department, Eagan is a city council member for nearby Florissant, and Roorda is a Democratic member of the Missouri House of Representatives who is running for state Senate. He is also a former police officer.

    Roorda sponsored a bill in January that would keep police officers’ names secret if they were involved in a shooting unless they were criminally charged. That bill went nowhere.
    Eagan, the president of Shield of Hope, told The Times in an email Monday that he had been traveling and that all public responses would be given by Roorda, the group’s vice president. Neither Roorda nor Zoll has responded to Times requests for comment.
    Roorda was fired from the police force of Arnold, a St. Louis exurb, in 2001. His superiors accused him of filing a false statement against a suspect in 1997 and against his own police chief when the chief declined to give Roorda paid paternity leave, according to Missouri court records.
    Roorda responded at the time that he’d been unjustly fired, but he lost his appeals. He later became police chief of Kimmswick, another St. Louis exurb, and a business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers Assn. He now sits on the Missouri House’s public safety committee.

    The Times also has been unable to reach the anonymous founder of the “Support Officer Darren Wilson” page, a user called “Stand Up,” who has raised $235,750 and who has not been officially certified as a verified recipient on the donation page. GoFundMe’s spokeswoman vouched for the anonymous donor in a statement to The Times, however.

    In contrast with the other Wilson page and the donation page for Brown, little information has been given to donors about who is running the anonymous fundraising effort.
    In a message to visitors two weeks ago, the anonymous Wilson fundraiser page wrote that it was working with Shield of Hope to become a verified recipient. That has not happened. The fundraiser also gave out a pseudonymous Gmail account to users seeking more information, but has not responded to a request to that account for comment.

    In its statement to The Times, GoFundMe’s spokeswoman said the anonymously run donation page had also been removed from its search results, adding that “this campaign no longer meets GoFundMe’s stated requirement of having a valid Facebook account connected.”

    GoFundMe’s security policies encourage users to “only contribute payments to GoFundMe users they personally know and trust. … Unfortunately there is no way to 100% guarantee that a user’s GoFundMe donation page contains accurate or truthful information.”

    But spokeswoman Little said GoFundMe “has been in contact with the campaign organizer and has no reason to question their authenticity. Finally, GoFundMe does possess the ability to place a hold on all donations raised by any campaign that warrants further investigation.”

    Nevertheless, she said, GoFundMe did not place the hold.

    A popular Facebook page that has been organizing pro-Wilson efforts, called “Support Officer Wilson,” told followers this weekend that lawyers were working on a “solution” as to why the GoFundMe fundraisers had been shut down, but gave no more information. (The Facebook page is also run anonymously, and those remarks could not be independently verified.)

    After The Times published a version of this story on Sunday, users who posted financial questions about the fundraisers said their comments were being deleted from the Facebook page. In fact, the comments objecting to the deletions were also deleted.

    At one point over the weekend, the Facebook page also urged users to start a petition against the GoFundMe fundraiser for Michael Brown’s family.

    ROORDA v. THE CITY OF ARNOLD as heard in MO Court of Appeals

    Missouri Jeff Roorda is trying to introduce a Bill to protect the police,

  48. JJ says:

    Found on Twitter:
    Cop Fired For #Ferguson Facebook Posts, Like ‘Where Is A Muslim With A Backpack When You Need Them?’

  49. Motor City Lady says:

    Apparently police officers *can* fire just once, wound the suspect, then stop shooting and subdue him, even though he’s still alive and even though he refused to comply with their commands to put down his weapon.

  50. Michelleo says:


    • Motor City Lady says:

      Legal age for purchasing tobacco in Missouri is 18. Michael Brown was legal. And even if he wasn’t, Darien Johnson was, so he could have made the purchase. I don’t think that’s why the store owner didn’t call police. As for your other point, I can’t see what the clerk has in his hand. I wouldn’t say it’s money that he’s trying to return.

      What we do know is that this was sent out by the police dispatcher as a “stealing in progress” called in by a customer in the store. It was only after Michael Brown was killed that the police upped the severity of the alleged offense from misdemeanor petty larceny to felonious robbery.

      Because, hey, killing a robber is okay. Look how well that’s played! It turned Michael Brown into a vicious, criminal thug, instead of what he was (as far as I can tell) — a fairly normal teenaged male.

    • Annie Cabani says:

      Hmmm. So very fuzzy, but I see your point. It really doesn’t look like a store clerk who’s trying to stop someone from leaving with stolen goods.

      Another possibility that occurred to me while watching your video is that maybe the store clerk didn’t like the “look” of the money – like maybe it was torn or defaced or he thought it might be counterfeit.

      • Motor City Lady says:

        I’ve read or heard that the clerk had the store key in his hand, and was trying to close and lock the door before Michael Brown could leave. That seems just as plausible as his trying to return change to Mike.

        It’s really not possible to “see-see” what’s in his hand. Anything is just a guess, probably based on one’s own beliefs about what happened that day.

        I did note, though, that whatever he had in his hand, he didn’t appear to still be holding it at the end of the encounter with Mike Brown. Both his hands look empty as he turns away from the camera with his arms down at his side.

        I didn’t see anything drop from his hand, or flutter down, as paper money would. So unless the clerk himself testifies (which I hope he’ll have the opportunity to do, in open court, during a murder trial) I won’t try to “guess” what was really going on there. It’s not productive, IMO.

      • Motor City Lady says:

        Malisha, I agree. I don’t think either scenario is more likely than the other. What store clerk would insist on pressing a clearly uninterested customer to accept return of overpayment?

        In my own experience, if a clerk tries to give me back some money I’ve overpaid, I take it gladly with a “thanks.” The very few times the amount has been so negligible and/or I’m in a very big hurry that it doesn’t matter and I’ve declined it, the clerk just shrugged, “Okay.” No one has ever followed me to the door trying to get me to take the change.

        And, as I said, speculation about specific facts that are not and can’t be known at this point is counterproductive. At least for me, personally, it is. I operate best trying to remain disinterested and impartial. Not to say I don’t have my own opinions, but I make every effort *not* to force facts into shapes that fit my beliefs.

        • Bill Taylor says:

          it is a known fact that the store owner did not file any charges and says he was not robbed that day.

          • Motor City Lady says:

            Bill Taylor, I know it’s a fact that he didn’t file charges or even make the call to the police for the “stealing in progress.” I’ve only “heard” that he says he was not robbed, but I have not read or seen that statement from him or his attorney for myself.

            I did read his attorney’s statement, very early on, that the store owner did not believe the person on the store’s surveillance video was the person (later identified as Michael Brown) who was shot dead.

            Could that statement have been misconstrued as his saying he was not robbed by Michael Brown? Because, honestly, I don’t think even Darien Johnson has said Michael paid for the cigars.

          • Bill Taylor says:

            if he was robbed by someone else meaning he did not think it was brown that robbed him then would he NOT file a report? would he report the robbery? reality is NOT filing charges means officially he is saying he was NOT robbed.

          • Malisha says:

            Some basic questions that I have for some reason never seen answered:

            1. Was Wilson alone in the squad car?
            2. In what seat in the car was Wilson seated when he allegedly grabbed MB by the neck?
            3. How do you “pull” someone into a squad car by their neck?
            4. Where were the cigars after MB was killed on the street?
            5. How many cigars were found on MB?
            6. When Wilson paraded back and forth in front of the dead body on the street, was he not afraid he would be mobbed by all the angry, strong, scary, criminal Black residents?

          • SearchingMind says:

            “1. Was Wilson alone in the squad car?”

            Yes, Malisha, Wilson was alone in the SUV (not car. In one of the clips provided by Trisha, I could see the SUV being carried away on a truck).

            “2. In what seat in the car was Wilson seated when he allegedly grabbed MB by the neck?”

            Dunno, Malisha. Probably in the driver’s seat. I don’t know if Wilson first approached MB and DJ from the opposite traffic and told them to ‘get the f out of the street’ and then made a u-turn and drove up to them from behind after they didn’t obey him immediately;

            “3. How do you “pull” someone into a squad car by their neck?”

            Dunno, Malisha. The available info is still murky. DJ says at one time that Wilson grabbed MB by the neck and at other time he says by the throat. It is entirely possible that what DJ meant by neck/throat is the collar of MB’s shirt. Also it is not known if Wilson grabbed MB from the back or the front and if MB’s head was ever inside Wilson’s SUV (through the window).

            “4. Where were the cigars after MB was killed on the street?”

            Dunno, Malisha.

            “5. How many cigars were found on MB?”

            Dunno, Malisha.

            “6. When Wilson paraded back and forth in front of the dead body on the street, was he not afraid he would be mobbed by all the angry, strong, scary, criminal Black residents?”

            Jackasses like Wilson aren’t very clever (else, he would not have been firing at the fleeing MB. Wilson’s best and only shot at self-defense was during the scuffle with MB while he was in his SUV. After he failed miserably to execute MB at that moment, any self-defense claim he could possibly have had evaporated. Wilson should have licked his wounds at that point and moved on. But the jackass did not realize that). Anyways, the police chief/spokesman said that DJ ran away and that nobody but Wilson witnessed what happened. Wilson must have thought that DJ did run away (which might explain why DJ is still alive today); that no one else saw what was happening and that it was him and MB alone – man to man; the one armed, the other unarmed; the one a boy, the other a grown man; the one seriously wounded by gunshot, the other healthy and fuming with rage to kill.

            7. Did MB commit any crimes/do something wrong in the store?

            Most probably yes. Evidence? Well, its circumstantial: (a) DJ is completely silent on the issue; (b) no journo has dared ask DJ any questions in that regard. That tells me (c) that the producers would have been told before the interviews not to ask any questions re the store incident and that DJ will not be answering any questions in that regard. I think it is better to assume the worst under these circumstances, while hopping for the best.

            8. Did Wilson – during his encounter with MB and DJ – have knowledge of what may or may not have already happened in the store?

            No (per recording from the dispatcher. This might change). Even if Wilson knew, this will not be extremely relevant, because the decisive aspect of this case is what happened after MB pulled away from Wilson’s grip and fled (while already seriously/severely wounded in the arm or the cardiac region. DJ said that he say blood on MB after the shot from inside the SUV).

            There a lot of basic questions that remain unclear for now. Journos are not good interviewers and DJ – in his innocent, gigantic youthful exuberance and enthusiasm to tell the whole truth – rushes over the stuff (like he is in a hurry to catch a flight to China) and appears all over the map. Unlike the two chicks who are really doing a fabulous job relaying what they saw and heard (in a calm, consistent, confident and commanding manner), Dorian’s demeanor is not that of calm and he unnecessarily tries too hard to drive what happened through our thick skulls. I understand where he is coming from. But others may not. His lawyer is one of the worst I have ever seen.

  51. LLMPapa says:

    Apparently there are some mind numbing idiots in this world.

    A 22-year-old black man died in the back seat of a Louisiana police cruiser earlier this year.

    The man, whose hands were cuffed behind his back, shot himself.

    In a press release issued March 3, the day he died, the Louisiana State Police said Victor White III apparently shot himself in an Iberia Parish police car. According to the police statement, White had his hands cuffed behind his back when he shot himself in the back.

    But according to the full final report of the Iberia Parish coroner, which was released nearly six months later and obtained exclusively by NBC News, White was shot in the front, not the back.

    And yet, despite the contradictions – and even though White’s hands were never tested for gunpowder residue – the Iberia Parish coroner still supported the central contention of the initial police statement issued back in March.

    Dr. Carl Ditch ruled that White shot himself, and declared his death a suicide.

    • Malisha says:

      These are not idiots.

      These are smart, powerful Nazis.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Oh Malisha, they are neither smart nor powerful, on the contrary. They are a bunch of primitive barbarians in modern police uniform, who – just like their Nazi forefathers – specialize in murdering unsuspecting juveniles/teenagers in the most treacherous, cowardly manner, but are not man enough to face off their fellow grown men in a fair man-to-man/one-on-one fight with equal arms and according to the same rules of a duel. Honorable, smart and powerful men don’t murder children (but instead consider it great honor to protect them, regardless of how bad they are/perceived to be and the type of blood that runs through their veins!).

        • Malisha says:

          I meant “smart” as in cagey and I meant “powerful” as in immune from punishment. I wasn’t talking about either intellect or personal power.

    • Malisha says:

      The police know they cannot be punished for killing a Black man. The coroner knows he cannot be punished for lying about the police killing a Black man.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Indeed, Malisha. You hit the nail on the head. These groups of individuals are a cult; a cult of men with inferiority complex and other mental issues. They have the urge to kill, maim and humiliate their fellow human beings in order to be able to continue to wallow in the illusion that they are somehow better than/superior to their victims. They need to “prove” that point to themselves in order to “get a rush” and feel better. They do all that because they have the opportunity to do so. That opportunity can easily be taken away from them by subjecting to Federal law (a) the killing with a firearm of any unarmed individual by officials/agents of the State and (b) the death of any individual while either in State’s custody or the custody of anyone/organization contracted by the State. The DoJ shall have exclusive jurisdiction in these kinds of death. If and when this happens, these coward cult-members will melt away. If the present day Civil Rights Movements, the coalition of the American Liberal Left (of which you are a member?) and the “leadership” of African American Communities are not able to effect this kind of legislative breakthrough, then they have lost their right to exist, IMO, and Al Sharpton must shut up (enough of his preaching already. Action in the legislative front is urgently required). Conservatives who see the government and its agents destroying the lives of ordinary folks and want to let them know that the ‘People’ own this country will join in that effort. I will be the first. Freedom and Liberty for all, not for some! That is the foundation upon which this country was founded.

        • Malisha says:

          If the present day Civil Rights Movements, the coalition of the American Liberal Left (of which you are a member?)

          Actually, I’m not a member. I’m way to the left of them. I’m something like a radical maternalist. And I believe individuals should kick ass without due process from time to time…uh…

          • SearchingMind says:

            Ha, Malisha! You are, are you not, playing with my mind? Anyways, I wish all the women who want to become POTUS are as authentic as you are and posses half your mind and personality.

          • Malisha says:

            SearchingMind, nobody with the attributes you mention could possibly become or even get in the running for POTUS because said somebody couldn’t succeed at the initial power/money and politics maneuverings to set the angle of ascent.

            We’d all be better off making soup.

    • chills101 says:

      This happen in my hometown….. Every story we hear is different….

  52. MichelleO says:

    You cannot correct inmates if you are a criminal in a uniform.

    You want to know why you cannot walk the streets safely , like back in the 60’s & 70’s . Its because the 80’s to present is when the criminal activity increased inside the prison system on Rikers Island prison system. Its amazing this story has never been told. I will take you inside the prison system of the 80’s & 90’s and enlighten you with the truth and nothing but the truth.

  53. Malisha says:

    OK here’s the point.
    White cops ARE empowered to assign themselves the role of masters and owners of Black persons. They automatically enslave whatever Black persons they want to enslave — they do not even have to purchase them with money as masters/owners used to have to do when we had “legalized” slav;ery in this country — and they then become the total owners with absolute rights of punishment and even the death penalty. THey can count on protection for all their outrages. Their uniforms and weapons are their license.

    And even a non-cop white who assigns himself the cop role, like FOgen, can do this in some states.

    Let us not pretend that this is not a war crime. It is a war crime and it is perpetrated daily in this country. We should face an international tribunal of war crimes for this. YES WE SHOULD. Every single cop who has done this should be tried by an international court as a war criminal. And for slavery.

    What a horrible shame. Our country is destroyed and, essentially, it should be. We collectively deserve it.

    • SearchingMind says:

      I disagree, Malisha, because what you suggest is just not possible and the US can do a better job correcting itself than outside forces:

      1. No agent/officer of the Unites States Government (federal or otherwise) will ever stand trial for crimes against humanity before the ICC or any other International Criminal Tribunal, because (a) The US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute Of The ICC and the ICC thus has no jurisdiction; (b) since it is neither policy nor customary in the (modern) US to harm anyone because of his/her ethnicity/race, the crimes committed by US cops on US’ territory are not war crimes and/or crimes against humanity within the meaning of the Rome Statute and the ICC again has no jurisdiction. Such crimes are individual actions of rogue/racist cops/PDs, which are not sanctioned/tolerated by the US. The US takes actions to assure that what happened to Mike Brown, Trayvon Marin, etc. doesn’t repeat itself. We are not even near that point yet, but reach that point we will. We are making progress day by day; (c) the ICC may investigate another country only after it has been asked to do so by the UNSC or another country (not individuals or organizations) within whose territory the crimes specified in the Rome Statute were/are being committed. The US holds veto power in the UNSC and will veto any resolution in which the US is a target. I also don’t see the US asking the UNSC to pass a resolution allowing the ICC to investigate the US.

      2. Here is just one of the things I think would help: every killing of any unarmed individual by the police should automatically become a Federal case. This is feasibly, efficient and effective and would be quite an achievement for the Civil Rights Movement. Appointing a special prosecutor for each killing of an unarmed person would be very costly and ineffective (because the Governor decides who gets appointed), while having one special prosecutor for all case would be no different than the status quo ante (only a cosmetic change thus).

      • Malisha says:

        I know what you mean, it’s just a way of expressing what’s happening on a symbolic basis when I say “war” and “war crimes” and “international tribunal.” I am not suggesting that with our international law infrastructure this is actually an option.

        I agree with you 100% about automatically going federal if a cop kills (or even seriously hurts) any unarmed person.

      • Annie Cabani says:

        I would go a step further and propose that every LE killing should be investigated by an outside entity. The “unarmed” criterion could be a meaningless distinction. For example, a guy with a steak knife being gunned down by St. Louis cops within 23 seconds of their arrival on the scene and from far beyond the reach of a deadly steak knife, in my mind, should not be excluded from independent/external investigation. Also, a serendipitous discovery of some “arm” after the fact should not exclude an incident from independent/external investigation. And we could come up with many other scenarios, as well.

        And now that I’m thinking about this, I would not restrict unbiased investigations to LE killings, either. Complaints of brutality or abuse of power resulting in physical or mental or emotional injuries or “merely” deprivation of Constitutional rights should also be independently/externally investigated.

        Also, I’m not sure that the answer is making it a “federal” case or investigation – especially since some entity needs to investigate federal LE killings, too (e.g., the FBI killing of the guy in Florida in relation to the Boston Marathon bombing investigation jumps immediately to mind).

        I hear a whole lot more confidence in federal authorities expressed around here lately than I’m able to subscribe to, I must say.

        Until I see the feds in general and Eric Holder in particular “grow a pair” and actually take meaningful and successful action against all or even ANY of this injustice that we keep pointing out here … well … let’s just say, I’M not holding MY breath or betting my farm on the feds. Just sayin’….

        • SearchingMind says:

          You see, Annie, if you remove the word “unarmed” from the hypothetical legislation, that would mean the following: investigating the cops for making use of their firearms to stop e.g. ongoing armed robbery and other violent crimes involving firearms and other weapons, etc. Here are the problems with that: (a) it doesn’t make sense and the vast majority of the public won’t support it; (b) it is financially irresponsible; (c) cops would be seriously deterred from carrying out their lawful duties properly; (d) crimes will go up; (e) more cops will probably end up dead; (f) such law will become unenforceable, inefficient and ineffective, etc. However, our hypothetical legislation is very specific and limited to precise heavy weighing goals: (a) protecting the unarmed (most of whom are teenagers who haven’t reached the legal age to bear arms; the MB’s, etc.) from being executed by cops; (b) protecting those in police custody from being executed by cops (while handcuffed behind their backs) and (c) putting an end to culture of impunity (right now the cops just get away with plain murder of the defenseless). This will find broad public support. As of today, the number of White males who have “shot themselves in the head” while handcuffed to their backs and sitting in the back of a police cruiser is zero. In addition to that, the chances of a unarmed Black person being shot and killed by cops is higher than/equal to the chances of an armed White person meeting the same fate. There is thus something intrinsically racist about the deaths and it makes one feel sick to the stomach. Our hypothetical legislation might not eradicate the problem 100% but it will be a major deterrent to would-be racist killer-cops and completely solve the problem of impunity.

          • Annie Cabani says:

            Hmmmmm. I can’t quite see….
            Could you maybe post a draft the bill you would advocate?

          • SearchingMind says:

            “Hmmmmm. I can’t quite see….”

            Oh my dear Annie, don’t worry. You have given it your best and it is not your fault that you don’t and can’t understand, and “the draft the bill” will confuse you even more. Let it go. I will make it simpler next time.

    • MKX says:

      That event is a good example of how racist assumptions built into or society negatively impact a justice system that is ostensibly “fair”.

      Those who will deny racism will point out that bad things also happen to whites – which is true, but avoids addressing probability.

      Basically, being black subjects one to a negative die roll modifier for each event in their life wherein there is a probability of a negative consequence.

      Let us assume for arguments sake, that there is a 1/36 chance of an innocent person having an assault or worse during and encounter with a police officer.

      That would be modeled as rolling two die and getting a 2 or less – the probability of snake eyes being 1/36.

      An innocent black person playing the game would have a negative die roll modifier of either -1 or -2, thus increasing their chances of being assaulted or worse by a cop to 1/12 or 1/6.

      And note there would be another die roll for “or worse leading to being shot to death” wherein, again, the innocent black person gets a negative die roll modifier.

      I like the idea of a Federal Review of all shootings because, ultimately, being shot by a cop is the deprivation of a fundamental right we all have under the Constitution.

      • ay2z says:

        I guess as long as the problem has nothing to do with the federal governmrnt, then the UN would have no say? It would have to involve a lot of people on a wide scale and it’s only one person…. at a time. How to tie this together to see the web of tentacles and where they lead? We can see one ugly truth in Fox and Hannity that helped get Z the jury into a thought pattern long before trial, but what abotu the unspoken policies that are compliant at least, in the continuation of the situation in America the land of the free?

        • ay2z says:

          And America is not alone in these types of problems, but when the history of a people and memories are still strong on the slave owner side, it makes the situation of Americans who are African American, still carry the burden of ignorant attitudes to full blown active racism.

  54. willisnewton says:

    The first thing the officer in the “drunk old open carry asshat jaywalker” video says to the armed and dangerous idiot is, “hey PARTNER.” The first thing Dorian Johnson recalls Wilson said to Mike Brown and he was, “get on the FUCKING sidewalk.”

    SAME “CRIME” – jaywalking, only the white drunk guy has AN ASSAULT RIFLE and the unarmed teen had NOTHING.

    • PhillyBoyRoy says:

      Ben Stein and most right-wing Internet commenters would disagree.

      Michael Brown was armed with Balack.

    • SearchingMind says:

      I think that the overall situation is more nuanced than the black&white conclusions we are inclined to draw from the video clip. Check out these two clips below:

      Nonetheless, I concur that the chances of White cops abusing/killing their fellow citizen increases ‘meaningfully’ if the victim is Black and ‘dramatically’ if the officer(s) involved is/are racist(s).

      • MKX says:

        Valid points. And the homeless guy shot and the drunk man talked down are pretty analogous situations.

        And I think the cops who shot that homeless person got away with it.

  55. Michelleo says:

    Drunk and erratic white man with assault weapon is called “buddy” and treated politely by police.

    • Michelleo says:

      Oh, nosie! Already posted!

    • MKX says:

      When has a black person in any of the many videos of their execution by the police ever been called “buddy” or given the option of “putting it on the ground so we can talk please?” or, if they did not quickly respond to a command, given time to be talked down out of the situation?

      These cops did everything right:

      Were polite and used language to deescalate the situation

      Kept back at a safe distance

      Called in back up

      Were patient till the man got tired and gave up.

      And this man did everything that the right wing claims is a reason to shoot a black person:

      He refused to respond to a command

      He was obscene, belligerent and insulting

      He had a dangerous weapon

      He was on drugs – drunk

      He is “big”

      He was jaywalking

      He is dressed like a bum

  56. chills101 says:

    Let’s see his clothes… I want to see if his shirts was stretched around the collar and how many holes in in shirt…

  57. Bill Taylor says:

    physical reality means the 3 second gap in the shooting shows the bum rush was NOT possible………that 3 seconds was more than enough time for brown to run 35 feet………..the physical FACTS show this was murder.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Another (potentially devastating) evidence about the recording is what is not in the recording – e.g. “stop!” and/or “stop, get down on the ground right now!”, etc. The average police officer would be shouting these words before using deadly force – if he intended to take the victim alive. If the recording in the procession of the authorities is (as I expect) longer than what was released to the public, it would be interesting to know if it picked up any sounds of daily life from the street (e.g. traffic, car doors opening/closing, etc.) before and/or after the shooting. If yes, then the absence of ‘stop, get on the ground right now’ (or any other words to the same effect) may be evidence that DW never intended to take MB alive – either before the ‘3-second-gap’ or within that ‘3-second-gap’, which effectively was a period of deliberation: to kill or not to kill; to shout: “get down on the ground right now!!!” or to shoot and kill.

    • willisnewton says:

      Brown ran much farther than 35 feet. What’s missing from the recording CNN aired is the first shot, if it exists, that came from inside the SUV. That cannot be on the recording because there isn’t enuogh time to run 125 feet in six seconds and manage to turn to face the shooter, who connects with almost all of the second grouping of shots, if we trust the autopsy.

      But the pause in the groupings of shots doesn’t tell us anything for certain.

  58. YQ says:

    The gun used to kill Michael Brown was a Sig P226 in .40 S&W.

    Isn’t the Most those can hold is 12 rounds? 13 if one in chamber?

  59. MKX says:

    Note the marked contrast in how the police handle this man, armed with an automatic rifle, vs. the black person gunned down who had a knife.

  60. Nef05 says:

    This video came out in Dec. 2012, shortly after Newtown. I hadn’t seen it before, but now it’s popping up in every other post on my FB newsfeed. Have you guys seen it?

    • Michelleo says:

      I do not like this person, and the last thing I expected to see here was her. I don’t like her husband’s “politics” which are against Americans protesting against their government and against big corporations. I don’t like that he called Harry Belafonte a “boy” or stating that his presence at any social justice movement makes that movement even greater. I don’t like that he told Oprah Winfrey that whites and others shouting out the word “nigger” at his concerts is social progress.

  61. Nef05 says:

    “EXCLUSIVE: St. Louis Police Officer Blows the Whistle on Rampant Corruption Within the Department”

  62. willisnewton says:

    Emmanuel Freeman, aka Thee Pharaoh, aka the guy who live-tweeted the killing of an unarmed teen Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson PD officer Darren Wilson is interviewed by VIce News, who had a crew on the scene for the demonstrations and have put together a compelling feature video report that for me is hands-down the best produced motion picture feature reporting from #ferguson so far, it even tops Jon Stewart.

    This is the hope I see in all this chaos, all this killing. The people are learning to organize and fight back. And the media is going from the hands of corporations into the hands of those who know how to speak truth to power.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Formidable eyewitness! Couple of remarks though: (a) he should not be producing songs about this yet, until after he testifies in court; (b) he has already given testimony to the FBI and made statement to the media. That should be enough and he should thus not be talking to/discussing with anyone anymore about what he witnessed; (c) he should not talk to the parents of MB yet, until after he gives testimony in court. The defense will definitely try their best to discredit him by accusing him of bias, having commercial interest and empathy for MB’s parents serious enough to color his testimony. The criminal justice system is a den where angry wolves are constantly on the lookout for any unsuspecting preys to tear apart. He should do his utmost not to make himself vulnerable and a target.

      • willisnewton says:

        Yeah, but he speaks the truth. And has little faith in the system for good reason. He watched a cop murder his neighbor!

        Him “not producing songs” is an interesting comment. That’s like saying he shouldn’t have an opinion about what he’s seen. And he didn’t produce the video, he appeared in it. His “song” is his statement to the media. That’s what makes it so interesting. He’s putting his faith in a new system, a system that puts power in the hands of the public and eschews the state’s claim to be the arbiter of the truth. And it’s clear by what he says/ raps and presents – the larger goal of ending this senseless intolerance and violence is the real goal – unity of the community and justice for Mike Brown AND for all of us.

        You are posing the ultimate end result of a cry for justice has to be a trial that hold one person responsible, Darrel Wilson. There very well may be no trial. When should he speak out, on the day the rand jury declines to make a case? And is Darrel Wilson really the only one to blame here?

        He’s black, in #ferguson, MO USA. Too late to not be a target.

        • SearchingMind says:

          ‘Be as wise as the serpent, but as innocent as the dove’ – is what I said in other words. I have heard that Justice is blind, but I do believe that justice cannot be fought for blindly. I have also heard folks say that they have faith in the system, but I do believe if you don’t play according to the rules of the system (out of innocence, naiveté or arrogance) that faith becomes meaningless. I do get that you are very legitimately looking at the “bigger picture”, but without the “smaller picture” (about which I am concerned now) you may never get to the bigger one. Do not arm your enemy.There is time for everything.

          • willisnewton says:

            Mr. Freeman has a lawyer and he’s heard enough advice from those who are not in his shoes, I’d bet.

            I agree there is a legal strategy that is wise and there is what people generally do, which is more emotionally based.

            In his case, he has corroborating witnesses who will tell a very similar story if and when a court case happens. There is something to be said for all the corroborating contemporaneous reports emerging from the scene of an accident. Without them it’s likely this entire affair would have been swept user a rug.

          • SearchingMind says:

            Exactly, Willis! “Legally speaking”, of course.

    • Trisha0620 says:

      Vice has one of the guys from WeAreChange with them now

  63. ay2z says:

    Find the ‘next stop’ volcano page with the arrow on the right edge of the screen, the volvano is erupting, and the image shaking, or was a few minutes ago.

    Got this from Crane’s article, it is pretty incredible.

    Red Alert now..

  64. SearchingMind says:

    Ongoing reflection

    Is the killing of Michael Brown (MB) a case of excessive use of force, as some experts tend to opine, or flat-out cold blooded murder or a combination of both or none of the above and thus justified homicide? Here are a few point to reflect on:

    1. It is not in dispute that officer Darren Wilson (DW), while sitting inside a (moving?) police SUV grabbed MB and held him, whereupon a hand-scuffle ensure between them. That in- and of itself is “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment [see The United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975)]. Questions: (a) did DW consider MB a crime suspect? (b) If yes, what crime(s) was MB suspected of? and (c) was that suspicion reasonable (absent probable cause, the suspicion is unreasonable)? If no, (d) did DW have any other LEGAL reason outside the criminal law for seizing MB? From what has emerged so far, it appears that at last questions ‘c’ and ‘d’ cannot be answered in the affirmative. The conclusion would thus be that the seizure was unlawful; that DW violated MB’s Civil rights and civil liberties when he seized him; that DW thus had no basis in the law whatsoever to use force against MB in the first place and that the question of whether or not the ‘force’ used was ‘excessive’ does thus not even arise at all.

    2. Ok, forget all of that and – for the sake of argument in an entirely hypothetical scenario – give DW the benefit of the doubt, ASSUME that DW either reasonably considered MB a crime suspect or had a legal reason outside the criminal law for seizing MB and consider MB’s killing from the point of view of the settled case law:

    2a. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) SCOTUS “Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others”. How does this apply to DW and MB? Well,

    2b. (i). it is not in dispute that DW was well aware that MB was UNARMED (else DW would not have even dared approaching and grabbing MB from inside a vehicle, but would have instead called for backup before taking any action!); (ii) It is also not in dispute that before grabbing MB, DW either already had his gun in his hand or somewhere within reach in his car or unholstered the gun with one hand while holding unto MB with the other hand (other possibilities are physically impossible!); (iii) It is equally not in dispute that during the hand-scuffle that ensured within the police vehicle, DW either fired at MB and missed or DW’s firearm just went off (as MB managed to push the gun away from himself to escape harm?); (iv) It is furthermore not in dispute that MB pulled away from DW’s grip and fled for his life upon hearing the gunshot (who wouldn’t flee his execution?!); (v) It is additionally not in dispute that there is no evidence to suggest that MB posed any kind of “threat of death or serious physical injury” to either DW or others at the very moment he liberated himself from DW’s grip and he ran for his life! (vi) It is lastly not in dispute that DW started firing at the fleeing MB immediately after exiting the police vehicle. Pursuant to Tennessee v. Garner, one must conclude that DW had no basis in the law to use force against MB in the first place and thus the issue of ‘excessive force’ does not even arise in the first place. The seizure was unlawful. The shootings were unlawful. What we have here is murder – period!

    3. Self-defense: the “bum-rush”/bull-rush theory. This defense is not only a fantasy, but also does not make sense at all. This ‘bull-rushing stuff’ never happened and only a complete imbecile would believe it – for the following reasons:

    3a. DW exited his vehicle and immediately started pursuing the fleeing MB and shooting at him. Who really was bull-rushing whom, the person fleeing for his life or the person pursuing and shooting at him at the same time? Common sense suggests the later!

    3b. FIVE independent EYEwitnesses have consistently stated that BM – after apparently having been hit by one of the bullets fired at him while he fled – stopped fleeing, turned around with his hand in the air in an effort to surrender, but was instead finished off by DW.

    3c. There is only about a 3-second-gap between the first group of shots that were fired while MB fled and the last group of shots that killed him after he stopped fleeing and turned around. Within said 3-seconds, MB could not have had enough time to stop fleeing, make a U-turn, taunt DW with sentences that last more than 3-seconds and then start bull-rushing DW. DW’s story defies the rules of time and space. It just doesn’t fit!

    3d. DW would have us disregard all of the above incl. 5-eyewitnesses and believe that moments after MB liberated himself from DW’s grip and fled for his life after DW shot and missed him and continued to shoot at him while he fled, MB suddenly realized that all he needed to do to save his life was to stop fleeing, make a U-turn, bull-rush someone who is shooting at him and kill/harm that someone with his bare hands? Oh, pUHleeze! Just don’t insult my intelligence, Officer!

    • YQ says:

      If the bum rushing defense ever comes up, might as well go handcuff himself and lock himself in the back of the nearest police vehicle. The only people that are buying it are the right-wingers and racists.

    • YQ says:

      LOL this is kinda like Fogen. Why would Trayvon stop whipping his ass just to tell him he’s gonna die? Wouldn’t he have been busy whipping his ass?

      • MKX says:

        Fogen realized that he unlawfully killed Trayvon Martin and, as such, he “made up” shit to create a tall tale that he was being subject to a life threatening situation – which, given the videos that have come out wherein cops yell “stop going for my gun” while they beat their victim, seems to be a standard law enforcement lie. And Fogen knew how they operated.

        The right wing and those who silently go along with them are like little children who do not want to believe that cops can be lying violent thugs.

        Or they actually want the victims to be beat or shot.


    • SearchingMind says:

      There are many aspects of this case that are very troubling. One of them is the refusal by DW to file an incident report based on his 5th Amendment rights (WTF?!). Given the gravity of what happened (i.e. homicide), that refusal should have led to the immediate discharge of DW without debate! I have done some research to find anything similar to this in the entire history of the United State and came up with nothing (I am still searching). This case seems to be the first time an Officer of The United States (Decentralized) Government uses State’s powers to kills a Citizen in broad day light, in the middle of his neighborhood and REFUSES to file and incident report and is still getting paid by the government! Discharging DW for egregious violation of his duty (i.e. failure to file an incident report) would, IMO, not tantamount to violation of his 5th Amendment rights. Filing an ‘incident report’ is the same as going on patrol, both of which the officer signed onto in his employment contract and refusal to perform duties signed unto is legitimate reason for dismissal. Now, I am well aware of the rulings in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 495 (1967) and Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511. But in Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273. SCOTUS clarified and held that “If appellant, a policeman, had refused to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself, Garrity v. New Jersey, supra, the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal.” I think this applies in this case with regard to the incident report. I wonder if the good Professor can enlighten us more on this issue (the Justices who wrote the majority Opinions in case laws mentioned here are not exactly excellent paragons of clarity).

      • willisnewton says:

        Not filing an incident report is becoming a trend in LEO shooting cases. Police unions often recommend this, and in this case it may have come from the Chief. As I understand it, the INVESTIGATIVE report would be the report compiled by detectives who interview the shooter. Under MO law, this report is not subject to FOIA requests/ open records laws until the case goes to trial.

        It’s possible Wilson has already told his tale to his superior officers but they aren’t giving us the information. It’s also possible that Wilson knows damn well he is guilty of a serious crime, and is savvy enough to keep his mouth shut no matter what.

        I agree he should be fired. But so far he is on paid administrative leave. All the moral outrage in the world – and we’ve seen plenty – hasn’t done much to his bosses’ except harden their sleazy tactics at smearing the victim and stonewalling the press and the public.

        WIlson needs no defense, legally speaking. Instead, the prosecution, if and when there would be one, has to prove his guilt.

        Right now his faith is likely in getting the protection of a friendly District attorney. McCullogh’s bias is obvious, and the grand jury works for him.

        • Annie Cabani says:

          Yes. I don’t think we know that Darren Wilson “refused” to file an incident report. We also don’t know that he has invoked any 5th Amendment rights, in that or any other context. As I understand it, the 5th Amendment protects against efforts to compel or coerce someone to provide self-incriminating evidence, and I haven’t heard about any such efforts aimed at Darren Wilson.

          • SearchingMind says:

            1. The fact that YOU don’t know something does not mean that “we” don’t – whatever that “we” is supposed to mean. In the instant case, I know that Wilson “refused” to file a complete incident report! All you needed to do is to ask if you are in doubt.
            2. The fact that no one has attempted to “compel or coerce” Wilson to file an incident report does not prevent him from asserting his 5th Amendment rights and the only way he could legitimately refuse to file an incident report is by implied/explicit claim of his 5th Amendment rights.

          • Annie Cabani says:

            Of course, Kemo Sabi. Then how ’bout you link to the source of your knowledge that Darren Wilson “refused” to file an incident report – or (as you now say) a “complete incident report.”

            You really should have cited/linked your source(s) days ago, rather than just asserting as a bald foundational fact the Wilson “refused” to file an incident report.

            We’ve all seen the largely blank “incident report” form that was published a few or more days ago. But that tells us nothing about whether Wilson “refused” to write/file one.

            So, bring it, Searching, please. Bring your evidence that Wilson “refused” to write/file an incident report. As a lawyer, surely you realize that just because you say something is so will not convince any reasonable person that it is, in fact, so. It’s the evidence you produce that stands a chance of convincing others that it is so.

          • SearchingMind says:

            In the Legal practice there are three ways to obtain info directly from a subject:

            1. By asking said subject direct questions. The subject may answer or refuse to answer. To refuse to answer the subject may explicitly say ‘I refuse to answer’ or use words to the same effect. The subject may also keep his mouth shut. (a) Keeping ones mouth shut and (b) using actual words to communicate unwillingness to answer are one and the same – i.e. “refusal”. It’s that simple and you need not be a lawyer to figure that one out.

            2. By providing the subject with questionnaire(s)/form(s) in which he has to fill-in specific information. Filling-in parts of the questionnaire/form is answering some parts of the questions. Living other parts of the questionnaire/form blank is the same as keeping the mouth shut after being orally asked a direct question. The reason may of course be that the subject does not know the answer, but you know damn well that’s not what we are talking about here.

            3. By asking the subject to submit specific documents (in his possession). This is not applicable in this particular instance and I won’t discuss it any further.

            Now, Darren Wilson filled-out one segment of the incident-report form and left the other segment empty – as you rightly acknowledged. You do the math! You need no more links and/or evidence. All you need is your G-d given common sense.

          • Annie Cabani says:

            So there “we” have it. You don’t have any source to back up your assertion that Wilson “refused” to file an incident report. For all you know, he may have been instructed not to do so, as Willis suggested, or there could be some other explanation or reality. You didn’t “know” that he refused – that was just your assumption.

            Interestingly, even you have now abandoned that assumption, proclaiming instead that Wilson “filled-out one segment of the incident-report form and left the other segment empty.” But you don’t know that, either. You don’t know who filled out what or what may have been redacted.

            Is this how you present cases in court, too?
            “Your Honor, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:”

            You do the math! You need no more links and/or evidence. All you need is your G-d given common sense.

            It sure could save you a whole lot of trial prep work! 🙂

          • SearchingMind says:

            Annie, I am sure you do realize that I am not going to be running around circles with you. You either get it or you don’t. And if you don’t, it is not your fault – for obvious reasons. Anyway, here is a couple of closing remarks though:

            1. Anyone (with the exception of his attorney) who “instructs” Wilson not to file an incident report would be committing obstruction of justice – plain and simple. One may, albeit erroneously, advise Wilson on his 5th Amendment rights re the incident report, but may not “instruct” him not to file one.

            2. Incident reports are filed by an officer who is/was involved in an “incident”. If said officer is physically/mentally not able to do so, he may relay what happened to an uninvolved other and ask him/her to write the incident report on his behalf. Such incident report is considered to have been filed by the officer on whose behalf it was written.

            3. ‘An incomplete answer’ is – depending on the nature of the incompleteness – a ‘no answer’! That is the case here and it is not difficult to figure out. Splitting hairs/engaging in girlish cat-fight (to save face?!) do you no good. I have no need for that.

        • SearchingMind says:

          “Not filing an incident report is becoming a trend in LEO shooting cases. Police unions often recommend this, and in this case it may have come from the Chief”.

          So? “Legally speaking”, what’s the point? And what do you think could be the legal basis for “Police unions [to] often recommend this”? Does the Courts allow that? If yes, pls. provide case law and discuss it within the ambit of my post.

          “As I understand it, the INVESTIGATIVE report would be the report compiled by detectives who interview the shooter. Under MO law, this report is not subject to FOIA requests/ open records laws until the case goes to trial”.

          Confused? What has “the INVESTIGATIVE report” to do with substance of the discussion? And what does “under MO law” mean (you need to provide proper citation)?

          “WIlson needs no defense, legally speaking. Instead, the prosecution, if and when there would be one, has to prove his guilt.

          Wrong, sir. Very wrong – “legally speaking”, of-course. Read the 6th Amendment. “Defense” is a Constitutional Right. Rights are granted because they are needed. It’s that simple. And the fact that “the prosecution has to prove his gilt” does not negate that fact. Anyways, I hope very much Wilson takes your advice, for then I am sure he will hang – “legally speaking”!

      • so jaded says:

        @searching mind, police officers r above the law in U.S. Every polic e shooting investigated by internal affairs is deemed justifiable. In a neighboring city where there has been a troubling amount of deaths to to that city’s swat team. They have all been deemed justifiable . Since the in operation of that particular city 74 years ago. All police shooting have been deemed justified. So naturally, they now feel that they do not need to bother with incident report. Until policy ce same terror on white community nothing will change.

  65. Michelleo says:

    While they do spew carbon dioxide in the air, volcanoes are actually a natural factor known to contribute to global cooling: ash combines with water and oxygen in the atmosphere to form aerosols, which then reflect sunlight. In Iceland, notes Mashable, magma may have come into contact with glacial ice: a phenomenon that could “enhance its explosiveness” and create a situation similar to what occurred in 1783, when the eruption of the country’s Laki volcano lowered temperatures for some time in Europe and North America. Even though major eruptions can cool things down by as much 0.4 degrees Celsius, however, the effect only lasts for about two years — and while they can trick people into thinking that global warming isn’t happening, they’re by no means a long-term solution to the continued increase in Earth’s temperature.

  66. aussie says:

    Has anyone had any contact from Professor or Crane? they’ve been AWOL for a long time…..

  67. Nef05 says:

    Satire, but with a kernel of truth (the part about Zimmerman, anyway). How many of us were/are convinced that fogenphoole was carrying his “9”, and acting like a middle-school vice principal because he was “overcompensating”. Anyway, it’s good for a chuckle.

    WARNING: Graphic/Sexualized Language

    • Michelleo says:

      Please read my above entry regarding the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that basically protects cops even when they are wrong. Fogan has police and an ex-judge in his family who knew of this law, and this is why he was allowed to behave as he did, and eventually get away with it. I hope people are prepared for Darren Wilson getting away with his crimes, because it is very likely he won’t go to jail for his actions.

      • Nef05 says:

        I’ll pop up and read it now. I actually think the feds have a good case, considering they don’t have to prove racial animus, only excessive force. I’m with you on the state side of it though. I think the state prosecutor showed his colors when he invited Wilson to testify to the grand jury, with no incident report filed. I don’t believe he’ll even go to trial, let alone jail.

      • Nef05 says:

        Hell! I just read it. There goes the feds case…

  68. YQ says:

    Oh wow! STL Riverfront Times have reportedly asked for Darren Wilson’s juvenile records! The right-wingers on FB are outraged!!

    • Disappointed says:

      Lol someone needed to ask. I read somewhere his teen years were rough.

    • Bill Taylor says:

      why on earth not? the person accused of a crime is wilson NOT brown……just like with fogen……keep the shooters past sealed and LIE about the victim.

    • Nef05 says:

      But, I’ll bet they didn’t say jack when word came out that Mike Brown’s “juvenile records” were being requested, even though there was no reason to think there were/are any…

      • YQ says:

        Personally, I think that they need to investigate this cops complete life. Emails, internet history, cc purchases…

        As far as what I heard, Wilson is supposed to be this quiet guy.

        Accommodations on the job…

        Divorced as of last year….

        There is something not right… Too shady.

        • YQ says:

          I also read somewhere else that he lost his job patrolling in a nearby area, and didn’t get the job for county duties.

          Perhaps there is some sort of ethnic blame throwing in there?

          • Bill Taylor says:

            he worked for jennings until they were disbanded because of corruption, no specific charges against him but the entire force was fired/laid off.

          • willisnewton says:

            The Jennings PD was disbanded not because of corruption but because it was racist, plain and simple. See the Washington Post story for details.

        • Michelleo says:

          I’m surprised that they could erase so much of his online history. My understanding has always been that once it’s been published on the Internet; your digital footprints can never be erased. I thought that there were websites or search engines that have snapshots of everything people have ever written or shared, which can always be found.

        • Nef05 says:

          I agree. While I think the feds will probably crawl up his butt with a microscope, we know his own people won’t. I think the feds already have a good “color of law” excessive force case, I want this guy genuinely prosecuted and convicted by the state.

          Of course, I think that is about as likely as me receiving that hundred million dollars I want, as well.

          • YQ says:

            Me too! I believe that everytime a cop does something like that, he should be investigated by the FBI at least as a precautionary approach. There are many secret racist online fraternities with questionable MOs. They should be looked upon as terrorist organizations. Im usually 50\50 when it comes to conspiracies, but I no longer believe that these events are isolated. We just had that guy last year, Chavis Carter get shot while handcuffed last year in the back of a police car. Victor White III got shot in the back recently and killed while he was also handcuffed in police custody. Both were ruled suicides These IMO aren’t just rogue cops. There seems to be more that needs to be found out.

          • bettykath says:

            Be aware that FBI agents have killed a number of people. Their internal investigations have declared that every single one of those killings was justified, even when the victim was unarmed.

  69. Nef05 says:

    I read this article and the first thing I did was check the byline, because I would have sworn Malisha wrote it. That was the first thing that popped into my head. It’s a fascinating article, and a perspective that I don’t often find, except, as mentioned before, in Malisha’s posts.

    A little more than half a century after Brown, the election of Obama gave hope to the country and the world that a new racial climate had emerged in America, or that it would. But such audacious hopes would be short-lived. A rash of voter-suppression legislation, a series of unfathomable Supreme Court decisions, the rise of stand-your-ground laws and continuing police brutality make clear that Obama’s election and reelection have unleashed yet another wave of fear and anger.
    It’s more subtle — less overtly racist — than in 1865 or even 1954. It’s a remake of the Southern Strategy, crafted in the wake of the civil rights movement to exploit white resentment against African Americans, and deployed with precision by Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
    So when you think of Ferguson, don’t just think of black resentment at a criminal justice system that allows a white police officer to put six bullets into an unarmed black teen. Consider the economic dislocation of black America. Remember a Florida judge instructing a jury to focus only on the moment when George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin interacted, thus transforming a 17-year-old, unarmed kid into a big, scary black guy, while the grown man who stalked him through the neighborhood with a loaded gun becomes a victim. Remember the assault on the Voting Rights Act. Look at Connick v. Thompson, a partisan 5-4 Supreme Court decision in 2011 that ruled it was legal for a city prosecutor’s staff to hide evidence that exonerated a black man who was rotting on death row for 14 years. And think of a recent study by Stanford University psychology researchers concluding that, when white people were told that black Americans are incarcerated in numbers far beyond their proportion of the population, “they reported being more afraid of crime and more likely to support the kinds of punitive policies that exacerbate the racial disparities,” such as three-strikes or stop-and-frisk laws.

    • Michelleo says:

      This is about a very small but powerful segment of the society owning us ;all. This Victorian days when there was no middle class; only the very rich and the very poor. So, it makes no difference whether President Barack Obama ever came into office or not. This is the way the teapublican train has been running since Reagan and Bush. Ownership Society has all of the rights and we, the people, are their serfs.

      • Nef05 says:

        Oh, I agree. I started predicting a French/Russian “let the eat cake” revolution in ’05. Now that I’m beginning to see the full extent of the militarization of the local PDs, I’ve come to 2 inescapable conclusions:
        1. It’s designed to put more money into the pockets of defense contractors who are part of the .01%.


        2. Once the teapublican train of the Reagan/Bush era was steaming along, with it’s trickle down theories, even they knew it was inevitable that at some point we’d wake up and object. I am fully convinced the militarization of the police force was begun by the small cadre who were farsighted enough to know that they would need protection from the serfs once we realized how badly they raped this country. The police are to stand between us and them, when we come with torches and pitchforks, to their gated estates. They’re sociopathic, vicious and utterly determined to “rule”, but no one can accuse them of being stupid. They know, at some point, even the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” who vote against their own interests are going to wake up and see exactly what they’ve done. Fox News’ job is to delay that inevitable awakening as long as possible, so they can get as much done as possible, and in the meantime – they arm the police, against us.

    • Malisha says:

      I want to thank you for the compliment, saying this article reminded you of my posts! Thank you thank you! Great article. (NOT ME) 😀

      PS: I have been off-line for a couple of days because a friend is hospitalized in terrible condition and I’ve been at the ICU around the clock. But regards to all; keep em flying!

  70. JJ says:

    Although the media is quiet about Ferguson, follow #ferguson on Twitter for current activity.

  71. Hello, everyone!

    Ferguson Missouri sets it off over the killing of Michael Brown

  72. Michelleo says:

    Taken together, these rulings have a powerful effect. They mean that the officer who shot Michael Brown and the City of Ferguson will most likely never be held accountable in court. How many more deaths and how many more riots will it take before the Supreme Court changes course?

    New York Times article can be found here

    • MKX says:

      Fascism is the melding of capitalism and the state into an authoritarian entity that rules our lives.

      And the Supreme Court has been packed with the Fascist Five.

      In an authoritarian system, the people are expected to grovel and obey any official of the state or corporation who has a title. In their world, a “title” puts one higher up in the hierarchy, thus automatically giving that individual more power and credibility than a mere “peon”. It is a sick form of neo-Feudalism.

      And, might I add, this thinking is 180 degrees in opposition to what I was raised to think was “American”.

      So they can take their flags and shove them up their hole.

      Is Ferguson the first in a series of event that will lead to a Lexington Green of the 21st Century?

      • Bill Taylor says:

        our constitution clearly says the USA does NOT confer “titles”……we were founded on the concept that ALL are created equal………

      • Michelleo says:

        I always wondered why police were no longer maintaining the peace but actually escalating conditions that would lead to a shooting and someone’s death. Now, I understand why they are so rude, in-your-face, and so confrontational about the smallest incident: They are backed up by the Supreme Court. I have seriously started looking to move out of the United States for the first time in my life.

    • Nef05 says:

      Oh, this is bad. This is very, VERY bad. So, the Geppettos own the legislative and judicial branches, which at best obstructs/undercuts the executive branch, and at worst, will eventually own it as well, at some point.

      I have to ask, in all seriousness – are we experiencing the beginning of the fall of the republic? Is the reason they’re no longer even trying to hide it because we’re already past the tipping point? I want to say this is “not good”, except I’m beginning to understand that’s an understatement of inordinate proportion.

  73. Michelleo says:

    ‘How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cops’
    Damon Root|Aug. 28, 2014 3:20 pm

    Writing at The New York Times, Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, takes aim at the U.S. Supreme Court for its key role for making it “very difficult, and often impossible, to hold police officers and the governments that employ them accountable for civil rights violations. This undermines the ability to deter illegal police behavior,” he added, “and leaves victims without compensation.”

    As evidence of this sorry state of affairs, Chemerinsky points to the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2014 opinion in Plumhoff v. Rickard, in which the justices granted qualified immunity to several police officers who used lethal force to stop a high-speed car chase. That chase began with a routine traffic stop for a busted headlight and ended roughly 10 minutes later with the officers firing 15 rounds into the vehicle, killing both the driver and his passenger, neither of whom were armed. According to the Court’s decision, this deadly use of force was fully permissible. “If police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety,” the Court held, “the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”

    Chemerinsky describes this ruling as “deeply disturbing”:

    The Supreme Court now has said that whenever there is a high-speed chase that could injure others — and that would seem to be true of virtually all high-speed chases — the police can shoot at the vehicle and keep shooting until the chase ends. Obvious alternatives could include shooting out the car’s tires, or even taking the license plate number and tracking the driver down later.

    He’s right. The justices revealed little interest in calling aggressive police tactics into question in that case.

    To my surprise, however, Chemerinsky failed to mention one of the starkest recent examples of bad cops enjoying a legal victory: the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Hudson v. Michigan. In that case, a divided Court ruled that evidence obtained by the police after “a concededly illegal” no-knock raid was still admissible in court. “Resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified,” declared the majority opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia. Furthermore, Scalia added, the “increasing professionalism of police forces” around the country is itself a strong internal check on law enforcement that “deters civil-rights violations.”

    To say the least, Scalia’s words have not aged well. As my former Reason colleague Radley Balko has observed, “a scan of recent headlines suggests that when it comes to holding police accountable for botched raids, excessive force, and misconduct, Scalia’s ‘new professionalism’ is nowhere to be found.”

    Taken together, these rulings have a powerful effect. They mean that the officer who shot Michael Brown and the City of Ferguson will most likely never be held accountable in court. How many more deaths and how many more riots will it take before the Supreme Court changes course?

    New York Times article can be found here

  74. Michelleo says:

    It’s socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us

  75. Michelleo says:

    To help reach beyond Ferguson, the opinion departments of Guardian US and the St Louis Post-Dispatch partnered to gather hundreds of reader experiences. Our hope is that this sampling will help spur empathy – and then action, everywhere. These are your stories, lightly edited for space, privacy and clarity, and your hope for what’s next.

  76. W/Liberty&Justice4All? says:

    In CHarlotte NC last year, a police officer shot to death a 24-year old unarmed black man who was seeking help after a car accident. The officer shot him 10 times. The officer was indicted. The Charlotte police chief told the papers the officer had failed to adhere to police procedures. The wheels of the justice system are turning in Charlotte NC.

    Why are the wheels not turning in Ferguson, MO? Why is procedure not even being discussed publicly?

  77. Sophia33 says:

    With new audio tape, I wonder if it picked up the sounds of what Daren Wilson’s friend claimed. Remember she said MB said, “What you gonna do about it”? “You gonna shoot me”? She said that the killer said that MB was taunting him before he shot. Could prove she is a liar!

    • Malisha says:

      I would think that IF Brown taunted Wilson with “What you gona do about it — you gonna shoot me?” then that makes it first degree murder. A man who shoots somebody who mouths off to him is committing murder; he is not trying to save his own life from a clear and present threat. He’s angry and he decides to show the taunting SOB that yes, he IS going to shoot him, so THERE! He’s showing his POWER. He’s deciding: “I’m gonna shoot that punk for mouthing off at me. He can’t diss me. He’s gonna PAY for that!” It’s first degree murder.

      • Sophia33 says:

        I agree Malisha, But either way, it doesn’t bode well for him. The best case for him is that it hurts his credibility. The worst case for him is it points to premeditation like you said.

      • MKX says:

        Sadly, unlike you, the right wing and too many “moderates” who claim be “objective” do not live in the logical universe.

        I believe you face the same kind of alternate logic universe when you correctly point out that Trayvon Martin had a right to defend himself against a lethal threat.

        Seriously, one can not make this shit up.

        Ben Stein clearly shows how they think.

        To them, an unarmed black male is more of a lethal threat than an ill disciplined, short tempered white {or honorary one} with a gun.

        And this careless lack of discipline is not given enough scrutiny. In both cases, the right and logical thing to do was to wait till back up arrived. A sane world would want either Zimmerman or Martin to NOT be allowed to carry a fire arm due to their lack of self-control.

        Zimmermann is a ticking time bomb creeping around in our country who is likely to kill again.

        This officer will most likely be not convicted of anything, thus be allowed to have a gun.

        We, as a society, should not tolerate stupidity with fire arms.

        Wilson let at least 10 rounds fly on a street with people about.

        • Malisha says:

          And I don’t call it stupidity. I call it supremacy. “I’ll kill who the F I want to kill!” That’s what I take away from what he did.

    • SearchingMind says:

      I think Mr. Wilson’s friend Sofie was truthful. I think she relayed to us exactly what Mr. Wilson told her happened. Only Mr. Wilson knows that that story is a lie (Sofie could not know that). It would be interesting, would it not, to know whether or not Wilson repeated the same claim to (any of) his fellow cops. Under certain conditions and depending on Mr. Wilson’s signed statement and/or testimony on the stand, that claim may become admissible evidence against him under the ‘hearsay exception’.

      In addition to the presentation of ‘Malisha the beautiful mind’ There is also another serious problem with the story told by Sofie: if Mr. Wilson – despite having no reason to believe that MB was a felon and/or posed any danger to the public – was shooting at MB inside a residential neighborhood, while MB fled, Mr. Wilson would be committing numerous (Class A) felonies (among others: attempted murder for every single shot fired!) and may not exercise the right of self-defense during the commission of said felony.

      • Sophia33 says:

        Oh, I believe she was repeating what he said. Authorities also stated that her account was the same account that he gave to them. So the situation you posed SearchingMind is a very valid one if what the authorities say is true.

        • Malisha says:

          Having others tell your lies for you protects you from either self-incrimination OR waiving your 5th amendment protection OR perjury. Fogen’s lawyers (while he was in hiding) said he had a broken nose. Then the press, his daddy, O’Mara, and assorted other assholes and liars parroted “broken nose” “broken nose” “broken nose” “SQUALK!! SQUALK!!”

          Then no broken nose but he doesn’t get blamed for the story. With Wilson, first we have “broken eye socket” and then “punch in the face” and pretty soon he’ll be on life support and then none of it can be attributed to him; it’s all hearsay said (and forgotten after its usefulness is over) by someone else.

          I am guessing he got mad because Brown sassed him so he smashed him with the door but it swung back and bonked him on the side of the face so he got out with an attitude and killed. Brown probably thought he was fleeing from a police beating and then a false “drop” charge of marijuana or something, but got killed instead.

      • Trisha0620 says:

        josie got her info from facebook it wasn’t from the Cop, and it was suppose to he the Girl friend not him anyhow, so its Hear say,

        • aussie says:

          And the Facebook claimed to be his, but it was proven fake, as ALL his stuff was wiped off the internet before they released his name. So Josie and the fake Facebook were done by the COPS to get his story out, without his having to say anything. Well, maybe by him, I guess but a new account. To look fake. Plausible deniability.

        • Sophia33 says:

          Yes, but they were reporting that the police said that Josie’s account was the same one that the officer gave. I hope he gave that account in something that is legally binding. It may prove quit problematic for him.

    • roderick2012 says:

      Remember she said MB said, “What you gonna do about it”? “You gonna shoot me”? She said that the killer said that MB was taunting him before he shot. Could prove she is a liar!

      This is a parallel to Piglet’s claim that Trayvon told him–“you got me homie’ after Trayvon was shot through the heart.

      And so now not only did Brown charge Wilson, but he also taunted him?


      He was a few days from going away to college so I doubt he wanted to die that day.

  78. Michelleo says:

    Jon Stewart Goes After Fox in Powerful Ferguson Monologue

    Faux Noise: Why aren’t we covering black on black crime?

    Jon: Yes! Why all the interest in holding police officers to a higher standard than gangs?

    • Sophia33 says:

      He NAILED it! I get so sick of the right wing not covering what we are doing in Chicago to deal with gangs and crime. They are ignorant. Al Sharpton INVITED O’Reilly to the submit last year and he DECLINED. Also, it does get exhausting living this nonsense.

    • YQ says:

      Yeah, that was very good!

  79. girlp says:

    Lawsuit by Fergueson citizens assaulted by the police, some people are fighting back, I hope they win.

  80. SearchingMind says:

    “The gun shots are ABSOLUTELY AUTHENTIC.” – LLMPapa

    Indeed! And in the sequence of the two groups of said shots lies buried an independent, irrefutable evidence of the premeditation-element’ required for ‘1st degree murder’ – i.e. the ‘pause’ (in between the groups of shots). Such is corroborated by the testimonies of at least FOUR eyewitnesses which are not only internally consistent, but also consistent with each other and with the sequence of the shots. The first group of shots ended when MB stopped running away. This was followed by ‘the pause’. The last group of shots, incl. the kill-shot(s) followed immediately after ‘the pause’, while MB turned around facing ofc Wilson and was surrendering to him! Between the two groups of shots was enough time for reflection/meditation/aforethought (settled law). If the MO SA/DA did not ask the GJ to return indictments for – among others – 1st degree murder, I sure hope he amends the charging documents on time to include it.

    I am still reading up stuff on earlier threads to bring myself up to speed and I can see that you guys have been doing a very nice job here. Bravo to all of you!

    And good day to you, Prof!
    (Posted this before with different email. Pls. do ignore prior post if this one shows)

  81. SearchingMind says:

    Prof, my post is still awaiting moderation (since yesterday). It could be because of my usage of a different e-mail address?

  82. Trisha0620 says:

    Witness Number 5
    Exclusive: The Man Who Live-Tweeted Michael Brown’s Death (Dispatch 7)

    • MKX says:

      Rule of law means that no individual can commit acts that are not legal regardless of race, gender class or title.

      And example being that one can not shoot down another person who is fleeing or surrendering. Not only is that a violation of US law, it is arguably a violation of international human rights that the USA likes to claim it is at the forefront of enforcing.

      These supporters of Wilson interpret rule of law to mean a police officer rules over you – do what he says.

      Funny, that a group who likes to dress like patriots circa 1776, wave big flags, and have a bumper sticker with “these colors don’t run” would have such a view. They ought to read some of the grievances laid against the Crown that led up to the revolution and compare those to the behavior of the present day police they fawn over.

      It would become quite apparent that the true patriots are people of color and the followers of Wilson are Tories.

  83. ay2z says:


    And the FBI is being notif-ied, abso-friggin’-lutely!!

    Great work, LLMPapa, as always.

  84. SearchingMind says:

    “The gun shots are ABSOLUTELY AUTHENTIC.” – LLMPapa

    Indeed! And in the sequence of the two groups of said shots lies buried an independent, irrefutable evidence of the premeditation-element’ required for ‘1st degree murder’ – i.e. the ‘pause’ (in between the groups of shots). Such is corroborated by the testimonies of at least FOUR eyewitnesses which are not only internally consistent, but also consistent with each other and with the sequence of the shots. The first group of shots ended when MB stopped running away. This was followed by ‘the pause’. The last group of shots, incl. the kill-shot(s) followed immediately after ‘the pause’, while MB turned around facing ofc Wilson and was surrendering to him! Between the two groups of shots was enough time for reflection/meditation/aforethought (settled law). If the MO SA did not ask the GJ to return indictments for – among others – 1st degree murder, I sure hope he amends the charging documents on time to include it.

    I am still reading up stuff on earlier threads to bring myself up to speed and I can see that you guys have been doing a very nice job here. Bravo to all of you!

    And good evening to you, Prof!

  85. LLMPapa says:

    Abso-frigging-lutely Authentic

  86. LLMPapa says:

    Video Messaging Service Confirms Timestamp of Michael Brown Shooting Audio

    “Because Glide is the only messaging application using streaming video technology, each message is simultaneously recorded and transmitted, so the exact time can be verified to the second. In this case, the video in question was created at 12:02:14 PM CDT on Saturday, August 9th.

    And Glide’s head of communications told WaPo‘s Erik Wemple that the audio is “absolutely” authentic

    The gun shots are ABSOLUTELY AUTHENTIC.

    • girlp says:

      Why only 10 shots heard, they found 12 casings.

      • LLMPapa says:

        Out of curiosity, where’d you see the “12 casings found”? I’ve seen it posted but no one seems to have a link?

        Personally, I would tend to doubt the shot fired from inside the enclosed confines of the cop’s car would carry sound like the 10 or 11 fired in an open environment.

        Like you, I counted 10, but the Professor and this guy’s attorney heard 11, so I don’t know.

        • SearchingMind says:

          The recording released to the public is about 10 seconds long. Given the context in which the recording was made, I believe that what was released is only a fraction of the complete recording which the authorities (must) have. This is my logical inference and other interpretations are possible. One of the most important reasons why the complete recording was not released might have to do with privacy issues. When you hear stuff like ‘oh “you are pretty …. you are sooo fine”, etc. you know that the recording very likely contains even more “juicy, sticky stuff” the person being recorded (an excellent womanizer btw) may not want released to the public.

      • YQ says:

        They cropped the audio… The first cannot be heard BC its not in the audio and it occurred before then.

        • willisnewton says:

          Unless you have access to the whole recording and we don’t that’s a guess YQ but I tend to think either there is no first shot from inside the SUV or else we aren’t getting the relevant audio. It could be many seconds before the “first” shot we hear on the current recording.

    • bettykath says:

      LLMPapa, thanks for your updates and videos

  87. girlp says:
    Lawsuit by a right wing journalist who like Faux news claims to be independent and fair…looking at his article I would say not.

    • girlp says:

      He is also stating a few other non facts such as the witnesses have changed their story…. Also, breitbart is reporting the same, there is no credibility to this story however CNN still reported it.

    • Malisha says:

      Note that the guy suing for juvenile records says that he has two law enforcement friends who told him Brown had a juvenile record. Uh the fuck OH! Who are they? Names please? When did they tell that? Badges please, guns please, go home please, violation of the Constitution, folks.

    • Malisha says:

      I particularly liked the blonde nordic-looking woman on FOX who said authoritatively, “If I were black I would want Al Sharpton to be doing something about all these black-on-black murders in CHICAGO!”

      She would? Wow. But my questions are these:

      If she were Black, would she still like to screw the same partners she screws now?

      If she were Black, would she still wear that suit she’s wearing in the clip? How about that shade of lipstick?

      If she were Black, would she still like shrimp cocktail and caesar salad?

      If she were Black, would she still be a Republican?

      If she were Black, would she still disapprove of Barack Obama?

      If she were Black, would she still have her job?

      If she were Black, would she still be allowed to go to dinner at her parents’ house?

      If she were Black, would she still use that same brand of deodorant? I mean — we want DATA here! Not speculation!

      • girlp says:

        I am so tired of the Chicago thing plenty of people local up to the President are doing something about the Chicago thing besides it has nothing to do with Michael Brown.

      • bettykath says:

        Blondie also didn’t do her homework. sharpton is plannig/doing something about the violence in Chicago..

        Love this clip:

      • PhillyBoyRoy says:

        People (black and white) who murder are more often than not arrested and jailed.

        Cops and vigilantes who murder are not.

        “Black on black crime” is the dumbest non-sequitur in history.

        I’m going to start talking about “white-on-white crime” in response. Serial killers, mass shooters, etc. Only… It’s got nothing to do with Michael a Brown being shot dead in the street.

        It’s also a weird, weird projection; if not for right-wing, racist, anti-black, anti-poor economic and social policies of the last… 500 years – and specifically the last 50 or so since racism was eradicated (sarcasm) – none of us (black or white) would need to worry about so-called “black on black crime”. They need to stop talking so tough about “black on black crime” and start changing the economic policies in the country that have led to extreme poverty, institutional racism, and segregation.

        I won’t hold my breath.

  88. YQ says:

    There is a lawsuit filed for alleged MB juvy records as reported yesterday. The argument is that his juvy records should be made public since MB is deceased. Law professor Tricia Harrison says that the juvenile code protects the juveniles right to confidentiality, the records are only given to school personnel and counselors. The interest has to be legitimate.

    Hope that they don’t let em out, and if they do, I hope that there is nothing to see. Not that it matters.

  89. JJ says:

    These same people are even spreading fear on Facebook about the bucket challenge. There is no solution is crazy – and they vote and hold office. The problem is their FEAR.
    The Illuminati Fire & Ice Challenges ‘Purifying America’ Before The ‘Great Human Sacrifice’

  90. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    Yeah, I love when these people get on their high horses about “due process” and the law… when they avidly support a murderer who denied a human being THEIR due process, and want him to get off with even an INVESTIGATION, let alone indictment and jail time.

    • YQ says:

      I agreed. Those donations are NOT waiting so most of them don’t feel that way regardless of what they say. Wilson is the only one benefiting from all of this time. Waiting for the evidence to come out so he can wrap his story around the facts that are presented. I can see him suggesting that he mistook Michael Brown’s stumble as a bumrush, and that would good enough to get him off. He should be locked up and situated nowhere near a TV and internet.

      • Michelleo says:

        You know the NRA is behind a lot of the big money that is coming in.

        • roderick2012 says:

          I agree with you that the NRA is funneling money to Wilson.

          I also believe that the NRA supported Zimmerman throughout his trial and is still actively supporting him financially because O’Mara agreed not to go forward with the formal SYG hearing because the NRA didn’t want SYG associated with Piglet’s lies.

  91. MKX says:

    How is it that the victim does not end up where the shooters or the supporters thereof claim the event took place?

    Oh, I see:

    • Michelleo says:

      It’s amazing to hear the racist mouth breathers describe the super powers of Black people. It’s astonishing!!

  92. LLMPapa says:

    Same Old Song And Dance

  93. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    And finally, in case you needed more reason to be angry:

    • Disappointed says:

      LLMPapa my dad always told us sometimes it’s just best to keep your mouth shut. To bad Josie’s dad did not tell her the same.

    • MKX says:

      That is clearly trying to incite a reaction.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        they did it for days on TV, clearly doing everything they could to provoke a riot…….and the police whining we were under fire was total BS, there is NO evidence anybody fired one shot at them……

        • MKX says:

          Unless the FOP comes out and says they have an institutional problem with cop behavior in the USA, then I have lost all respect for them.

          I get tired of the “it is only a few bad ones” argument. If that was the case, then why aren’t the “good ones” doing something?

          I feel they have behaved in a manner, collectively, that should require they no longer can carry a fire arm on patrol.

          A back up with fire arms could be called in, if the back up has a civilian observer and all acts are document on film.

          They are way out of line.

          • Bill Taylor says:

            exactly the “good” ones are observing crimes including murder and allowing it to happen and most often actively covering it up…….IF most are in reality “good” then this stuff would be RARE in the extreme as opposed to happening almost every day all across the land.

          • Michelleo says:

            Many of these people are defending the men and women in “blue” in their families. They want to believe that mommy and daddy and auntie and uncle and brother and sister are “heroes.”

          • Michelleo says:

            The media is complicit in criminalizing minorities in the minds of the world as well. They purposely never make the distinction of people of color who are gang members, n’er-do-wells, or mentally ill from the greater majority who are hardworking, tax paying citizens. The meme is to psychologically brand ALL people of color–whether young or old—as suspects and criminals.

          • Bill Taylor says:

            the recent events are a prime example of that in total several thousand people were involved in the peaceful protests but the entire group was painted as being rioters and looters because of the actions of a very FEW that were NOT part of the protest even.

  94. LLMPapa says:

    He JUST Started Shooting?

    • PhillyBoyRoy says:

      I still don’t understand Josie’s fake story.

      Can someone please explain to me how it’s not murder to shoot someone who is running toward you from 35 feet away?

      I mean, of course, we know the story is pure bunk.

      But even still, if he was scared enough of the Super Black Bum Rush, he had time to dump himself, then get back in his car and drive away. 35 feet is not far but it’s not within Super Black Concrete Smashing distance either. He had time to get away from the Crazed Bum Rushing Black Teenager Who Had Been Shot Already.

      I think he would have made it back to his car and survived the vicious beating at the hands of the Crazed Bum Rushing Black Teenager Who Had Been Shot Already, rather than pulling the trigger another 4 times and shooting the Crazed Bum Rushing Black Teenager Who Had Been Shot Already in the face and head.

    • MKX says:

      So when is the media going to call Josie a liar?

      She clearly states that “both” were facing the officer. That “both” is completely contradicted by eye witness testimony.

      Oh, I have found the right wing religion.

      The other guy was proving incoming Super Black Incoming Concrete (SBIC) fire to pin the officer while Brown did a frontal assault by CBRBT.

      Unlike them and Jethro Bodine, I don’t done got a third grade education.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        call her a liar? fox news says she is telling the ONLY real version…….megyn last night she is an EYE witness and her story should carry its proper weight……… fox news the eye witnesses are nothing but hate filled LIARS and this officer is some saint making the community safer.

        • MKX says:

          How did four independent observers reach essentially the same conclusion which, in turn, correlates well with the forensic evidence we have, so far?

          The “real” version touted by Fox, OTC, has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

          Liars who like to make a name for themselves will try to fit a story to what they heard were facts; and the story most often will not match up with more facts collected.

        • Michelleo says:

          Unfortunately, this is the “sweet white woman” syndrome. She would never lie, because she is the flower of womanhood. I hate all of this talk about race; but here it is. I went to a doctor’s appointment today, and I got that nasty feeling as a hush came over the room, and they all turned and looked at me, the only AA in the office. I’ve never had a problem going to a white physician or talking to a white counselor. But I live in the South near a very famous town known for it’s historic “twilight” laws. I will have to seek a new doctor out.

      • PhillyBoyRoy says:

        Media is complicit in all of this.

        Imagine a friend of Mike Brown who wasn’t there, but merely “heard” about what happened, called the news station and said he heard that someone at the scene heard Darren Wilson say, “Die, N-words!”

        Oh wait, it would be spun into “No, I think he said ‘I love N-words’ and you were misunderstanding that he shot out of extreme love”.

        Similar to how the 911 recording of Zimmerman went from “F–ing COONS” to “I am a mentor of black YOUTHS”.

        • Michelleo says:

          The media is complicit in this. Other than entertainers, celebrities, and such; the myth perpetuated by the media is that all other minorities are very dangerous criminals. The celebrities and entertainers are viewed as the exceptions, you see. So, if you like Oprah, then you are not a “racists,” although you may hold very racist views.

      • PhillyBoyRoy says:

        Holy s–t!

        I think Ben Stein reads our comments here… Only, sadly, I don’t think his Scary Strong Black Teen gag is satirical in any way.


        He has out-Onioned us.

          • PhillyBoyRoy says:

            Do they REALLY think this, or are they just race-baiting (btw someone needs to spin that phrase, since the right is the only group who uses it, when they want to bait racist whites with dog-whistle language)?

            Come on, Ben!

            Was Nixon protected by armed and trained Secret Service guys, or large teenagers?

            Seriously?! This mentality is INSANE!

            In a life or death situation, there is no one who would rather be on the gun side than the supposed bum rush side!

            It’s not self defense when you have a gun and shoot a guy running at you!

            Which didn’t even happen anyway!

          • MKX says:

            Ach so! Ben Stein, the man who thinks intelligent design is science 🙂

            It is all so clear now.

            God made blacks super human muscle men who can dodge flying bullets with their natural groove while flinging deadly concrete dug out of the road by their sinewy tiger claw hands tipped with titanium finger nails.

          • Malisha says:

            Ben Stein’s comment is idiotic and racist. It means, “anybody powerful and big may be considered armed and I can kill them if I have a weapon because it’s fair to kill somebody armed; after all, I am entitled to fear for my life because they’re big and scary.” By his idiotic view of the world, only weak looking pipsqueaks are entitled to be free from threats of random murder “caused” by involuntary fear-producing inherent scariness.

          • MKX says:


            By Ben Nicht Ein Stein’s logic, Trayvon Martin had the right to shoot a 1.5 times bigger George Zimmerman.

            There lack of consistency is legendary. Brown, although big, was not a lean person, just like Zimmerman, but unlike George, he is assumed to be “muscular”.

            Now, why its that?

            One really can’t make any conclusion unless they see the subject at the gym lifting weights.

            I have seen men built like Brown who I thought could easily deadlift 400 pound struggle with 200 and, conversely, guys who looked like George bang out multiple reps with 400.

            Unless that person believes that inherent super black strength is part of Gods intelligent design.

        • Bill Taylor says:

          our design is NOT intelligent……we are NOT designed to walk upright, hence all of us having back problems as we age……..

          • MKX says:

            As part of my docket, I had to deal with control systems for various forms of “vehicles”.

            Anyhow, one case I remember dealt with that walking robot that Honda likes to show – Asimo.

            The dynamic problems that have to be solved to keep torque resolved about the mass center of a walking robot are immensely complex.

            Does that mean evolution is not possible?


            What I have read is that evolution is kind of billions upon billions of trial by error iterations wherein the better mouse trap evolves.

            And it has been used by man.

            One example is when Ford and Sorenson decided to solve the problem of how to cast a V8 block with one pour. Although there was some knowledge applied, Sorenson remarked to the men that we will cast 100 and, out of that, one will be less than crap, and we will study that, make changes, cast another 100, and so on and so on. Brute force trial by error engineering, it was. And Clyde Barrow wrote Henry a letter thanking him for the result – the Ford Flat Head V8.

            I have read that there are algorithms that simulate evolution to engineer structures.

      • Malisha says:

        They both ran.
        They both turned.
        They had rehearsed a “synchronized officer attack” routine.
        In unison they ran, they turned, one bumrushed while the other simply prepared to lie.

        Oh those silly post-racial-persons-of-the-African-American-Persuasion, them. My my MY!

    • YQ says:

      If I could be of any assistance, currently I’m studying and pursuing a BA in Audio Production and Engineering. I have a 3.5 cummulative GPA. I earned a B in my Science of Sound course, (which is basically Physics of Sound), the course is required and very difficult. I can tell you that there are many attributing factors as to why we don’t hear the very first shot which has said to occur from inside of the vehicle.

      Right at the beginning of the recording, there is a voice which could have potentially masked the muffled gunshot. Although I must say, Wilson had the window down, allowing the freedom of the movement of air to escape the vehicle. In this particular instance, the gunshot would still be audible, but the sound and frequency of it would have changed. You can also tell that the decrease in distance changes the sound of the shot, indicating that there was movement during the shooting. Not only does it seem like two volleys are fired, this was a sort of run, catch and kill scenario played out by Wilson.

      Phase cancelation is also a key factor. There is lots of reverb and delay from the shots fired. You can distinguish the shots in open environment, but not not if it were fired inside of the car. We also have to assume that Wilson had the window down in the vehicle, which would still make the sound of the shot audible.

      BUT IMO, I don’t think that the audio of the first gunshot is presented within the recording. Immediately when the recording starts, there are gunshots. The voice is in mid-sentence at this point. I can’t imagine that enough time went by to assume that Wilson turned and aimed the gun so quickly to fire after Brown broke away and fleed.

      Its not a question of the authenticity of the recording, its a question of how it was presented. With no police report filed, Im assuming that ALL of the cards cant be dealt until the pretrial hearing. The FBI are some slick sons of guns.

      • willisnewton says:

        I have no reason to give unearned faith to the DoJ. But I do tend to agree that the sequence of shots heard presents interesting questions I can’t answer. The point that confounds me is that the bey of Mike Brown was on the ground some 125 feet from the door of the SUV, by what I can discern from news and cell video, and nearby landmarks using google earth to measure. Yet the sequence of shots last only 6-7 seconds in total, including the curious pause in the middle. I’m with you, YQ in thinking the shots come closer to the recording microphone as they continue. I’m willing to conside many scenarios to explain these two things, but one I’d mention first is the possibility that there were NO shots fired from inside the SUV, and all of the shots we hear on the recording are from Wilson on the move. How far can a 300 lbs teen in flip flops run in seven seconds, and still presumably turn around before the last four shots are fired?

        • willisnewton says:

          *body of Mike Brown

        • MKX says:

          Weren’t 12 empty casings recovered?

          Maybe there were two muffled shots in inside the SUV that caused Brown to bolt; and we then hear six as the office is chasing and the final four with Brown turned around.

          That would account for 12.

        • YQ says:

          There is a chance that the voice could have muffled the first shot. IDK, the way the event was described by Dorian feels like the recording should have started sooner to hear that first shot.

          The pause in the middle is huge IMO.

          Wouldn’t it cause the defense to admit that Wilson fired shots while Brown was running?
          I can’t imagine a cop only hitting a stationary target 50% times at that distance. And if he moved closer, he was able to hit those 6 shots all in the 2nd volley.

  95. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    Someone should go on Hannity and O’Reilly and Carlson (ever desperately trying to get back on tv again, I might add) basically every other Fox idiot (also most CNN and MSNBc fools) and ask what they would rather have in a fight: a gun or Super Black Bum Rush skills.

    If they choose SBBR, let em put their money where their big mouth is against a firing squad.

    There’s a reason why soldiers and cops get to have guns and don’t just go around bum rushing people with their heads down.

  96. PhillyBoyRoy says:


    Another case of a bad cop looking for trouble where there was none, scaring the people he is supposed to be protecting, then over reacting to a non-lethal “threat” with lethal force.

    He should be in jail, yet, in America, he still has his job (even though he clearly stinks at it).

  97. Michelleo says:

    Cops Caught On Camera Beating Black Man And Yelling “Stop Trying To Take My Gun” After He Puts His Hands Up

    • Bill Taylor says:

      every person that says if you dont want trouble with the police simply DONT break the law should be required to watch that video over and over until the reality sinks in

      • MKX says:

        I got a gun put to my head because the undercover cop claimed I had thrown a snow ball at his car. The idiot had driven to fast over a pot hole and the loud thump was the axle hitting the suspension stop. Like the officer did with Brown, he pulled right in front of me as I tried to cross an intersection and I remember those first words: “Hey you F’in asshole, why did you throw a snowball at me car?”. When I said “no sir, I did not”. He got out of the car and put a gun at my head and a badge in my face. He then proceeded to search me for concealed weapons. After that, he drove off and ran right back over that pot hole again 🙂

        Keep in mind that he was plain clothes.

        So how far did I come from being shot? A lot of my friends might have smarted off to him as he cut in front or even tried to resist a stranger coming at them from an unmarked car. That is how they bait you. Addressing you as asshole is another bait tactic. But I had already learned about that tactic from some other stops by Detroit’s finest (sarcasm).

        Hopefully, some people in whitetopias are getting their eyes opened as to what really goes on in the world where the so-called scum live.

        I felt safer around known criminals than cops. At least they knew my name or street name and addressed me with respect.

        The funniest story is that one of those “criminals” found out that I aced SAT tests and told me he would beat my ass, if I did not complete college and get a decent job.

    • PhillyBoyRoy says:

      How about this:

      Can the cops get any stupider?

      I think people will start to see through the right-wing mantra “Cops killed someone once or twice, but so have convicted killers!”

      It’s too dumb to survive.

      Also I think the typical cop argument that we’ve seen over the last 30 years – “Our [insert weapon / deadly tactic here] was not what killed him, it was the heart attack caused by our [weapons / deadly tactics]. No charges please!”

    • PhillyBoyRoy says:

      Jesus Christ. Down the road from where I used to work.

      The difference between us and scum like Darren Wilson?

      When we read articles like that we get sickening, hopeless feelings deep in the pits of our stomachs, they get tiny little boners.

      Seriously that article and video made me nauseous and dizzy. Maybe because it was my old neighborhood.

      Also at how brazenly the cops acted. They wanted a kill. They probably could have gotten away with murder if they had killed him, to be honest, because then there would be no witness to tell the events as they actually occurred.

      I have good friends living in that same area who could and would be shot if they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  98. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    Re: article #1

    Wow, I assumed it was bad but I had no idea how bad.

    It’s great that the disgusting police response – as early as August 9 – is finally being exposed.

    Shows clearly which was already clear to us – cops caused the “riots”, not the other way around.

  99. Malisha says:

    The three articles go well together. What they show is that:

    1. The racism and classism of our country is now both ascendant and empowered to the max;

    2. Exploitation of minorities (predominantly, the racial minority African American) is part of an overall program of high-tech neo-feudalism that is our present and future form of government; and

    3. Our economic situation in this country is a deliberate concerted act encompassing and promoting the de-legimitization of any active opposition to the overall program. The middle class was a force, in the past, to challenge anti-democratic institutionalized movements. In the future, this will not be possible because challenges cost more and more money and the middle class is being demoted to “neopoor.”

    • YQ says:

      ↩replayed and liked!!!!

      “who protects US from YOU?”

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Even back as far as the 80s, I remember people in the city where I lived holding up signs saying “Who will call the cops on the cops?”

    • MKX says:

      Any time I heard that whoop whoop of the police siren, I used to think about these lines from the old Candid Camera song:

      when its least expected

      you’re elected

      it’s your lucky day {with massive sarcasm}

      I have to explain to my wife why I still get all tense around the police, even though we live in a good area.

      PTCD – Post Traumatic Cop Disorder?

      • MKX says:

        I should have wrote “good”.

        And I feel where I live now is an example of my white privilege for a black American is not seen as good in his own community or in a “good” one – and that is wrong, big time.

  100. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    Great thread. I think the third article is a great tie in that gets lost in the shuffle. Overt racism is easy to point out but the gradual and continued oppression of all but the country’s ruling class is part of the problem, too.

    I saw this today – not a huge Stewart fan but it is a solid summary of the tv news response to Michael’s death.

    I like when he says something about “holding cops to the same standard as gangs”, in response to all the faux righteous calls for solutions to “black-on-black” crime.

    Also, do these people realize that the anti-poor, anti-welfare, anti-social spending conservative/Neo-liberal stance on virtually everything is the one thing that could actually be changed in order to help “solve” black community problems?

    Are they supremely dumb, or just grotesquely disingenuous?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: