Announcement from Ferguson Missouri
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
This thread:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VrS14wLmVhY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VrS14wLmVhY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Actually, i appreciate that jaek because I do believe we haven't heard the end of this story at all.
It's not a political issue, it's a social issue.
It's very apparent to me that there is the obvious question of the equanimity of the justice system and its applications. The race issue only clouds the question in my view. The question is still whether or not Wilson should face trial.
It's not a political issue, it's a social issue.
It's very apparent to me that there is the obvious question of the equanimity of the justice system and its applications. The race issue only clouds the question in my view. The question is still whether or not Wilson should face trial.
- Nov 13, 2009
- 3,322
- 116
- 0
CNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ?peaceful?
CNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ?peaceful?
CNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ?peaceful?
By Naomi Schaefer Riley
November 29, 2014 | 7:15pm
Here?s a quiz for you folks in the media: What happens if you?re out doing ?man on the street? interviews but none of the men on the street fit your ?narrative??
If you?re CNN, you stop interviewing them.
It has been remarkable to watch the last few days as America?s self-styled ?most trusted news network? has sent out teams of reporters to various areas of Ferguson, Mo., ostensibly to cover the protests there. While their cameramen are watching cars on fire and stores being looted, the reporters ramble on about how ?most people here? are ?peaceful protesters.?
Where are these peaceful protesters? The reporters can?t seem to find any. Instead, they turn to outside experts and some carefully vetted religious leaders to talk about ?the real message? of the protests.
On Tuesday night, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was reporting, ?Most of the protesting we saw in front of the Ferguson Police Department tonight was peaceful.? Then as he started trying to explain the fires burning behind him, he was approached by three of the protesters, who proceeded to get in his face and yell at him because he was promoting a ?certain narrative? ? the police narrative. ?You don?t understand!? one screamed.
Anchor Don Lemon quickly went elsewhere, saying he was worried about Carroll?s safety. When Lemon returned to Carroll later in the broadcast and asked him what the men were saying to him, Carroll refused to say. The reporter was stonewalling because, he explained, these men didn?t ?represent? the peaceful protesters who were really the story.
CNN?s ?narrative? was laid out early on Monday evening as correspondent Van Jones (formerly of the Obama administration) warned the audience not to pay attention to ?a few knuckleheads? who later became a ?bunch of knuckleheads? who ?started a bunch of nonsense.?
Knuckleheads? Nonsense? When did knucklehead become a synonym for arsonist? When did taking a baseball bat to store windows become ?a bunch of nonsense?? Talk about defining deviancy down.
On Tuesday night, Lemon even asked Jones about the difficulty they were having in finding peaceful protesters to interview, and Jones replied that ?a lot of these young people are on the knife?s edge between violence and nonviolence.? What does that even mean?
Lemon did not ask. Instead, he returned to Marc Lamont Hill, who explained that the problem is not the protesters but the police who have been ?disingenuous? by closing off a road to protesters after they heard shots being fired.
Again, he notes that the protesters were very peaceful ? and would have remained so if it weren?t for those police officers making people so angry by stifling their voices.
This is a news organization that has lost all sense of its role.
There was even a debate among these knuckleheads ? sorry, correspondents ? over whether they should have aired video of Michael Brown?s stepfather standing on top of a car yelling, ?Burn this bitch down,? right after the verdict was released.
When the Brown family called for peaceful protest, that was reported, but this outburst may not have been newsworthy, according to some of the CNN experts.
Come on. Enough is enough. These were not peaceful protests from the beginning.
Civil disobedience does not happen at night. No matter when the grand jury decision was announced, people who are engaged in peaceful protest take out their signs and march down the street in broad daylight.
Peaceful protesters don?t wear creepy anarchist masks or even bandannas to cover their faces. They are protesting with a clear conscience and are happy to have anyone know their identity.
Peaceful protesters do not dress like they are about to knock over a convenience store because they are not about to knock over a convenience store.
From day one, CNN has twisted the Ferguson story. The network decided early on that an injustice had been done, contrary facts aside. When the grand jury decided not to indict, CNN was primed for outrage, because there was no way officer Darren Wilson could have acted appropriately.
The network helped stir up a nation to the point of violence. Yet, since the protesters must always be on the side of angels, CNN lies about the destruction that follows.
It?s rare you see the liberal media?s dishonesty in such stark terms, but CNN can?t control the pictures. If you wanted to know what was really happening this week, all you had to do was press the mute button.
CNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ?peaceful?
CNN is lying when they say Ferguson protests were ?peaceful?
By Naomi Schaefer Riley
November 29, 2014 | 7:15pm
Here?s a quiz for you folks in the media: What happens if you?re out doing ?man on the street? interviews but none of the men on the street fit your ?narrative??
If you?re CNN, you stop interviewing them.
It has been remarkable to watch the last few days as America?s self-styled ?most trusted news network? has sent out teams of reporters to various areas of Ferguson, Mo., ostensibly to cover the protests there. While their cameramen are watching cars on fire and stores being looted, the reporters ramble on about how ?most people here? are ?peaceful protesters.?
Where are these peaceful protesters? The reporters can?t seem to find any. Instead, they turn to outside experts and some carefully vetted religious leaders to talk about ?the real message? of the protests.
On Tuesday night, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was reporting, ?Most of the protesting we saw in front of the Ferguson Police Department tonight was peaceful.? Then as he started trying to explain the fires burning behind him, he was approached by three of the protesters, who proceeded to get in his face and yell at him because he was promoting a ?certain narrative? ? the police narrative. ?You don?t understand!? one screamed.
Anchor Don Lemon quickly went elsewhere, saying he was worried about Carroll?s safety. When Lemon returned to Carroll later in the broadcast and asked him what the men were saying to him, Carroll refused to say. The reporter was stonewalling because, he explained, these men didn?t ?represent? the peaceful protesters who were really the story.
CNN?s ?narrative? was laid out early on Monday evening as correspondent Van Jones (formerly of the Obama administration) warned the audience not to pay attention to ?a few knuckleheads? who later became a ?bunch of knuckleheads? who ?started a bunch of nonsense.?
Knuckleheads? Nonsense? When did knucklehead become a synonym for arsonist? When did taking a baseball bat to store windows become ?a bunch of nonsense?? Talk about defining deviancy down.
On Tuesday night, Lemon even asked Jones about the difficulty they were having in finding peaceful protesters to interview, and Jones replied that ?a lot of these young people are on the knife?s edge between violence and nonviolence.? What does that even mean?
Lemon did not ask. Instead, he returned to Marc Lamont Hill, who explained that the problem is not the protesters but the police who have been ?disingenuous? by closing off a road to protesters after they heard shots being fired.
Again, he notes that the protesters were very peaceful ? and would have remained so if it weren?t for those police officers making people so angry by stifling their voices.
This is a news organization that has lost all sense of its role.
There was even a debate among these knuckleheads ? sorry, correspondents ? over whether they should have aired video of Michael Brown?s stepfather standing on top of a car yelling, ?Burn this bitch down,? right after the verdict was released.
When the Brown family called for peaceful protest, that was reported, but this outburst may not have been newsworthy, according to some of the CNN experts.
Come on. Enough is enough. These were not peaceful protests from the beginning.
Civil disobedience does not happen at night. No matter when the grand jury decision was announced, people who are engaged in peaceful protest take out their signs and march down the street in broad daylight.
Peaceful protesters don?t wear creepy anarchist masks or even bandannas to cover their faces. They are protesting with a clear conscience and are happy to have anyone know their identity.
Peaceful protesters do not dress like they are about to knock over a convenience store because they are not about to knock over a convenience store.
From day one, CNN has twisted the Ferguson story. The network decided early on that an injustice had been done, contrary facts aside. When the grand jury decided not to indict, CNN was primed for outrage, because there was no way officer Darren Wilson could have acted appropriately.
The network helped stir up a nation to the point of violence. Yet, since the protesters must always be on the side of angels, CNN lies about the destruction that follows.
It?s rare you see the liberal media?s dishonesty in such stark terms, but CNN can?t control the pictures. If you wanted to know what was really happening this week, all you had to do was press the mute button.
You can start a thread bitching about looters and the media if you'd like. It's not germane to this thread though.
Don't watch CNN if you don't like it. Problem solved.
Now back to the point, have you read the testimony and all the facts surrounding the abuses of the legal proceedings by the DA'S office, pondered the large number of inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony? Have you asked yourself why there are no fingerprints of Brown's on the weapon, holster, belt etc...? Have you asked yourself why Wilson testified that he "didn't have time to think" prior to unloading his first volley, yet also testified that he "paused and thought" about whether he could legally shoot. So he was in fear for his life but had time to pause and think about it. How did Brown, standing to Wilson's left, hit Wilson in the right side of his face with his right hand? Why are there no bruises on Wilson? There are not even latent bruises that show up in the next day or two that you would expect to see if someone was "full force punched twice in the face" to the point where Wilson "feared the next punch would knock him out"?
Just this once Skul I'd like to see you simply give a direct response to the direct questions. Seriously, I know it's not really your style and I'm fine with that, but just this once I'd like to hear your honest answers to these questions. I'm truly curious to hear if any of these inconsistencies give you any pause at all as to the validity of Wilson's testimony.
FatDaddyCool, I have been asked in the past to NOT start threads that cover the same subject.
Hope this helps.
:0008
Hope this helps.
:0008
Not really, I was looking more for an answer to the other me relevant questions.
Hope that helps,
FDC
StL Police Officers Association condemns Rams display
KSDK
Rams players enter field with hands up
Jimmy Bernhard, KSDK 10:11 p.m. CST November 30, 2014
NFL: Oakland Raiders at St. Louis Rams
(Photo: Jeff Curry, Jeff Curry-USA TODAY Sports)
ST. LOUIS ? The St. Louis Police Officers Association has released a statement condemning the St. Louis Rams football players who entered the field displaying the "hands up don't shoot" pose.
Nov 30, 2014; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams wide
Nov 30, 2014; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams wide receiver Tavon Austin (11) puts his hands up to show support for Michael Brown before a game against the Oakland Raiders at the Edward Jones Dome. (Photo: Jeff Curry, Jeff Curry-USA TODAY Sports)
You can read the full statement below:
St. Louis, Missouri (November 30, 2014) ? The St. Louis Police Officers Association is profoundly disappointed with the members of the St. Louis Rams football team who chose to ignore the mountains of evidence released from the St. Louis County Grand Jury this week and engage in a display that police officers around the nation found tasteless, offensive and inflammatory.
Five members of the Rams entered the field today exhibiting the "hands-up-don't-shoot" pose that has been adopted by protestors who accused Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson of murdering Michael Brown. The gesture has become synonymous with assertions that Michael Brown was innocent of any wrongdoing and attempting to surrender peacefully when Wilson, according to some now-discredited witnesses, gunned him down in cold blood.
SLPOA Business Manager Jeff Roorda said, "now that the evidence is in and Officer Wilson's account has been verified by physical and ballistic evidence as well as eye-witness testimony, which led the grand jury to conclude that no probable cause existed that Wilson engaged in any wrongdoing, it is unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over-and-over again."
Roorda was incensed that the Rams and the NFL would tolerate such behavior and called it remarkably hypocritical. "All week long, the Rams and the NFL were on the phone with the St. Louis Police Department asking for assurances that the players and the fans would be kept safe from the violent protesters who had rioted, looted, and burned buildings in Ferguson. Our officers have been working 12 hour shifts for over a week, they had days off including Thanksgiving cancelled so that they could defend this community from those on the streets that perpetuate this myth that Michael Brown was executed by a brother police officer and then, as the players and their fans sit safely in their dome under the watchful protection of hundreds of St. Louis's finest, they take to the turf to call a now-exonerated officer a murderer, that is way out-of-bounds, to put it in football parlance," Roorda said.
The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization's displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, "I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I've got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I'd remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser's products. It's cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it's not the NFL and the Rams, then it'll be cops and their supporters."
KSDK
Rams players enter field with hands up
Jimmy Bernhard, KSDK 10:11 p.m. CST November 30, 2014
NFL: Oakland Raiders at St. Louis Rams
(Photo: Jeff Curry, Jeff Curry-USA TODAY Sports)
ST. LOUIS ? The St. Louis Police Officers Association has released a statement condemning the St. Louis Rams football players who entered the field displaying the "hands up don't shoot" pose.
Nov 30, 2014; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams wide
Nov 30, 2014; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams wide receiver Tavon Austin (11) puts his hands up to show support for Michael Brown before a game against the Oakland Raiders at the Edward Jones Dome. (Photo: Jeff Curry, Jeff Curry-USA TODAY Sports)
You can read the full statement below:
St. Louis, Missouri (November 30, 2014) ? The St. Louis Police Officers Association is profoundly disappointed with the members of the St. Louis Rams football team who chose to ignore the mountains of evidence released from the St. Louis County Grand Jury this week and engage in a display that police officers around the nation found tasteless, offensive and inflammatory.
Five members of the Rams entered the field today exhibiting the "hands-up-don't-shoot" pose that has been adopted by protestors who accused Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson of murdering Michael Brown. The gesture has become synonymous with assertions that Michael Brown was innocent of any wrongdoing and attempting to surrender peacefully when Wilson, according to some now-discredited witnesses, gunned him down in cold blood.
SLPOA Business Manager Jeff Roorda said, "now that the evidence is in and Officer Wilson's account has been verified by physical and ballistic evidence as well as eye-witness testimony, which led the grand jury to conclude that no probable cause existed that Wilson engaged in any wrongdoing, it is unthinkable that hometown athletes would so publicly perpetuate a narrative that has been disproven over-and-over again."
Roorda was incensed that the Rams and the NFL would tolerate such behavior and called it remarkably hypocritical. "All week long, the Rams and the NFL were on the phone with the St. Louis Police Department asking for assurances that the players and the fans would be kept safe from the violent protesters who had rioted, looted, and burned buildings in Ferguson. Our officers have been working 12 hour shifts for over a week, they had days off including Thanksgiving cancelled so that they could defend this community from those on the streets that perpetuate this myth that Michael Brown was executed by a brother police officer and then, as the players and their fans sit safely in their dome under the watchful protection of hundreds of St. Louis's finest, they take to the turf to call a now-exonerated officer a murderer, that is way out-of-bounds, to put it in football parlance," Roorda said.
The SLPOA is calling for the players involved to be disciplined and for the Rams and the NFL to deliver a very public apology. Roorda said he planned to speak to the NFL and the Rams to voice his organization's displeasure tomorrow. He also plans to reach out to other police organizations in St. Louis and around the country to enlist their input on what the appropriate response from law enforcement should be. Roorda warned, "I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I've got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I'd remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser's products. It's cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it's not the NFL and the Rams, then it'll be cops and their supporters."
I don't read daily kos but my impression of World Net Daily is not good. Do they still employ that conspiracy hack Corsi?
As for Hedgy, I noticed he has posted about poor Jack not tolerating conservatives at this site at the rx. No, we still have some here bro just not you at the moment, lol.
CNN? Have to cut them some slack as most of their best people are probably still looking for that plane.
(Copy / Paste from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette) ~
The Brown case highlights law enforcement double standards
November 30, 2014 12:00 AM
I doubt we will ever have a clear account or reckoning for Michael Brown?s death. Sadly I do not believe we will ever have a real idea of who Mr. Brown was or could have been.
We know that Officer Darren Wilson encountered Mr. Brown at 12:01 p.m. Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Mo.; that there was an altercation between the two; and that Officer Wilson called for backup. We know that within 90 seconds of the time Officer Wilson called for backup, he had fired 12 rounds ? two when he was still inside the car and then two bursts of five rounds each, hitting the unarmed Mr. Brown at least six times.
We know Officer Wilson was a 28-year-old police officer with six years of experience. We know that like Michael Brown, he stood 6-foot-4 and weighed 210 pounds to Mr. Brown?s 295 pounds. Officer Wilson was smaller than Mr. Brown but was not by any measure a small man.
We know Mr. Brown reached into the patrol car and that Officer Wilson grabbed his arm. Officer Wilson testified that he ?felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan.? I understand how that could be.
But I don?t understand why Officer Wilson would leave the safety of his squad car with backup on the way. Or how Mr. Brown, whose dead body was found 153 feet from the squad car, could have been a threat to Officer Wilson. Or why he couldn?t have simply followed Mr. Brown at a distance who, by Officer Wilson?s testimony, was fleeing the scene.
So many things not to understand. But what I understand is this: Had Darren Wilson been a young black man cruising Canfield Drive and the same events transpired, he would have been immediately arrested and booked on no less than manslaughter with intent to kill.
JOHN MIER
Leetsdale
Post
73 Comments
John DeLallo1 day ago
"But what I understand is this: Had Darren Wilson been a young black man cruising Canfield Drive and the same events transpired, he would have been immediately arrested and booked on no less than manslaughter with intent to kill."
Your observation is so absurd that it barely survives its own utterance. Had the police officer decided to let Mr. Brown casually continue to stroll down the yellow line in the middle of the road, and had Mr. Brown been run over by a passing car, you would be calling for the officer's head on a platter.
Perhaps we should allow complete freedom to police officers to allow anyone to do anything they like, including walking down the middle of the road. Would that make you a happy camper?
Reply 11 replies+7
John Port 1 day ago
Good points John.
Bob Proctor 22 hours ago
You're arguing conjecture with more of it. What if that car had not come down the street? And if it had approached, what if Officer Wilson, while calling for backup, had pulled his SUV across both lanes, thereby protecting the street walkers from being hit? Your eagerness to defend even bad policing, and to be disparaging in the process, is not instructive.
Reply 2 replies+7
Jim Yearsley 19 hours ago
Bob, you are absolutely correct. Pointless conjecture is all most of this string is. "What if?" That may be the height of pointless... The attraction seems to be that anyone can play. 'What if' -- Michael Brown had not assaulted and robbed the convenience store clerk? 'What if' he had complied with Darren Wilsons lawful directions? 'What if' he had not attempted to wrestle Officer Wilson for control of the firearm? 'What if...'
Do you know what else is pointless? The death of every person lost to violent encounters on the streets of this nation -- do you know how many that was this past week in Pittsburgh, or Tampa, or Chicago?
Bob Proctor 17 hours ago
No, I don't, Jim, but I'm glad you didn't include Baltimore, Indianapolis and Oakland. Big numbers make me dizzy.
Ed Heath 20 hours ago
Are you saying walking in the middle of the street is a capital crime?
Did you want to further understanding of what happened in Ferguson and what happens all across America, or is it that you think we all must accept your run-to-judgment wisdom, that everything you say is always right?
donald oneill 15 hours ago
You make no sense Ed walking in the middle of the street is a cause for police to tell you to get off and onto the sidewalk. Disobeying the law is what got Micheal Brown killed. If he would have obeyed our laws he would still be alive today.Everyone wants to blame the police , put the blame where it belongs . On Micheal Brown.
Ed Heath 15 hours ago
Which crime did Mr Brown commit that merited summary execution? Reports are that he was 153 feet from Officer Wilson's vehicle when he died, so either Officer Wilson, if he remained with his vehicle, fired at someone over fifty yards from his vehicle, or Officer Wilson followed Mr Brown, gun drawn. Do the police have a license to kill any black teenager walling around now, or just those walking in the street?
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
Summary execution. Cold-blooded murder. Keep it up Ed, you're on a roll. Try to follow Mark Twain's advice!
donald oneill 14 hours ago
So you do not believe the grand jury's verdict..And did you hear that officer chased Brown down asking him to stop. Which he disobeyed after he tried to take the officers gun in the car .Summary execution really after charging the officer. The problem I have with you Ed is you weren't there just like I was not there. So the grand jury searched the truth. So you may not believe them but you and I don't matter only their findings count. That is our system .
John Strahs 14 hours ago
Ed "me thinks" you need to go back to counting those trees at Waterworks Mall.
Gary Evans 9 hours ago
"Walking in the middle of the street" didn't get the thief killed. Attacking a police officer did. Try to pay a little more attention to the facts, Ed.
Bob Proctor 23 hours ago
Officer Wilson should have backed off and called for backup. Had he done that, a suspect in a convenience store robbery would likely have been taken out of the middle of the street and into custody without fanfare or gunfire. We can see that clearly now. Good policing requires that it be seen before the incident escalates.
Dan Stants 22 hours ago
I think it was pretty much escalated when Michael Brown reached into the patrol car, punched the officer twice and went for his gun. A cop doesn't have a duty to retreat to safety, his job is to arrest the criminal. As soon as the officer ordered Michael Brown to stop, he should have stopped in his tracks and allowed himself to be taken into custody. Instead, he charged the cop and was shot as a result. He made a bad choice and died as a result.
Reply 23 replies+10
Bob Proctor 21 hours ago
And Darren Wilson is out of work, and will never police again, and his department is under investigation for its policing practices. A cop has a duty to protect and serve--the public, that is. What you call, pejoratively, a "retreat to safety," I call a tactical maneuver. As a result of bad policing, one man's dead and another is jobless.
Oren Spiegler 21 hours ago
Former Officer Wilson may wish he was dead in the days ahead. He is a marked man, despised by many, at risk of being assaulted or killed no matter where he goes in this country. He may regret having appeared on national television to state his case.
Jack Mennis 20 hours ago
Don't get too carried away Oren!
Paul Moschetta 16 hours ago
The more you post, the more it is revealed how na?ve you really are, Jack
Jack Mennis14 hours ago
Paul, the pot calling the kettle black.
+3
Ron White 17 hours ago
And Michael Brown is dead. Which would you rather be?
Bad policing according to who? Your opinion? He did what he was trained to do.
Why don't you go out and charge a cop like you were going to tackle a quarterback and tell is how it works out for you. If you can.
Paul Moschetta 16 hours ago
I can always count on the illogical hate of people like Ron White to defend a cop's decision to kill instead of maim a suspect
Reply 3 replies+1
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
Unbelievable! Shoot to maim not kill!
Red State 12 hours ago
When police shoot, it's to kill...NEVER maim! Talk to ANY officer....it's their training.
Ron White 9 hours ago
ALL police shoot to kill, not to maim. Maiming someone doesn't necessarily stop them.
You can't be serious with your comment.
Ed Heath 20 hours ago
Mr Brown's body was some 153 feet from Officer Wilson's vehicle. Which means that if Officer Wilson stayed with his vehicle, Mr Brown was still 51 yards away "charging" when he was hit a sufficient number of times to bring him down. Or Officer Wilson left his vehicle, gun drawn, and pursued Mr Brown. If so, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that he had decided to kill Mr Brown.
Reply 6 replies+2
Red State 19 hours ago
An officer seldom stays within his vehicle after having been punched, taunted, and had his weapon grabbed.
Reply 5 replies+3
Ron White 18 hours ago
And discharged, twice due to Michael Brown trying to take possession of his gun, inside of that vehicle. Ed conveniently leaves that part out.
Something else conveniently left out is even though Brown was 18, he had already started to amass a criminal record, including a 2nd degree murder charge as a juvenile.
He was no angel.
David Zetwo 18 hours ago
Ron and Dan, individuals who make comments like Bob on here will never know what it is like to be a Police Officer which also goes with the Monday morning Quarterbacking, 2 quarterbacks are on the field Sunday but there are thousands on Monday questioning as to what should have or shouldn't have occurred on the field. Usually those Monday morning Quarterbacks can't fit into a football uniform, have problems getting up off of the couch, or get winded after jogging 25 feet. They will never understand what it is like to be caught in a position where a decision has to be made in a second or 2, unfortunately there is a young man dead who by the way was no angel, and another who will be seeking employment elsewhere. The justice system worked in this case, but as always there will be those who don't care about residing in a nation of laws.
Ed Heath 14 hours ago
It is true that I did not mention the events that transpired in Officer Wilson's vehicle. We don't actually know what happened in Officer Wilson's vehicle, there is no video record. What Snopes tells is that suggesting Michael Brown had a felony record, including a 2nd degree murder charge as a juvenile, is bunk. I would post the link but then the PG might delete my comment.
We don't know his ecclesiastical status, but there is no record of a murder charge. I guess we know your willingness to repeat information from unscrupulous right wing sites.
Bob Proctor 9 hours ago
Yes, and its something of a rarity for an officer to get pinned in his vehicle by a kid who punches him, taunts him and wrestles with him for his gun, which discharges twice, all while the officer is seated in his vehicle. It's a good thing the officer kept his cool when he exited that vehicle.
Reply 1 reply+1
Jack Mennis 9 hours ago
Yeah, and maybe it's a good thing he kept his cool and fired before it was too late-and finally was able to land the telling blow. One for the good guy!
Ron White 18 hours ago
Spot on Dan.
Paul Moschetta 16 hours ago
"He made a bad choice and died as a result"
Whatever happened to shooting to immobilize the suspect? Perhaps Wilson aims for Brown's legs instead of his head. I can see maybe a few rounds, aimed at Brown, but the officer fired TWELVE shots at the suspect.
David Zetwo 15 hours ago
Paul, why don't you research how firearms qualifications for Law Enforcement Officers is conducted, you will find that using center mass is the standard.
Reply 2 replies+1
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
David, leave Paul alone. He's beyond help or hope.
Red State 12 hours ago
Way beyond!
Ron White 9 hours ago
Cops don't shoot to immobilize. They shoot to kill Duh. .
Jim Yearsley 19 hours ago
A really tiresome element of the discussion is the litany of "wooulda, coulda, shoulda" correct police procedure proclamations by a bunch of people who have never pinned on a shield, taken the oath, carried a firearm in defense of others, or for that matter put themselves in harms way for others.
Bob Proctor 14 hours ago
Don't let it get you down, Jim. The same thing happens across all subjects on these boards--health care, climate science, energy, geopolitics, law. Everybody's a constitutional lawyer, an international relations expert, a know-it-all expert on something (actually, everything). The phenomenon makes climate scientists, medical scientists, political scientists, forensic scientists and even some whose main claim to expertise is having pinned on a shield, taken an oath and carried a firearm cringe. But, what, you can't criticize a judicial ruling if you haven't put on a robe and had everyone rise when you entered your work place?
Jack Mennis 20 hours ago
I don't know what Michael Brown could have been but I have a pretty good idea of what he was!
John Mullennix 20 hours ago
He was probably not a stellar citizen, but he didn't deserve to be killed in cold blood like this.
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
"Stellar"? Could you not have come up with a more descriptive word?
Reply 3 replies+2
John Mullennix 13 hours ago
Huh?
Jack Mennis12 hours ago
"Not a stellar citizen" Ed as in "not an outstanding citizen"? How about he was a thug, a criminal, a bully, a danger to the community? That would be more descriptive.
Reply 1 reply+2
John Mullennix2 hours ago
A little hyperbolic there, Jack. What I meant by "not a stellar citizen" is that he's flawed, just like the rest of us. Other than the convenience store incident, there's no evidence to support the stereotype you've parroted from the media. Research into his juvenile records indicated no criminal complaints and no serious felony infractions. He may or may not have had some minor brushes with the law, but if so, they were inconsequential*. Others who knew him, including teachers, characterized him as funny, laid back, someone who took care of his siblings, who got his high school degree in a place where few of his peers did, and was going to go to a tech school to better himself. Doesn't sound like a thug and a danger to the community to me. So who hasn't done something negative in their life when they were younger? The kid was 18 and still immature. When I was 18, I was doing worse things than what was documented for him. How quickly people are willing to believe all this crap says something about them. Take a long look in the mirror.
0
Oren Spiegler1 day ago
All of the questions in the minds of those who are protesting the grand jury decision not to indict Darren Wilson could have been answered had the encounter between him and Mr. Brown been recorded. This incident has set back race relations markedly. It is tragic that radically conflicting witness accounts have caused radically differing conclusions to be reached about what took place on that fateful day.
Reply 21 replies+4
Bob Proctor22 hours ago
Nah, if the encounter were on video, we'd be arguing about what the video appears to show. Race relations can't be set back much when, as Ferguson shows, they're already near rock-bottom. What took place is not nearly as important as why it took place. Not even close.
Reply 12 replies+6
John Port21 hours ago
Bob...how is it that with all the witnesses present nobody recorded it with a cell phone? That is what bothers me.
Reply 8 replies+3
Oren Spiegler21 hours ago
An excellent question, one for which I suspect we will not ever have a satisfying answer.
Reply 1 reply+2
John Port20 hours ago
My suspicious nature tells me that there is video and is being withheld until the $$$$ is right. No facts of course just me.
Reply +2
Bob Proctor20 hours ago
Were I a black resident of Ferguson, St. Louis County, state of Missouri, and had I caught the whole thing on my cell phone, as I imagine did happen, I wouldn't share it with authorities, no matter what it depicted. I would have learned, over the years, to steer clear of Missouri justice.
Reply 5 replies+7
Red State19 hours ago
Withhold evidence? Real smart, Bob!
Reply +3
Jack Mennis19 hours ago
Were I a Black resident and caught the whole thing on my cell phone, I wouldn't share it with authorities because I would be afraid of retribution from the community should my identity be disclosed.
Reply 3 replies+2
Ron White18 hours ago
Because it would show that the grand jury's decision was correct?
+4
Jack Mennis18 hours ago
Yes Ron! There should have been an exclamation point rather than a question mark at the end of your post.
+3
Bob Proctor17 hours ago
And Ron White had to ask . . . . Good grief!
+1
John DeLallo19 hours ago
Bob Proctor--wish I could give you 2 thumbs up. I'll reserve my personal observations to myself, but I will share an encounter I had with Tim Stevens. He told me that as a white man from the suburbs, I could not possibly understand, or contribute to, racial harmony because, in his words, " you don't have an East Liberty filter."
That said, my question to him later that evening when I got him in a corner (quite literally--he had no escape route) was twofold. First, who is the real racist here? Second, based on his "cures" for violence, I asked him if he thought the Jim Crow days immediately following the Civil War were good for persons of color? He looked at me with a rather uniquely puzzled gaze, and I reminded him of those days, and told him he was leading "his people" right back to 1865. I'm pretty sure his "East Liberty Filter" failed him miserably.
Reply 2 replies+2
Bob Proctor17 hours ago
Like Tim Stevens . . . I think . . . I have no idea what you're saying. Sorry.
Reply 1 reply+2
Ron White17 hours ago
The Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton wanna be?
I had no problem understand John's response. Maybe try reading slower.
Reply +4
Ed Heath20 hours ago
Mr Spiegler, the prosecutors running the Grand Jury gave the jurors a sheet with a 1979 Missouri law saying the the police can use lethal force on a fleeing suspect. The only problem is the law was ruled unconstitutiona*l a few years later by the US Supreme Court. At the last minute in the Grand Jury proceedings, the prosecutors told the jury to fold up that sheet and follow a different sheet. When asked why, they were unhelpfully vague.
http://news.stl*publicradio.org*/post/grand-jur*y-wrangled-conf*using-instructi*ons
I agree that the Brown/Wilson encounter should have been recorded. However, it appears the intention was not to indict Officer Wilson not matter what. The deck was stacked, and both black and white America knows it, and both draw their own conclusions.
Reply 7 replies+6
Oren Spiegler20 hours ago
Mr. Heath, the information you have provided is news to me. You are an honorable man; I take you at your word that it is accurate. if Darren Wilson got away with murder for now, surely a Barack Obama/Eric Holder Department of Justice will charge him with the appropriate crime and secure a conviction.
Reply 6 replies+2
Jack Mennis19 hours ago
Oren, why play the ".reasonable man" with an always unreasonable Heath. There is only one reason this went to a Grand Jury and that is because the prosecutor knew he didn't have a case against Wilson, would have dropped the case on his own initiative under "other circumstances", and took hit to the Grand Jury for decision only because of ".outside pressure". But, to some, that wasn't enough. They wanted to go to trial when there wasn't the evidence to do so, the result of which would have been an acquittal and, of course, rioting.
Yeah, let's do away with the Grand Jury system that's been in effect for many hundreds of years so "Justice can be done".
Reply 5 replies+3
Michael Wagner17 hours ago
As the first and only person to characterize Ed Heath as 'always unreasonable,' you are now a fellow of the PG Letters and Comments Bagger Hall of Fame. As the second member, you will be joining Bob Szypulski, who had unanimous support based on his letter to the editor of yesterday.
Reply 2 replies+3
Jack Mennis14 hours ago
Res ipsa loquiter Michael. Just read his inane comments on this thread. I don't think I commented on the letter nor its author, one way or the other
+2
Jack Mennis12 hours ago
See Michael! Just read Heath's comment below. I rest my case!
+2
Ed Heath14 hours ago
Mr Mennis, you have surely have heard of a straw man argument. No where in my reply to Mr Spiegler did I suggest doing away with the Grand Jury system. Anyone reading this (who does not share your agenda) will see your transparent attempt to malign me. The Public Radio link confirms my statement. That you show no concern that prosecutors gave a law ruled unconstitutiona*l to the jury as something to rely speaks volumes about your integrity.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with our legal system knows prosecutors have enormous power in a Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury fails to indict, then yes, it can be that the prosecutor did not have enough evidence. However, we all also know that cops are almost never indicted when they gun down even unarmed civilians. But these prosecutors actually provided essentially illegal information to the jurors to stack the deck. That should be a matter of concern to anyone who believes in the justice system. But not you.
Reply 1 reply+2
Red State12 hours ago
" illegal information"? Really? On what basis? Innuendo.
+1
Joe Gage13 hours ago
I don't want to hear your incoherent babble about double standards when there was an unarmed white man killed by a black officer just a few months ago and nobody and I mean nobody even spoke about it or covered it whatsoever. The very meaning of double standard. Where was your President giving his opinion on that. People wonder why he doesn't get any respect. JOKE!
Reply +3
Brian Whatsittoya10 hours ago
You conveniently leave out what we also know. That moments before all of this transpired, Michael Brown was recorded on tape beating up a store clerk and leaving that store with things that he did not pay for. Interesting that you forgot that part.
Reply +2
Donald Adamonis14 hours ago
What is amazing to me is there has NEVER been a case where a young white man, under the influence of marijuana, having robbed a store, assaulted a black police officer, tried to steal his gun and was shot.
Clearly, this would have resulted in vandalism, looting and burning of the neighborhood.
Reply +2
Joe Lucas20 hours ago
Mr Port below presents a very good point. With every thing wrong today recorded on video and every one having smart phones why no video evidence? ?All of the witness testimony directly contradicts all of the forensic evidence.
Reply 2 replies+1
Bob Proctor20 hours ago
Is your last statement true? How do you know that there is no video evidence?
Reply +1
Jack Mennis18 hours ago
All of the forensic testimony contradicts some of the witness testimony (much of which contradicts itself) and is confirmed by much witness testimony.
Reply +3
The Brown case highlights law enforcement double standards
November 30, 2014 12:00 AM
I doubt we will ever have a clear account or reckoning for Michael Brown?s death. Sadly I do not believe we will ever have a real idea of who Mr. Brown was or could have been.
We know that Officer Darren Wilson encountered Mr. Brown at 12:01 p.m. Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Mo.; that there was an altercation between the two; and that Officer Wilson called for backup. We know that within 90 seconds of the time Officer Wilson called for backup, he had fired 12 rounds ? two when he was still inside the car and then two bursts of five rounds each, hitting the unarmed Mr. Brown at least six times.
We know Officer Wilson was a 28-year-old police officer with six years of experience. We know that like Michael Brown, he stood 6-foot-4 and weighed 210 pounds to Mr. Brown?s 295 pounds. Officer Wilson was smaller than Mr. Brown but was not by any measure a small man.
We know Mr. Brown reached into the patrol car and that Officer Wilson grabbed his arm. Officer Wilson testified that he ?felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan.? I understand how that could be.
But I don?t understand why Officer Wilson would leave the safety of his squad car with backup on the way. Or how Mr. Brown, whose dead body was found 153 feet from the squad car, could have been a threat to Officer Wilson. Or why he couldn?t have simply followed Mr. Brown at a distance who, by Officer Wilson?s testimony, was fleeing the scene.
So many things not to understand. But what I understand is this: Had Darren Wilson been a young black man cruising Canfield Drive and the same events transpired, he would have been immediately arrested and booked on no less than manslaughter with intent to kill.
JOHN MIER
Leetsdale
Post
73 Comments
John DeLallo1 day ago
"But what I understand is this: Had Darren Wilson been a young black man cruising Canfield Drive and the same events transpired, he would have been immediately arrested and booked on no less than manslaughter with intent to kill."
Your observation is so absurd that it barely survives its own utterance. Had the police officer decided to let Mr. Brown casually continue to stroll down the yellow line in the middle of the road, and had Mr. Brown been run over by a passing car, you would be calling for the officer's head on a platter.
Perhaps we should allow complete freedom to police officers to allow anyone to do anything they like, including walking down the middle of the road. Would that make you a happy camper?
Reply 11 replies+7
John Port 1 day ago
Good points John.
Bob Proctor 22 hours ago
You're arguing conjecture with more of it. What if that car had not come down the street? And if it had approached, what if Officer Wilson, while calling for backup, had pulled his SUV across both lanes, thereby protecting the street walkers from being hit? Your eagerness to defend even bad policing, and to be disparaging in the process, is not instructive.
Reply 2 replies+7
Jim Yearsley 19 hours ago
Bob, you are absolutely correct. Pointless conjecture is all most of this string is. "What if?" That may be the height of pointless... The attraction seems to be that anyone can play. 'What if' -- Michael Brown had not assaulted and robbed the convenience store clerk? 'What if' he had complied with Darren Wilsons lawful directions? 'What if' he had not attempted to wrestle Officer Wilson for control of the firearm? 'What if...'
Do you know what else is pointless? The death of every person lost to violent encounters on the streets of this nation -- do you know how many that was this past week in Pittsburgh, or Tampa, or Chicago?
Bob Proctor 17 hours ago
No, I don't, Jim, but I'm glad you didn't include Baltimore, Indianapolis and Oakland. Big numbers make me dizzy.
Ed Heath 20 hours ago
Are you saying walking in the middle of the street is a capital crime?
Did you want to further understanding of what happened in Ferguson and what happens all across America, or is it that you think we all must accept your run-to-judgment wisdom, that everything you say is always right?
donald oneill 15 hours ago
You make no sense Ed walking in the middle of the street is a cause for police to tell you to get off and onto the sidewalk. Disobeying the law is what got Micheal Brown killed. If he would have obeyed our laws he would still be alive today.Everyone wants to blame the police , put the blame where it belongs . On Micheal Brown.
Ed Heath 15 hours ago
Which crime did Mr Brown commit that merited summary execution? Reports are that he was 153 feet from Officer Wilson's vehicle when he died, so either Officer Wilson, if he remained with his vehicle, fired at someone over fifty yards from his vehicle, or Officer Wilson followed Mr Brown, gun drawn. Do the police have a license to kill any black teenager walling around now, or just those walking in the street?
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
Summary execution. Cold-blooded murder. Keep it up Ed, you're on a roll. Try to follow Mark Twain's advice!
donald oneill 14 hours ago
So you do not believe the grand jury's verdict..And did you hear that officer chased Brown down asking him to stop. Which he disobeyed after he tried to take the officers gun in the car .Summary execution really after charging the officer. The problem I have with you Ed is you weren't there just like I was not there. So the grand jury searched the truth. So you may not believe them but you and I don't matter only their findings count. That is our system .
John Strahs 14 hours ago
Ed "me thinks" you need to go back to counting those trees at Waterworks Mall.
Gary Evans 9 hours ago
"Walking in the middle of the street" didn't get the thief killed. Attacking a police officer did. Try to pay a little more attention to the facts, Ed.
Bob Proctor 23 hours ago
Officer Wilson should have backed off and called for backup. Had he done that, a suspect in a convenience store robbery would likely have been taken out of the middle of the street and into custody without fanfare or gunfire. We can see that clearly now. Good policing requires that it be seen before the incident escalates.
Dan Stants 22 hours ago
I think it was pretty much escalated when Michael Brown reached into the patrol car, punched the officer twice and went for his gun. A cop doesn't have a duty to retreat to safety, his job is to arrest the criminal. As soon as the officer ordered Michael Brown to stop, he should have stopped in his tracks and allowed himself to be taken into custody. Instead, he charged the cop and was shot as a result. He made a bad choice and died as a result.
Reply 23 replies+10
Bob Proctor 21 hours ago
And Darren Wilson is out of work, and will never police again, and his department is under investigation for its policing practices. A cop has a duty to protect and serve--the public, that is. What you call, pejoratively, a "retreat to safety," I call a tactical maneuver. As a result of bad policing, one man's dead and another is jobless.
Oren Spiegler 21 hours ago
Former Officer Wilson may wish he was dead in the days ahead. He is a marked man, despised by many, at risk of being assaulted or killed no matter where he goes in this country. He may regret having appeared on national television to state his case.
Jack Mennis 20 hours ago
Don't get too carried away Oren!
Paul Moschetta 16 hours ago
The more you post, the more it is revealed how na?ve you really are, Jack
Jack Mennis14 hours ago
Paul, the pot calling the kettle black.
+3
Ron White 17 hours ago
And Michael Brown is dead. Which would you rather be?
Bad policing according to who? Your opinion? He did what he was trained to do.
Why don't you go out and charge a cop like you were going to tackle a quarterback and tell is how it works out for you. If you can.
Paul Moschetta 16 hours ago
I can always count on the illogical hate of people like Ron White to defend a cop's decision to kill instead of maim a suspect
Reply 3 replies+1
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
Unbelievable! Shoot to maim not kill!
Red State 12 hours ago
When police shoot, it's to kill...NEVER maim! Talk to ANY officer....it's their training.
Ron White 9 hours ago
ALL police shoot to kill, not to maim. Maiming someone doesn't necessarily stop them.
You can't be serious with your comment.
Ed Heath 20 hours ago
Mr Brown's body was some 153 feet from Officer Wilson's vehicle. Which means that if Officer Wilson stayed with his vehicle, Mr Brown was still 51 yards away "charging" when he was hit a sufficient number of times to bring him down. Or Officer Wilson left his vehicle, gun drawn, and pursued Mr Brown. If so, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that he had decided to kill Mr Brown.
Reply 6 replies+2
Red State 19 hours ago
An officer seldom stays within his vehicle after having been punched, taunted, and had his weapon grabbed.
Reply 5 replies+3
Ron White 18 hours ago
And discharged, twice due to Michael Brown trying to take possession of his gun, inside of that vehicle. Ed conveniently leaves that part out.
Something else conveniently left out is even though Brown was 18, he had already started to amass a criminal record, including a 2nd degree murder charge as a juvenile.
He was no angel.
David Zetwo 18 hours ago
Ron and Dan, individuals who make comments like Bob on here will never know what it is like to be a Police Officer which also goes with the Monday morning Quarterbacking, 2 quarterbacks are on the field Sunday but there are thousands on Monday questioning as to what should have or shouldn't have occurred on the field. Usually those Monday morning Quarterbacks can't fit into a football uniform, have problems getting up off of the couch, or get winded after jogging 25 feet. They will never understand what it is like to be caught in a position where a decision has to be made in a second or 2, unfortunately there is a young man dead who by the way was no angel, and another who will be seeking employment elsewhere. The justice system worked in this case, but as always there will be those who don't care about residing in a nation of laws.
Ed Heath 14 hours ago
It is true that I did not mention the events that transpired in Officer Wilson's vehicle. We don't actually know what happened in Officer Wilson's vehicle, there is no video record. What Snopes tells is that suggesting Michael Brown had a felony record, including a 2nd degree murder charge as a juvenile, is bunk. I would post the link but then the PG might delete my comment.
We don't know his ecclesiastical status, but there is no record of a murder charge. I guess we know your willingness to repeat information from unscrupulous right wing sites.
Bob Proctor 9 hours ago
Yes, and its something of a rarity for an officer to get pinned in his vehicle by a kid who punches him, taunts him and wrestles with him for his gun, which discharges twice, all while the officer is seated in his vehicle. It's a good thing the officer kept his cool when he exited that vehicle.
Reply 1 reply+1
Jack Mennis 9 hours ago
Yeah, and maybe it's a good thing he kept his cool and fired before it was too late-and finally was able to land the telling blow. One for the good guy!
Ron White 18 hours ago
Spot on Dan.
Paul Moschetta 16 hours ago
"He made a bad choice and died as a result"
Whatever happened to shooting to immobilize the suspect? Perhaps Wilson aims for Brown's legs instead of his head. I can see maybe a few rounds, aimed at Brown, but the officer fired TWELVE shots at the suspect.
David Zetwo 15 hours ago
Paul, why don't you research how firearms qualifications for Law Enforcement Officers is conducted, you will find that using center mass is the standard.
Reply 2 replies+1
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
David, leave Paul alone. He's beyond help or hope.
Red State 12 hours ago
Way beyond!
Ron White 9 hours ago
Cops don't shoot to immobilize. They shoot to kill Duh. .
Jim Yearsley 19 hours ago
A really tiresome element of the discussion is the litany of "wooulda, coulda, shoulda" correct police procedure proclamations by a bunch of people who have never pinned on a shield, taken the oath, carried a firearm in defense of others, or for that matter put themselves in harms way for others.
Bob Proctor 14 hours ago
Don't let it get you down, Jim. The same thing happens across all subjects on these boards--health care, climate science, energy, geopolitics, law. Everybody's a constitutional lawyer, an international relations expert, a know-it-all expert on something (actually, everything). The phenomenon makes climate scientists, medical scientists, political scientists, forensic scientists and even some whose main claim to expertise is having pinned on a shield, taken an oath and carried a firearm cringe. But, what, you can't criticize a judicial ruling if you haven't put on a robe and had everyone rise when you entered your work place?
Jack Mennis 20 hours ago
I don't know what Michael Brown could have been but I have a pretty good idea of what he was!
John Mullennix 20 hours ago
He was probably not a stellar citizen, but he didn't deserve to be killed in cold blood like this.
Jack Mennis 14 hours ago
"Stellar"? Could you not have come up with a more descriptive word?
Reply 3 replies+2
John Mullennix 13 hours ago
Huh?
Jack Mennis12 hours ago
"Not a stellar citizen" Ed as in "not an outstanding citizen"? How about he was a thug, a criminal, a bully, a danger to the community? That would be more descriptive.
Reply 1 reply+2
John Mullennix2 hours ago
A little hyperbolic there, Jack. What I meant by "not a stellar citizen" is that he's flawed, just like the rest of us. Other than the convenience store incident, there's no evidence to support the stereotype you've parroted from the media. Research into his juvenile records indicated no criminal complaints and no serious felony infractions. He may or may not have had some minor brushes with the law, but if so, they were inconsequential*. Others who knew him, including teachers, characterized him as funny, laid back, someone who took care of his siblings, who got his high school degree in a place where few of his peers did, and was going to go to a tech school to better himself. Doesn't sound like a thug and a danger to the community to me. So who hasn't done something negative in their life when they were younger? The kid was 18 and still immature. When I was 18, I was doing worse things than what was documented for him. How quickly people are willing to believe all this crap says something about them. Take a long look in the mirror.
0
Oren Spiegler1 day ago
All of the questions in the minds of those who are protesting the grand jury decision not to indict Darren Wilson could have been answered had the encounter between him and Mr. Brown been recorded. This incident has set back race relations markedly. It is tragic that radically conflicting witness accounts have caused radically differing conclusions to be reached about what took place on that fateful day.
Reply 21 replies+4
Bob Proctor22 hours ago
Nah, if the encounter were on video, we'd be arguing about what the video appears to show. Race relations can't be set back much when, as Ferguson shows, they're already near rock-bottom. What took place is not nearly as important as why it took place. Not even close.
Reply 12 replies+6
John Port21 hours ago
Bob...how is it that with all the witnesses present nobody recorded it with a cell phone? That is what bothers me.
Reply 8 replies+3
Oren Spiegler21 hours ago
An excellent question, one for which I suspect we will not ever have a satisfying answer.
Reply 1 reply+2
John Port20 hours ago
My suspicious nature tells me that there is video and is being withheld until the $$$$ is right. No facts of course just me.
Reply +2
Bob Proctor20 hours ago
Were I a black resident of Ferguson, St. Louis County, state of Missouri, and had I caught the whole thing on my cell phone, as I imagine did happen, I wouldn't share it with authorities, no matter what it depicted. I would have learned, over the years, to steer clear of Missouri justice.
Reply 5 replies+7
Red State19 hours ago
Withhold evidence? Real smart, Bob!
Reply +3
Jack Mennis19 hours ago
Were I a Black resident and caught the whole thing on my cell phone, I wouldn't share it with authorities because I would be afraid of retribution from the community should my identity be disclosed.
Reply 3 replies+2
Ron White18 hours ago
Because it would show that the grand jury's decision was correct?
+4
Jack Mennis18 hours ago
Yes Ron! There should have been an exclamation point rather than a question mark at the end of your post.
+3
Bob Proctor17 hours ago
And Ron White had to ask . . . . Good grief!
+1
John DeLallo19 hours ago
Bob Proctor--wish I could give you 2 thumbs up. I'll reserve my personal observations to myself, but I will share an encounter I had with Tim Stevens. He told me that as a white man from the suburbs, I could not possibly understand, or contribute to, racial harmony because, in his words, " you don't have an East Liberty filter."
That said, my question to him later that evening when I got him in a corner (quite literally--he had no escape route) was twofold. First, who is the real racist here? Second, based on his "cures" for violence, I asked him if he thought the Jim Crow days immediately following the Civil War were good for persons of color? He looked at me with a rather uniquely puzzled gaze, and I reminded him of those days, and told him he was leading "his people" right back to 1865. I'm pretty sure his "East Liberty Filter" failed him miserably.
Reply 2 replies+2
Bob Proctor17 hours ago
Like Tim Stevens . . . I think . . . I have no idea what you're saying. Sorry.
Reply 1 reply+2
Ron White17 hours ago
The Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton wanna be?
I had no problem understand John's response. Maybe try reading slower.
Reply +4
Ed Heath20 hours ago
Mr Spiegler, the prosecutors running the Grand Jury gave the jurors a sheet with a 1979 Missouri law saying the the police can use lethal force on a fleeing suspect. The only problem is the law was ruled unconstitutiona*l a few years later by the US Supreme Court. At the last minute in the Grand Jury proceedings, the prosecutors told the jury to fold up that sheet and follow a different sheet. When asked why, they were unhelpfully vague.
http://news.stl*publicradio.org*/post/grand-jur*y-wrangled-conf*using-instructi*ons
I agree that the Brown/Wilson encounter should have been recorded. However, it appears the intention was not to indict Officer Wilson not matter what. The deck was stacked, and both black and white America knows it, and both draw their own conclusions.
Reply 7 replies+6
Oren Spiegler20 hours ago
Mr. Heath, the information you have provided is news to me. You are an honorable man; I take you at your word that it is accurate. if Darren Wilson got away with murder for now, surely a Barack Obama/Eric Holder Department of Justice will charge him with the appropriate crime and secure a conviction.
Reply 6 replies+2
Jack Mennis19 hours ago
Oren, why play the ".reasonable man" with an always unreasonable Heath. There is only one reason this went to a Grand Jury and that is because the prosecutor knew he didn't have a case against Wilson, would have dropped the case on his own initiative under "other circumstances", and took hit to the Grand Jury for decision only because of ".outside pressure". But, to some, that wasn't enough. They wanted to go to trial when there wasn't the evidence to do so, the result of which would have been an acquittal and, of course, rioting.
Yeah, let's do away with the Grand Jury system that's been in effect for many hundreds of years so "Justice can be done".
Reply 5 replies+3
Michael Wagner17 hours ago
As the first and only person to characterize Ed Heath as 'always unreasonable,' you are now a fellow of the PG Letters and Comments Bagger Hall of Fame. As the second member, you will be joining Bob Szypulski, who had unanimous support based on his letter to the editor of yesterday.
Reply 2 replies+3
Jack Mennis14 hours ago
Res ipsa loquiter Michael. Just read his inane comments on this thread. I don't think I commented on the letter nor its author, one way or the other
+2
Jack Mennis12 hours ago
See Michael! Just read Heath's comment below. I rest my case!
+2
Ed Heath14 hours ago
Mr Mennis, you have surely have heard of a straw man argument. No where in my reply to Mr Spiegler did I suggest doing away with the Grand Jury system. Anyone reading this (who does not share your agenda) will see your transparent attempt to malign me. The Public Radio link confirms my statement. That you show no concern that prosecutors gave a law ruled unconstitutiona*l to the jury as something to rely speaks volumes about your integrity.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with our legal system knows prosecutors have enormous power in a Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury fails to indict, then yes, it can be that the prosecutor did not have enough evidence. However, we all also know that cops are almost never indicted when they gun down even unarmed civilians. But these prosecutors actually provided essentially illegal information to the jurors to stack the deck. That should be a matter of concern to anyone who believes in the justice system. But not you.
Reply 1 reply+2
Red State12 hours ago
" illegal information"? Really? On what basis? Innuendo.
+1
Joe Gage13 hours ago
I don't want to hear your incoherent babble about double standards when there was an unarmed white man killed by a black officer just a few months ago and nobody and I mean nobody even spoke about it or covered it whatsoever. The very meaning of double standard. Where was your President giving his opinion on that. People wonder why he doesn't get any respect. JOKE!
Reply +3
Brian Whatsittoya10 hours ago
You conveniently leave out what we also know. That moments before all of this transpired, Michael Brown was recorded on tape beating up a store clerk and leaving that store with things that he did not pay for. Interesting that you forgot that part.
Reply +2
Donald Adamonis14 hours ago
What is amazing to me is there has NEVER been a case where a young white man, under the influence of marijuana, having robbed a store, assaulted a black police officer, tried to steal his gun and was shot.
Clearly, this would have resulted in vandalism, looting and burning of the neighborhood.
Reply +2
Joe Lucas20 hours ago
Mr Port below presents a very good point. With every thing wrong today recorded on video and every one having smart phones why no video evidence? ?All of the witness testimony directly contradicts all of the forensic evidence.
Reply 2 replies+1
Bob Proctor20 hours ago
Is your last statement true? How do you know that there is no video evidence?
Reply +1
Jack Mennis18 hours ago
All of the forensic testimony contradicts some of the witness testimony (much of which contradicts itself) and is confirmed by much witness testimony.
Reply +3
