Michael Brown Shooting

Officer Who Shot Mike Brown Faces 'Threats'? But Police Are Quick to Name Those Who Shoot Cops.

|

Michael Brown
Facebook

Blaming threats against the police officer who killed unarmed Michael Brown on Saturday, Ferguson, Missouri, Police Chief Tom Jackson says he won't release the shooter's name unless charges are filed or he's ordered to by a judge. Does anybody believe he would be so reticent to point the finger if the situation were reversed and an officer was killed by a civilian?

In fact, when have police ever been especially cautious about naming people they believe have targeted one of their own?

Ferguson doesn't have any officers listed at the Officer Down Memorial Page; hopefully that accurately represents the safety of the job. But when St. Louis Police Department Officer Daryl Hall was killed in a gun battle in 2011, officials were quick to name Asif Blake as the suspect. True, Blake was also killed in the incident, but he certainly had family who might have been subject to "threats."

The St. Louis Police Department did withhold the name of Antonio Andrews until he was charged with the shooting death of Officer Norvelle Brown in 2007—but Andrews was 15 at the time, and initially subject to rules regarding young offenders (he was charged as an adult).

The Missouri Highway Patrol named Lance Shockley "a person of interest" in the 2005 murder of Sergeant Carl Dewayne Graham Jr. (he was later convicted of the crime).

University City, Missouri, police, quickly identified Todd L. Shepard as the suspect in the 2008 shooting of Sergeant Michael R. King (he was later convicted).

And it's not just common practice in Missouri. Just weeks ago, Mendota Heights, Minnesota police promptly named Brian George Fitch Sr. as a "person of interest" in the shooting death of Officer Scott Patrick. (He was later charged.)

In 2011, Forth Worth, Texas, police named Joe Nathan Haywood III in the shooting of Officer Clifford Hankins (he was later convicted).

In general, law enforcement agencies are more than happy to name suspects, or mere persons of interest, and let the people and their associates take their chances. The leave the named, like falsely accused Olympic bombing suspect Richard Jewell, to pick up whatever pieces they can after the fact if it turns out that their hands are clean of the crime to which they've been linked.

Jackson's concern for officer safety isn't isolated. Salinas, California, was called out earlier this year for refusing to release the names of any officers involved in 2014 shootings because "disclosure might compromise their safety." This even after the state Supreme Court ruled against blanket anonymity for police involved in shooting incidents.

The fact that the court had to rule on the matter is a statement in itself.

The police chief in Hope Mills, North Carolina, withheld the names of officers involved in a shooting over a"concern for retaliation."

In 2010, Baltimore, Maryland, officials announced they would begin releasing the names of officers who discharge their firearms—after a 48-hour delay "that allows police to put safeguards in place."

Not naming, or delaying naming, uncharged suspects in crimes may be acceptable practice if it's applied to everybody. But it also has special risks when practiced with goverment agents, like police officers, since it allows officials to control the flow of information. Ferguson's Chief Jackson says the officer who killed Brown has facial injuries from an altercation that let to the shooting—but the public has no way of independently checking that claim. His department also says it's waiting on a toxicology test on Brown, allowing police to insinuate that he may have been high (and to use any positive results in their favor if he was).

Meanwhile, Brown's family, friends, and the public at large can't so much as Google the name of the officer who shot him.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brazilian Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Killed in Plane Crash

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hello.

    1. Also is this the same Weigel who supposedly posts here as PBP?

      Also, didn’t know Cracked.com ran a suicide prevention service for it’s commenters. They are an awesome community-service privider if true.

      An-cap Toqueville for the t-shirt!

      1. Take a hike, you silly spam bitch.

      2. Also is this the same Weigel who supposedly posts here as PBP?

        Yes, it is.

        Frankly, I’m rather surprised that he decided to publicly confess to being mentally ill, though that has been sort of obvious for a while now from his behavior.

      3. I’m not at all convinced that he is the Buttplug.

        Also, I thought that and his post on Williams were pretty good.

  2. The caption on the photo says Brown family. Somehow I doubt that is appropriate.

    1. nm. Different photo now.

  3. I’m sorry, are you suggesting that cops or those close to them may try to exact revenge on suspected cop-killers or the associates of suspected cop-killers?

    They are Professionals, Mr. Tuccille.

    1. You are na?ve,MJGreen.

    2. Never been a death threat issued to an in-custody cop killer.
      Never seen a demonstration in the streets over the killing of a cop.
      Certainly never seen a riot, with people replenishing their in-home theaters.
      But, of course, the Reason writers believe there is some kind of moral equivalency going on.
      No wonder the average American will never take libertarians seriously.
      Really, why don’t you guys just admit you want anarchy?

      1. Really, why don’t you guys just admit you want anarchy?

        Because not wanting the police to murder people without trial is totally anarchy? Imbecile.

      2. Never been a death threat issued to an in-custody cop killer.

        Have to ask: what’s it like to be omniscient?

        Really, why don’t you guys just admit you want anarchy?

        Lots of us do. The problem is that people like you don’t understand that anarchy entails property, markets, self defense, and actual law rather than arbitrary legislation.

      3. “But, of course, the Reason writers believe there is some kind of moral equivalency going on.”

        – I agree retiredfire. It’s a ridiculous comparison. An obvious angry mob ready to lynch someone versus a nothing even close.

  4. It would be wonderful of that fear of retaliation was based upon something, but sadly it’s not. Even if the cop’s name was made public, the rioters would still rather trash a liquor store than do anything to the officer.

    1. I certainly have no love for the State, therefore, I have no love for the police.

      However, shouldn’t this cop be found guilty by a neutral jury first? Then, after it’s proven he’s guilty you can string him up by the balls and beat him with a baseball bat until he’s dead.

      Sound good?

      1. But his act of shooting Brown is not in dispute. The jury would have to decide whether the shooting was justified, not whether he actually pulled the trigger.

        1. Understood. However, I like my form of punishment after a guilty verdict.

          1. Assuming a guilty verdict, can’t he be buried to his neck in the desert, spaghetti western style?

            Let’s start the negotiation.

      2. That sounds great. Maybe it will happen. That’s still no reason not to release his name. If there is genuine concern for his safety, they can stash him away somewhere safe until the trial. I think the public ought to know who it out there killing people in their name, whether justified or not.

        1. Stash him away, like a supermax prison? That is a fine idea.

        2. I disagree. When you had protestors shouting “kill the cops” you pretty clearly have established a threat exists.

          We don’t know the cop, we don’t know if the cop has family that would be threatened and school will be starting soon, if it hasn’t already there. Why would the family have to relocate to some safe location (and at who’s expense?).

          Naming suspects in shooting cops is good, it helps get suspects found.

          If the officer acted unreasonably I want the officer tried on an appropriate charge and if found guilty punished appropriately. But I don’t want a witch-hunt.

          1. “Naming suspects in shooting cops is good, it helps get suspects found.” Said no rational person ever.

          2. Yet other “perps” are named and their lives threatened, their familes broken,reputations soiled, and their careers and businesses destroyed.

            Why does a police office have a greater right to privacy than any other citizen?

            IMHO, the right to privacy should extend to every citizen or no citizen.

            Elitism, much?

        3. Sounds more than reasonable, imo.

      3. Sure.

        As long he’s he’s tossed in jail without bail, his house raided, his face plastered in every paper and everything he’s ever written or said that might be construed in a negative way is published without context.

    2. The response has been completely wrong. Dr. King would never have condoned violence and looting as an appropriate way to seek out justice in a million years.

      A peaceful sit-in just outside all the major precincts or the mayor’s office would be much more powerful and effective in getting the message across.

      1. Agreed, however, after a guilty verdict I like my form of punishment.

      2. The original idea was a march on City Hall, but the mayor told them that anybody who tried it would be arrested immediately, Because Fuck You That’s Why?. That forced the demonstrations closer to home, which meant that when cops showed up in riot gear and started shit, the reaction was aimed at the protestors’ own neighborhood instead of the precious, precious government buildings.

        Why, it’s almost like they planned it that way!

        1. I believe that our economic guru Paul Krugman might argue that destroying your own home is good for the economy. Just think of all the jobs that will be created!

        2. Well, they should have marched on city hall anyway. Then they could more effectively protest and have a good 1st amendment suit against the city too.

      3. Agreed, Dr. King would have wrote a mostly plagarized speeach asking for peaceful protests.

    3. It’s not “wonderful,” but I think it’s a valid concern. This whole post is based on a false symmetry. When someone shoots a cop, there aren’t riots fueled by a general media uproar, and there are few if any nuts threatening to kill more people.

      But if some black kid is shot under questionable circumstances, it’s a huge political deal, and people go nuts. There are protests, if not riots, and even celebrities will do things like tweet what they think is the home address of the “murderer,” or the address of his parents. Even normally sensible Reason commenters can froth at the mouth about killing cops.

      Everybody should calm down. From long experience, I am skeptical of the whole “He was just an innocent boy!” narrative. That’s what they often say, before the truth comes out. E.g. Trayvon. Maybe this was a totally unjustified shooting, but we don’t know exactly what happened.

      1. I doubt he was just an innocent boy and I doubt they shot him for nothing. I also seriously doubt there was any reason to shoot him other than the cop was an out of control scared shitless baboon.

        And yes, the analogy is idiotic. But it is Turceille. What did you expect?

        1. I’m sure facts will emerge, but the JBT’s have given me every cause to doubt their innocence.

        2. “I doubt he was just an innocent boy and I doubt they shot him for nothing.”

          Witnesses say the kid had his hands up when he was shot.

          I’m guessing that the officer will claim that the boy made some sort of sudden movement. It all depends how cooperative the kid was during the arrest.

          1. Didn’t witnesses also say that he was one of two people that were in the police car, wrested with the officer, and tried to get the officer’s gun? I’m sure that when assaulted by two people you’d be able to notice the one guy you’ve just pushed out, using your legs (as an early report had it) and was just trying to get your gun now has his hands up in surrender…while not feeling the least bit threatened.

            1. I seem to remember reading that he was shot from a distance of about 35 feet.

              Either the kid had some *really* long arms. . . or the shooter negligently endangered a fellow Clown Costumed Thug by launching rounds right past his head. . . or the thugs are lying.

              If past history is any indication. . . C is the correct answer.

              1. It sounded like he got shot once and tried to run. The cop kept shooting and the guy tried to surrender. Instead of ceasing fire, the cop finished what he started.

                There are at least two witnesses and the whole thing sounds like a lot of bad decisions were made by both parties.

                1. Not an excuse, but guns fire pretty rapidly. Once you start, in a second or two you’ve fired 8 times. In a super tense life or death situation, which it was if two people were going for the officer’s gun, 8 shots could happen in a blink of an eye.

                  On the other hand they are supposed to be trained professionals. But, 1. that is impossible to do on a standard police budget, and 2. You’re not a professional in that type of situation until you’ve been in about 10 of them. But, no cop is. Very few cops fire their guns at someone ever, and fewer yet would ever be in the situation that cop was in.

                  However, my real belief: Everyone is lying. Cops, witnesses, everybody.

      2. From long experience I am skeptical of the State. The police are an extension of the State. The State will always justify its actions. No matter what.

        As far as I’m concerned the police aren’t racist. They view all of us as enemy combatants these days.

        1. Skepticism is fine. Rushing to judgment is not.

      3. Eh, when someone shoots a cop the cops take care of the hysterical manhunt for us (see Dorner, Christopher) if the perp wasn’t arrested and/or executed on the spot in the first place. There’s nobody demanding that justice be done because “justice” is already on it. When a cop kills a civilian the government closes ranks around the killer and tells us that everything’s just fine, no problem here, don’t question us or you’ll get more of the same. No shock that only one of those provokes protests.

      4. When someone shoots a cop, there aren’t riots fueled by a general media uproar, and there are few if any nuts threatening to kill more people.

        What were the police riots in Watertown MA in April 2013 and in California in Feb 2013, potted plants?

        1. yes but not releasing the names would not have made anyone safer there. Unless you want to not tell the cops the names, the analogy doesn’t work. And besides, those riots were directed at everyone. So even keeping the name from the cops wouldn’t have helped.

          1. yes but not releasing the names would not have made anyone safer there.

            Yes, I agree with that. My comment was for a limited purpose: to rebut the incorrect notion that police don’t riot and endanger people when one of their own were shot.

        2. Were the police shooting at helicopters and looting stores? “Police riots” is a colorful phrase, but a bit of a stretch.

          1. They were shooting up random cars with uninvolved people inside. That better or worse?

            1. AFAIK they shot up one (or more?) cars they mistakenly thought had the suspect inside. I am not excusing that, but it’s different from random people looting random stores.

              1. It was two cars in different incidents

              2. Uh, it’s different because it’s a car instead of a helicopter, but I don’t think there is a moral or practical difference.

                1. You don’t think there’s a difference between 1) mistaken shootings that happens when the people who are supposed to hunt murderers are hunting one, and 2) angry civilians expressing their anger by burning and looting local businesses?

          2. No but they were shooting up houses and boats and cars. And having forbidden anyone from flying over Watertown, the police lacked any non-police helicopters to shoot up.

            1. There’s still a big difference between trigger-happy cops looking for dangerous suspects and people setting fires and looting stores because they’re angry about something.

              1. What’s the difference in your opinion? I mean, those police in Waterton were angry about something, one of their own being shot, and they were shooting up homes and such.

                1. You seriously don’t see the difference between police doing their job (badly), and people deciding to riot and burn and loot? Hint: the looters aren’t making a mistake in the course of their duties. They are doing nothing but committing crimes.

              2. There’s still a big difference between trigger-happy cops looking for dangerous suspects and people setting fires and looting stores because they’re angry about something.

                In Watertown, the cops weren’t trigger happy prior to the murder of the cop. They pursued the dangerous suspects without shooting anyone… that is until the suspects murdered a cop. Then suddenly they were amped up and firing wildly.

                And, as anyone who reads police one will readily observe, the cops’ worst behavior is because they are angry about something.

                True, they don’t use the chaos to steal for personal gain. But they still wantonly destroy property and injure people in their rage induced rampages nonetheless.

                1. “they don’t use the chaos to steal for personal gain.”

                  That’s what asset forfeiture is for.

                2. Regarding cops using chaos for personal gain, see Hurricane Katrina.

              3. Yeah, the people setting fires and looting stores will be charged for their crimes.

                1. My 7:30 comment was in response to PapayaSF’s comment at 3:08:
                  “There’s still a big difference between trigger-happy cops looking for dangerous suspects and people setting fires and looting stores because they’re angry about something.”

                  1. Threads like this need to go out to everyone contemplating voting for a libertarian candidate.
                    This is the type of anarchy libertarians, really want.

                    1. Right the total and utter lawlessness of….wishing that the law also applied to law enforcement. What loons we are. Herp-Derp.

      5. That’s what they often say, before the truth comes out. E.g. Trayvon. Maybe this was a totally unjustified shooting, but we don’t know exactly what happened.

        I wondered about the picture above. Does anyone know if it is it even moderately recent? I remember being shocked when I found out Trayvon was over 6 feet tall. He looked so cute in the 10 year old picture that was all over the place.

        1. I’ve read there is at least one picture of Mike Brown flashing a Vice Lords gang sign, but I don’t know if it’s true or if it means anything.

          1. I wonder if he keeps a blue flag hanging out the pocket on his backside but only on the left side.

        2. Here’s the picture of him at his graduation which was in early August. He definitely looks more mature. I would guesstimate the arcade picture is about 3 years old.

          1. The way the dude looks certainly does not have anything to do with his innocence or guilt but I wondered.

            While I don’t necessarily expect people to search for the most recent picture of someone, showing a supposed victim several years younger than he was at the time of the crime sure makes me question their motives and integrity.

      6. How the symmetry with the Boston bombers? Or the Jewell case? Or cases involving suspected child killers or rapists? Such people routinely get death threats when their names are released, but I’ve never seen cops withhold their names. The only classes of people that routinely get their names hidden are children and cops.

  5. You know, one way around this is to just kill every cop. Then you can be sure your got the right one!

    1. Why not just kill every American? After that no American will ever be murdered again.

      1. Good point!

      2. You know who else wanted to kill every of one kind of person?

        1. President Obama?

        2. Mao.

          Stalin.

          Che.

          Are we done yet?

        3. God?

        4. Bender B. Rodriguez?

          1. Got it!

        5. Animal Mother?

          1. Manos?

        6. Jim J. Bullock?

  6. In fact, when have police ever been especially cautious about naming people they believe have targeted one of their own shooting people completely unlike the alleged suspect?

    At least this didn’t happen in LA.

  7. If the guy is subject to threats, that is what security details are for. I am quite sure they would have no problem getting volunteers to give this guy a security detail.

    1. Plus details for his wife/girlfriend, children, and parents? I think the local police pretty much have their hands full right now.

      1. If they hadn’t created the situation, I might have more sympathy for them.

        I understand your point Papaya and it is a valid one. The problem is that nothing ever happens in these cases. If you let the process run its course, the cop always walks away. Had there not been riots, this case would have never been investigated beyond internal affairs. The cops have a license to murder people in this country. I am sorry if that fact causes me to be unsympathetic to their concerns about personal safety.

        They are not concerned about my safety. Why should I care about theirs?

        1. Why should I care about theirs?

          Christian charity?

          1. I am all out of that today. I am going to have to ask God for forgiveness.

          2. There is that.

          3. What about those of us who don’t really believe in god?

              1. hahaha. LOL

        2. Does the process often lean too far in favor of the police? Sure, but it’s barely even begun. I think even the protests are premature, since we don’t know exactly what happened. I think it’s a bad side effect of politicizing things to say, in effect, “We are angry because we predict the ultimate outcome of this will be similar to previous outcomes that we disagreed with.”

          1. The thing is, this case is just the latest example of the double standard. Watch any local news cast and see how much of it is the police blotter, naming people who were arrested but not convicted of anything. But when a school-based cop incompetently shoots his gun, it’s liable to be all passive voice and often not naming the cop.

          2. Sure. It is almost as if the cops have poisoned their relations with the community such that the community immediately assumes the cops are in the wrong and nothing is going to be done about. Again, the situation sucks and the police department is entirely to blame for it. If they don’t like the totally predictable results of their arrogance and complete non accountability, that is just too fucking bad.

            1. But that particular police department isn’t “totally to blame.” People are politicizing and generalizing and stereotyping. Because they see a pattern, all the previous incidents (many or most of them elsewhere, e.g. Trayvon) get lumped in with this one.

              It’s the same thing that happens (e.g.) when some college student is accused of sexual assault: people have a hard time judging each case on the merits, because it’s Yet Another Example of a Larger Problem That We Must Solve With Politics.

              1. “Statistics from Ferguson raise questions about whether such an “us versus them” mentality exists among police in some of Missouri’s tougher neighborhoods. For example, black people in Ferguson are twice as likely to be stopped by police as white people, according to the Missouri attorney general’s office. According to a report, 92 percent of searches and 80 percent of car stops involved blacks. Sixty-seven percent of Ferguson’s population is black while the police force is almost entirely white.”

                http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/J…..nity-video

                1. I have no doubt there is often an “us vs. them” mentality among cops who have to deal with bad neighborhoods. That’s more an explanation than an excuse.

                  As for being stopped twice as much, well, on average, blacks commit far more crimes than whites. That’s just an awkward fact.

                  1. Did you read the part where among those stopped, white people were significantly more likely to be carrying something illegal?

                    1. I agree, that aspect doesn’t look good. I’ve often seen it the other way, though: complaints about a locality in which there’s higher proportion of searches of blacks, but then there’s a higher rate of convictions.

                    1. It’s important to know what percentage of each group stopped turned out to be justified, though.

                2. I read that this morning. No one hates affirmative action more than me. But anyone who thinks an all white police force in a town that is 62% black is a good idea is retarded.

                3. For example, black people in Ferguson are twice as likely to be stopped by police as white people, according to the Missouri attorney general’s office.

                  This should ALWAYS be coupled with the fact that 2/3 of the population of Ferguson is black–as was noted in a previous article.

                  If this is true, and whites, hispanics asiana and others make up the remaining third them it’s WHITES that are being stopped more than they should be as they do not constitute a third of the population of Ferguson.

                  But hey, that’s just math. Simple math.

              2. They didn’t withhold George Zimmerman’s name, though, did they? Because he wasn’t a cop.

            2. It’s almost as if police can fire incenerary devices into baby cribs without reprecussions. As if that could really happen.

          3. “We are angry because we predict in order that the ultimate outcome of this will not be similar to previous outcomes that we disagreed with.”

            That is, I think, the original intent, although crowd dynamics obvsiously changes things.

            1. The “original intent” of a lot of these people is far more venal. It’s things like “I’m going to show how virtuous I am by marching in this demonstration” and “I might meet some hot babe” and “Maybe I can loot a new TV.”

              1. Intent number 2 is completely forgivable.

                1. Agreed.

          4. If there were no protests/riots, no one beyond reason commenters would have heard of it. You can find 3 or 4 example of cops killing unarmed people without justification every week in this country, and 99.999% get nothing more than a quick mention on the local news.

  8. You left off the best example of how cops respond to cop killers: Christopher Dorner.

    By naming Dorner, nobody in the LA area was safe from cops on the rampage.

    They finally offed Dorner by burning down some innocent person’s house, but only after shooting up some Hispanic female newspaper carriers and some a white guy in a pickup truck in their heroic pursuit of the black cop killer.

    IOW, nobody is safe when a copkiller is named and on the loose.

    Just like nobody is safe when a killer cop is unnamed and on the loose.

    1. This! Excellently put.

    2. Cop killers are identified all the time, and they’re usually apprehended without incident. I see it on the “crime beat” stories on local news.

      Why wouldn’t you want the cops to release the name and image of someone who killed a cop? Especially if that person has murdered someone in the community?

      1. Why wouldn’t you want the cops to release the name and image of someone who killed a cop? Especially if that person has murdered someone in the community?

        Yeah, that whole “innocent until proven guilty” and “due process” garbage is total bullshit. If the pigs claim that someone committed a crime they are guilty and can be summarily executed.

  9. Some animals are more equal than others…

  10. This is impossible, Reason. The Washington Post has clearly informed me that libertarians are not talking about Ferguson. Why would they lie? This article really doesn’t exist.

    1. HAHAAHAHAHA. Dude awesome! Always fun to see wither willful ignorance or blatant lies from a “news” organization.

      1. either

      2. If you ignore the clickbait headline, the article is about how the two closest things we have to libertarian politicians (Paul and Amash) haven’t said anything. But you have to be able to get to the last paragraph to get that admission, and most people will not read it, but instead will use it to show how libertarians are racist/sexist/only care about taxes/whatever.

        1. You forgot to mention libertarian hatred of left-handed chefs named Lou…

          1. Those motherfuckers.

        2. And why two members of Congress are not talking about it is really important. Why the light giver in chief, who felt the need to talk about Henry Gates being arrested and the Martin case is totally unimportant.

          1. “President Barack Obama called the police shooting death of an unarmed black teenager a tragedy and called on Tuesday for thoughtful response after two nights of violent protests, looting, arrests and tear gas in a St. Louis suburb.

            He promised a full investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the case,”

            http://www.reuters.com/article…..Q420140812

            1. See MJ Green’s comment below.

            2. They’re taking the time to be thoughtful before responding.

              1. Of course, the same thing could be said about Paul and Amash, and since neither of them are nationally elected politicians its much more reasonable they have released no statement on the matter.

        3. Even that is weak, since Congress is on break and Obama didn’t even get around to talking about it until yesterday. His office put out a statement about Robin Williams before Brown. As far as I can tell, neither Congressman has made any statements since going on recess.

          1. this was WaPo butthurt about Paul and Amash not saying something crazy. like that column would give them a fair hearing if they had a nuanced and insightful comment to make on the situation.

    2. i’m a regular on that column. it was extra derpy.

      but, sloopy showed up for a bit. it was like a crossover appearance in a sitcom.

      1. It is like when Mork was on Happy Days.

        1. Hey! Too soon!

        2. that happened. holy shit i missed that.

          1. Oh yeah. That is where the character came from. Mork and Mindy was, like Laverne and Shirley, a spin off of Happy Days. How the hell Mork got from 1950s Milwaukee to 1970s Boulder I can’t recall.

          2. And Pam Dauber was a babe back in the day.

            1. “Dawber.” She went to my high school. I didn’t know her but probably passed her in the hallway.

              1. She was a very good girl next door type. Sort of a poor man’s Mary Tyler Moore.

                1. And shows some nice titty in Big Bad Mama or Big Bad Momma 2. I forget which.

                  TIWTANLW

          3. had no idea. learned something today.

            1. The 70s really were the golden age of TV. So much campy fun.

              1. Yep, and the Battle Royal at the end pitted the Fonz’s thumb versus Mork’s finger. Of course the Fonz won.

    3. LOL talk about EPIC fail.

    4. Libertarian powers of invisibility are complete. Thank you midichlorians.

  11. And don’t forget how cops don’t just name the suspect/victim. The lapdog press provides us with an appropriate picture to fit the narrative of choice.

    A site with people providing different pics for the press – “if they gunned me down”.
    http://iftheygunnedmedown.tumblr.com/

    1. The lapdog press provides us with an appropriate picture to fit the narrative of choice.

      And in the Martin case the narrative was that and evil white racist killed an innocent black child who turned out to be not so innocent and only technically a child. Just look at the picture that went with this article and then the one HM found.

      That site is really sad. The idea that you are a gangsta on Twitter but in real life a saint is confused, to say the least. I am surprised none of those idiots who have pictures of themselves flashing gang signs posted pictures of themselves as kindergarteners, claiming that is who “they really are inside” or something.

      1. What exactly is your definition of “gangster?”

        1. What exactly is your definition of “gangster?”

          You used quotes here but I did not use that word. I am sure it was just an honest mistake.

          I was attempting to use what I thought was a self identification of many people. I specifically wrote “gansta” because I assumed that acting “tough” and flashing gang sign wasn’t and indication of actually being a gang member but more like role playing.

          If there had been anyone wearing leather and sitting on Harleys I would have said “biker” even though that would not imply membership with a criminal motorcycle gang.

    2. HAH!

      Man, I can’t even decide which picture they’d choose.

  12. And the police will always released the name of someone accused of a sex offense, even though doing so ensures their life and reputation are ruined even if they are innocent.

  13. Why can’t the killer just take his paid leave out of town? Wouldn’t that resolve his whole “oooh, I’m all scared” problem?

  14. Hey, if the cops and the media didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

  15. I can’t believe the name hasn’t leaked yet.

    1. Isn’t it officer Racist P. Fuckface?

      1. In fairness, I doubt he is a racist. I bet he doesn’t look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Since he is a cop, to him, they are all equally worthless.

        1. I am hoping that the officer turns out to be black, so that the standard “racism” narrative no longer fits.

          1. You’ll be disappointed. All eye-witnesses so far have reported that the officer was a white male.

            1. According to the Christian Science Monitor article linked by Bo above, the force is entirely white.

              1. I heard on NPR this morning that there are 3 black officers out of more than 50 total.

            2. Oh well. Let the Standard Racism Narrative roll on!

        2. Yep, all just “civilian” POS untermensch.

  16. And the police will always released the name of someone accused of a sex offense, even though doing so ensures their life and reputation are ruined even if they are innocent.

    John makes the most important point.

    The shooter’s name is a fact of relevant public interest. Releasing his name may “encourage other victims to come forward”.

    There is absolutely no justification for not releasing his name in the name of his safety unless they routinely suppress the names of persons of interest in the name of their safety.

    They are clearly making the judgment that safety is a concern in this instance and only this instance because, well, cops are special.

    1. +1

      Agreed, it’s worse than a double standard. In the case of those accused of a sex crime, names are often released in ways specifically meant to cause harassment and harm to the accused.

  17. But when St. Louis Police Department Officer Daryl Hall was killed in a gun battle in 2011

    WHAT! Is Deputy Oates OK at least?

  18. I understand the police officer who shot Mike Brown might also face a paid vacation. Maybe even an extended paid vacation with fellow officers jeering at him for all the extra time he’s getting off work – making that officer pay for the beer at their wife beating parties. Hasn’t the officer been punished enough already? What about his wife/gf that will now be subject to extra beatings since he has no other outlets?

    For shame on all of you.

  19. Cops do all manner of illegal things that never get out to the public-the PD is the new Mob…omerte…is the watchword.

  20. The same thing with a highway patrol slug here in L.A.Ca. who beat the hell out of an old lady at a freeway on ramp. But here cops kill hostages and victims.

  21. http://gawker.com/here-are-the…../+marchman

    Apparently EMS wasn’t called for 4 hours after the shooting of Brown, but help for crowd control was.

    1. Also seems like at no time was an officer being assaulted called in.

      On the other hand a white man with a gun was called, and a package with a human leg was also called in, and doesn’t seem anyone was killed for those.

  22. The police state is now a secret police state.

  23. The purpose of naming cops is to make it easier for the “community” to confront or kill them where they live. The “community” want to catch them without back up, and hopefully unarmed where they are a soft target.

    It’s as simple as that.

    1. Why do police have a higher right to privacy than other individuals? In many cases, take sex “crimes” for instance, the government uses methods that are specifically designed to destroy a person’s livilhood and create a community threat against the accused.

      The officer can be protected, that’s not the issue at all. The real reason is the police are carefully trying to figure out how to weasle out of any fault and protect one of their own from any civil or criminal reprecussions.

  24. They release names to help catch the person who did the crime. They HAVE the person who commited the crime in this case. There’s no real need.

    Now the trick is to see to it that the whole thing is investigated and tried, if need be.

    The rioters and looters are doing the protesters a great disservice in this. They will harden opinion against Brown’s family, and justice will become less likely.

  25. This is as much a double standard as when cops shoot dogs willie-nillie and walk scot-free, but if a citizen injures a K-9, they are charged as if it were an officer. An instance this week were a man was charged with assault for yelling obscenities at a K-9. Our police in this country, from the smallest municipalities to the largest metropolis’, are out of control. It is time for us to reign them in, by hook or by crook.

  26. I disagree with the author of this article. The police routinely withhold the identity of perpetrators who are in danger from public retaliation. Why should they release the name of the officer in this situation when the rioters are thirsting for blood? It’s totally ridiculous that anyone should think they aught to release the name. Good grief!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.