Michael Brown Shooting

Nixon Sends National Guard to Impose Curfew in Ferguson

|

last time a nixon, no relation, sent in the national guard

Gov. Jay Nixon (D-Mo.) has ordered the National Guard into Ferguson after police and protesters clashed on Sunday night. The governor didn't inform the White House, according to BuzzFeed, which quotes an administration official saying they got no "heads up." President Obama took a break from his vacation at Martha's Vineyard to hold meetings at the White House on both the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, and the U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq.

Nixon said he was sending the National Guard to "restore peace and order to the community." According to Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) chief Ron Johnson, whose agency took over for the Ferguson police department last week, there were reports of bottles, rockets, and Molotov cocktails being thrown at protests last night, that police were shot at, and that protesters set up barricades to block police. "I had no alternative but to elevate the level of our response," the Washington Post quoted Johnson as saying.

Prior to the MSHP takeover of riot control in Ferguson on Thursday—which saw peaceful protests and a decidedly demilitarized police presence at night—the Ferguson Police Department and various St. Louis law enforcement agencies deployed militarized units in response to reports of looting during some of the protests. At the time the counterinsurgent-like response appeared disproportionate, looking for a problem that didn't exist. As I warned last Thursday, based on Johnson's reports, the police's militarized response to protests may have helped create a cause for that response. On Friday, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) called for "martial law" to be imposed in Ferguson. Residents, like one the Post spoke to, blamed the unrest on outsiders and people who wanted to "vent and loot." The NAACP has backed Nixon's decision to send the National Guard in.

Last night attorneys for Michael Brown's family released the results of a private autopsy, and in a press conference today said the release came after clashes started in Ferguson last night, and said Brown's mother wanted to see the officer who shot Brown last Saturday arrested. Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the FBI to conduct its own autopsy, but has otherwise not provided any updates on the Department of Justice investigation in Ferguson.

On MSNBC a few minutes ago, Nixon avoided answering the question of whether Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson should be fired for releasing surveillance video allegedly showing Brown robbing a corner store and strong-arming its owner. The host Andrea Mitchell, and Holder, appeared to blame the video for a re-eruption of violence on Friday night, something he apparently did not inform the Highway Patrol, nominally in charge, he was going to do. Perhaps Nixon can't.

Advertisement

NEXT: D.C. Democrat Accused of Censoring Scandals on His Own Wikipedia Page

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. Tin soldiers and Nixon coming …

    1. Four dead…wait, one dead in Ohi…I mean Missouri.

    2. Whatever the song said, it was Governor Rhodes of Ohio who sent in the Guard.

      1. Take it up with Neil Young. I suppose next you’re going to tell me Southern Man don’t need him around, anyhow.

          1. Nah, we don’t need him around, unless he wants to kiss my ass.

            1. I know that song: “Sweet Home Barack Obama.”

                1. Well, there’s also “I Ain’t the One.”

              1. “Sweet Home Barack Obama.”

                Sacrilege, sir, sacrilege!

            2. I keep waiting for him to stop by and pickup a Reason.

    3. This was an absolute mess of a situation.

  2. “whether Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson should be fired for releasing surveillance video”

    This is reaching such a level of retardation I’m beginning to sympathize with the police, sorry Rand Paul.

    1. This recent shooting was just the straw breaking the camel’s back. It seems this tension has been building for a quite a while.

    2. Same here. At first I was sympathetic to those complaining about the cops, but tentatively so. As their story falls apart more and more I got less so.
      Now it is starting to look like the cops have been exercising extraordinary restraint.

      I still dont understand why the chief was wrong in releasing the video. He sinned by ruining the narrative?
      He stood up for his officer. That is his job.

      1. Extraordinary restraint? Where do you get that evidence, ex rectum?

        1. How many looters have been shot or had the shit beaten out of them?

          The cops are making a very visible presence, but aside from shooting some gas and stun grenades they aren’t doing much.

          1. How many looters have been shot or had the shit beaten out of them?

            We’ve reached the point where the mere absence of police brutality = “restraint”?

            1. Yes. Only one summary execution.

            2. I remember the Watts riots. An acquaintance was a reserver deputy. They called him up and told him to bring his rifle. He set up behind a barricade and shot anyone who looked like they were looting. He told me one guy, with a TV on his shoulder, ran serpentine down the sidewalk barely avoiding being shot, but refused to drop the TV.

              Yeah, the cops in Ferguson are kinda playing nice.

      2. I still dont understand why the chief was wrong in releasing the video. He sinned by ruining the narrative?
        He stood up for his officer. That is his job.

        Because the Chief (at first) did not state that the robbery and the stop were unrelated. He had to be forced to admit that later.

        Because the Chief, in contravention to federal law, refused to release any information for a week.

        Because they still won’t release what they think happened with the shooting.

        In short, the Chief looks like a shitbag.

        1. “Because the Chief (at first) did not state that the robbery and the stop were unrelated. He had to be forced to admit that later.”

          OK, fair enough. Then the problem isn’t with the information he released, but the information he *didn’t* release.

          1. Ken White at Popehat has a good read up about the store video/robbery angle. Little long, worth a read.

            But he fact that Mike Brown allegedly robbed a convenience store shouldn’t matter to our analysis of whether it was acceptable for Darren Wilson to shoot him. The fact that it does matter is nearly everyone’s fault.

            Whether or not they released the surveillance video in response to a public records request, as they claim, the Ferguson Police Department undoubtedly knew that the news would reach the pool of prospective jurors in any criminal or civil case against Officer Wilson, telling them facts that they might not hear in court. They knew that the media would run with the story, and that the media would run with it multiple times: first to report it, then to ask why the police released it, and possibly a third time in a mock-self-critical analysis of whether they were played. The effect in the public’s mind is to emphasize the point Mike Brown was a robber, with the subtext so he probably had it coming.

          2. I don’t think releasing the video was a problem in and of itself. The strategic release of the video in an obvious attempt to sway public opinion without releasing all relevant information at once is the problem.

          3. Although some reports also said that the officer “made the connection” between the robbery and the two guys, due to the fact that they wre openly carrying the boxes of cigs on them at the time, and that was why he put his car in reverse and stopped. He was , possibly, about to get out his car to question them about the robbery.

            At which point, perhaps, Brown panicked, struggled with the cop and then tried to run.

        2. Have patience. It takes time for everybody to get their story straight.

        3. Because the Chief, in contravention to federal law, refused to release any information for a week.

          My understanding is that much of the delay was actually at the request of the Feds.

      3. He stood up for his officer. That is his job.

        What? I thought his job was to properly run a police department, including properly and thoroughly investigating his officers when it appears they may have done something wrong.

      4. This reminds me of Imus’ take on Saddam after Iraq War II turned to shit.
        Imus joked that now that we’re seeing what a bunch of nuts the Iraqis are, we should just put Saddam back in power and apologize.

    3. This is reaching such a level of retardation I’m beginning to sympathize with the police, sorry Rand Paul.

      Having watched the news as a youngster of police turning dogs loose on protesters and using fire hoses to drive them away, I thought I knew pretty well what an “overreaction” was to an organized protest.

      Watching a “police” officer sit on top of an armored vehicle with an assault weapon sitting on a tripod aiming over a vocal, but non-violet crowd just pissed me off to no end. This is Missouri, not fucking Gaza.

      So yeah, the initial police action was a combination of stonewalling and massive over-reaction to the angry crowds. This make the guys in charge total shitbags.

      I have no opinion on the actual shooting of an unarmed man until such time as the autopsy reports are released and reviewed by experts and the witness statements are made public. But pretty much everything past the shooting has been a fuckup.

    4. Nostalgia — what a waste of time

      http://davidsimon.com/the-end-…..ty-pt-iii/

      In Baltimore, I covered many police shootings, most of them necessary, if tragic, and a few that were indeed questionable or dubious, if equally tragic. But in all of those incidents, a police department that remained fully accountable to its citizenry never failed to do one basic thing when a life had been taken: It stood by the body. All of those officers who took a life owned both their authority and their responsibility. They were identified before their public, and the sunlight of public knowledge was never denied to any moment when an agent of the state, as a matter of personal deliberation and presumed professional necessity, ended the life of a fellow citizen. This was elemental, and democratic to its core. If our country is to cease its drift toward a militarized police state, it is elemental still.

  3. “The governor didn’t inform the White House, according to BuzzFeed, which quotes an administration official saying they got no “heads up.””

    Oh, poor baby, the governor (a Democrat, by the way) didn’t give you a veto on the exercise of his constitutional responsibilities? Would you like a cookie?

    1. Regardless of whether or not sending the National Guard in is a good idea, not informing the Feds gets a thumbs up from me.

      +1 Federalism

    2. He be hatin’

    3. The governor knew that the best way to inform Obama of something was for it to be on the news.

  4. I have heard that the shots which hit the arm struck the front of the arm. But if the arm was raised, wouldn’t the front be facing backwards? This isn’t a conclusive piece of information without an examination of the shirt and the x-rays.

    1. Its looking better for the cop who killed Brown, now. Between the autopsy and some new contemporaneous evidence, there’s support for the story that Brown was not trying to flee (at a minimum), and that he may have actually been trying to charge the cop.

      As with the Trayvon case, the critical seconds are the first few seconds, where escalation began. Those, we may never know about. Why did the cop challenge Brown? What did they say? What happened before Brown initially left the cop car?

      There’s plenty of room in there for the cop hassling Brown for no reason, Brown mouthing off, the cop trying to escalate and arrest him for mouthing off, Brown trying to get away, the cop escalating again by shooting while he flees (and missing), Brown deciding he’s a dead man unless takes the cop out, etc.

      Or, Brown knows he just committed a robbery even if the cop doesn’t, Brown escalating at the initial encounter, then trying to flee, then turning back to assault the cop.

      One question I still have: apparently, Brown got some distance away from the cop before turning back. Why did he turn back?

      1. Brown got some distance away from the cop before turning back. Why did he turn back?

        I haven’t seen enough concrete evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt which direction this guy was facing. There are so many ways it could have gone down that I’m not convinced of anything.

        1. I haven’t seen enough concrete evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt which direction this guy was facing.

          The autopsy report apparently shows every shot entering from the front.

        2. “Bud finally realized it wouldn’t be any use to keep running. He stopped and turned to face the old man, so that the bullet holes would be in the front of his body, you know.”

    2. The autopsy report has the bullets striking the inner forearm – that is, the side the palm is on, which would face forward with the arms upraised.

      1. Or backwards with the arms down, which raises all kinds of questions.

        1. We know in the end he was face-down.

          Based upon the arm hit locations stated, the two big probabilities are – shot from behind with arms down, or shot from in front with arms raised.

          If he was hit from behind with arms down, how did he get hit in the top of the head while ending up face down?

          If he was hit from in front with arms up, he could easily have taken another hit to the crown of the head while pitching forward. But wouldn’t that imply he was shot while surrendering?

          1. The “he charged the officer” position would account for those hits, would it not?

            Bearing in mind I am on the side where I think the police are lying, but still…

            1. The “he charged the officer” position would account for those hits, would it not?

              Bearing in mind I am on the side where I think the police are lying, but still…

              But then you have him escaping a scuffle with the cops, gaining some distance, then turning around and charging back into the fray instead of continuing on running. That triggers my bullshit alarm as ‘not a probable human response’. If he wanted to keep fighting, he wouldn’t have put distance between them.

              1. If he wanted to keep fighting, he wouldn’t have put distance between them.

                Yeah, one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that (a) at some point he was right next to or maybe in the cop car and (b) when he was shot he was some distance (“35 feet”) from the cop.

                Its the “got away, but then turned back” thing that I can’t figure out.

                1. One more scenario that fits today’s “facts”.

                  Brown gets away and is fleeing. The cop took a ding or two during the early stages (I seem to recall this) and is Pissed. But, he knows better than to shoot someone in the back.

                  So, he says “Stop or I’ll shoot” or something similar, Brown stops and turns around, and then the cop greases him when he knows all the bullet holes will be in front, consistent with his “BUT HE WAS COMING RIGHT AT ME” defense.

                  Just sayin’. There’s a lot of different scenarios consistent with what we think we know today.

                  1. That one had filtered through my mind, which is why I’m not convinced of any given set of circumstances.

                  2. If the cop was angry enough to kill, I doubt he was thinking clearly enough to have the kid turn around first.

                2. Its the “got away, but then turned back” thing that I can’t figure out.

                  Makes perfect sense to me.
                  Brown panicks, first lashes out at the cop, then freaks out and tries to run, then thinks better of it and decides to surrender.

                  1. Meanwhile, cop, who is pissed off shoots him as he is turning around, before he has time to react to the surrender. Then comes up with the “he was coming at me” after the fact to cover his ass.

              2. Do police fire warning shots anymore, or do they just blaze away shooting to kill at anyone who threatens them?

                1. I don’t remember much hearing about “warning shots” any more.

                2. Maybe the shot fired in the car was the warning shot.

          2. So where the fuck is the cell phone video that one witness supposedly took? Did the police just seize the camera?

  5. Nixon said he was sending the National Guard to “restore peace and order to the community.”

    The fact that this sentence was written in 2014, instead of 1969, just makes me laugh.

    1. I am chuckling too. Maybe for a couple of reasons besides the obvious one.

  6. St. Louis law enforcement agencies deployed militarized unites in response to reports of looting during some of the protests.

    Oops, spell checker got him

    1. …that protesters set up barricades to block policy.

      And I am still wondering what “policy” the protesters were barricading…

      1. I caught that one too. But I figured one per customer.

        1. Well, yeah. You got the better one, however.

  7. Here is the narrative the media was trying to palm off on us a scant four days ago:

    “Uncle describes teenager shot by police as a ‘gentle giant’

    “The uncle of 18-year-old Michael Brown says his nephew was a “gentle giant” who didn’t want to play football because he didn’t want to hurt anyone.””

    http://www.bnd.com/2014/08/14/…..rylink=cpy

    1. The victim’s previous history is irrelevant. The only question is whether the shooting was justifiable homicide.

      1. Of course. I’m talking about the fact that it wasn’t until the police released the video that we learned maybe he wasn’t a gentle giant. He may still have been murdered/homicided, but the context is a bit different than the media wanted us to believe. And who knows if there would have been riots in response to claims that the cops unjustifiably killed a robber than claims that they unjustifiably killed a God-fearing gentle giant?

        1. Ok, and what if the Queen of England had balls?

          1. Then she’d have two more than you?

              1. with both feet on the ground!

        2. What is his family supposed to say? That he was an asshole and had it coming?

          It is also quite possible that he did in fact appear that way to his family and was acting like a thug in the store to impress his dirtbag friends.

        1. That’s relevant to whether the cop could use the robbery to defend himself against charges of violating civil rights. Maybe, maybe not.

          But would the mob and/or the media have been able to work itself up into such a lather over the question of “excessive force against a victim who, coincidentally, was also a robber?”

          1. I still don’t see your point. Do you think that the robbery evidence was available in or around the time of the shooting? Because if not, then who cares?

            1. As far as I can tell, the shooting officer did not know he was a robbery suspect at the time. But this is based upon media reports, so I can’t be sure.

              1. The Police Chief confirmed the officer did not know about Brown being a suspect.

            2. I’m speaking of the metaphorical court of public opinion, and the fact that the story I quoted was, how you way, “wrong.”

              The question isn’t what will send the cop to prison or have him reach for his wallet, but what sort of narrative is the media willing to accept? *They* thought the “gentle giant” story was relevant, and if you disagree, good for you for your impartiality and judiciousness. I’m speaking about the effect on the mob, not the effect on you.

              1. how you *say*

              2. Again, unless the robbery evidence was immediately available, the “mob” would not have changed one whit.

                1. Now *you’re* speculating on the potential testicular capacities of Her Majesty.

                  1. So let’s say the indignant relatives had gotten up and said, “he made some bad choices and robbed a store, but did they have to kill him?”

                    Maybe riots would have ensued, maybe not, I don’t know, nor do you.

                    1. How would they have known that?

                    2. I’m talking about a hypothetical universe in which they gave a more accurate account than the “gentle giant” narrative.

                      But sure, maybe it was inevitable that the false narrative would have gotten out first.

                    3. Its somewhat unusual that the cops don’t get their false narrative out first.

                    4. The fact that they didn’t makes me highly suspicious that they know the cop fucked up. Of course that’s just my gut feeling and I could be wrong.

          2. But would the mob and/or the media have been able to work itself up into such a lather over the question of “excessive force against a victim who, coincidentally, was also a robber?”

            I’d hope so. I have to believe that the vast majority of people in this country do not believe it is the job of the police to roam the streets killing “suspects” in cold blood.

            1. Right, but it might have been less riot-worthy if it was a case of “cop accused of violating civil rights of robber, investigators are examining the case, streets remain calm while the facts are sorted out.”

              1. I mean, one would like the *think* the matter would have gotten a thorough investigation even without pressure from rioters.

                And, yes, I know that there are peaceful people among the demonstrators, I’m not speaking of them, I’m speaking of the “no flat screen TV, no peace” crowd.

        2. Bingo. Loved that article.

          The only quibble I have (not really a quibble, I guess) is that the robbery is 100% certain to come in because the friend who was with Brown at the store would have to testify, and the robbery would be used to impugn his character.

      2. “The victim’s previous history is irrelevant.”

        In the eyes of the law, sure. But for me, and how much I care, it matters a great deal what kind of person it was that got shot.

        1. “Everyone has rights, or nobody has rights.”

          1. I see I should have read down.

            If the “eyes of the law” gets to the “eyes of a jury” stage that impulse is exactly what the police were banking on by releasing that video and why the community instinctively got re-torqued up by it.

    2. The first thing I heard on the radio was that an unarmed, college bound 18 year old was shot in the back by cops.

  8. What happened to “shoot on sight” when it came to looters? Law enforcement has gotten soft.

    1. They’d rather beat up on press, because it’s more satisfying to hear them squeal.

    2. Looters?! Go fire some CS gas on those reporters and peaceful protesters!!!

      /cop

  9. OT: This is a prog from the NYTimes but still kinda on-target about police militarization

    http://www.nytimes.com/slidesh…..tml?_r=0#1

  10. On rare occasions, a group of people is allowed to choose the size of the boot on their neck and the force pushing down. It’s surprising that some choose bigger and harder.

  11. In addition, Brown had marijuana in his system when he was shot and killed by a police officer on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

    BOOM

    1. An anonymous report that Brown may or may not have taken a drug that generally acts as a sedative/relaxant sometime within the last few weeks?

      More like *fizzle*.

      1. I blame my reading of this site for too long…. I read that as “sedative/laxative“.

  12. OT: Received my recall notice on my LaCrosse today.

    Big shocker! They dont have the parts to actually fix it, but its been recalled anyway. Im supposed to remove everything from the ignition key until parts become available.

    1. My wife has an old Saturn, we got that same notice this weekend.

    2. What can you remove from the key?

      1. The fob, keychains, cards, etc.

        1. I thought they were recommending disassembling the key or something. Is the.problem that extra weight on the.key causes.the.switch to fail?

    3. It was several months between when I got my recall notice and when I was able to get an appointment to have it fixed.

  13. Nixon said he was sending the National Guard to “restore peace and order to the community.”

    Maybe he should consider disbanding the Ferguson PD if he wants peace and order.

  14. Had a progressive acquaintance note last night that Occupy and these protestors are getting gassed and harassed while nobody does anything to the Open Carry protestors. Its really funny to see them stumbling around on the cusp on enlightenment and then reject the conclusion because it would collapse entire sections of their worldview.

    1. Oh I’m sure the conclusion was going to be, “because the Kochs love guns and white people are privileged”, or something like that. IOW, he wasn’t even close to the cusp.

        1. I…you….that, I mean…

          *gags and stumbles off*

  15. If John Wayne Gacy had been gunned down for backsassing a cop over some bullshit “respect muh authoritah!” stop, it would still be murder, in my estimation. “Thuggery” (if that’s what it was) in and of itself, is still not a capital crime.

    1. Yes, but would it have provoked *riots* and the National Guard on the streets?

      1. No, maybe not. But there is clearly a whole lot more behind the riots and protests than the one incident.

    2. This is, quite frankly, horseshit. Nobody actually feels this way. If a good person gets murdered it’s a lot worse than if a shithead gets murdered.

      1. “Everyone has rights, or nobody has rights.” I think I read that somewhere.

      2. Even if you think the world would be better off with one less bad dude, I hope you would demand a higher standard for execution.

      3. How is that horseshit? Sure, maybe you wouldn’t get as many outraged people, but it’s still murder. And I do actually feel this way.

      4. Brooks didn’t talk about how he feels, but what how an act should be treated by law. Murder is murder, even if some murders are more tragic than others.

        Justice isn’t supposed to bend in accordance with feels.

  16. Actually, it might be worse when cops murder a “shithead,” because then folks like KPres can just meh it off.

    1. Yeah, now everyone can argue about whether Brown was a thug or not and wring their hands about who’s racist or who’s not racist. And everyone (except libertarians) can forget about how the police have acted like an invading army.

      1. Which really makes me think that the timing and manner of the release of the video of the robbery is a cynical and calculated move by the police to make just what you describe happen.

        1. I think so too. Look how they went right back to their militarized tactics after one day where the highway patrol came in acted normally.

  17. Heres my few cents:

    1) The underlying question is whether the cop (a) shot a guy who was causing no trouble and trying to surrender or (b) shot a guy who was attacking him. On that question, I thought it was relevant that Brown was a gentle giant who never caused trouble, and I think it’s relevant that maybe that isn’t true. (I mean relevant to me, not necessarily legally relevant.

    2) My guess is that this makes the facts messy enough that we will never conclusively know, which is a PITA. I agree with Mark Steyn that there’s no excuse not to have dashboard cams any longer.

    3) Is that typical for a convenience store? People just come in, take your stuff, and push you around? That seems miserable.

    1. 3). What are they gonna do? Call the cops?

    2. 4 (because I’m thinking for you now): The question of whether or not the shooting was justified is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the response to the protests and riots has been justified.

      1. If anything, the response to the riots has been too muted. The cops seem to have taken the attitude of “well if you are going to question us then fuck it we will let the mob loot the whole damned city”.

        If it were up to me, I would have the cops shoot looters on sight in these situations. I am as anti-cop as anyone, but is you are out breaking windows and stealing shit and the owner or a cop shoots you, you are getting exactly what you deserve.

        1. I think the owner has the right to shoot, but the cop has a duty to peacefully resolve the situation.

          I don’t understand why I have to be forced to pay the state to carry out the very same actions its existence was allegedly supposed to prevent.

          Our fucked up laws and consequent culture notwithstanding, property owners banding together and fighting off looters requires neither taxation nor police.

          The police are there to take the high road, and if they can’t do that then it’s time to give the money and power back to the people.

        2. Then I suppose I should be grateful that it is not up to you.

        3. That seems like a better way to do it. The looting probably starts with a few assholes. Take some of them out and you probably stop it right there. I’d still rather have store owners doing it than cops, though.
          Then let people who are protesting without breaking or stealing anyone’s shit do their thing.

          1. Shooting more black people, even if they are actively engaged in looting, is absolutely not going to calm the situation down.

        4. Right John, lets trust the cops to shoot looter (AND ONLY LOOTERS) on sight.

          1. Yeah, that’s what I don’t understand about this ‘shoot the looters’ meme.

            This shit is just like a prog screaming that corporashuns have too much power, we need to give the government more power to reign them in – it completely ignores what’s actually happening.

      2. 4)a) I’m comfortable that the response is completely f-ed up. No show of force was ever going to clamp down on things completely, but alternating force and disinterest seems like a recipe to burn the town to the ground like in an Clint Eastwood movie that I don’t want to spoil for you.

        b) I’m no expert, but it seems like the right response is like you do on a college campus:

        – Immediately meet with the family and community leaders. Let them have all the time with city officials they will spend.

        – Express a lot of sympathy, without ever actually prejudging the investigation.

        – Start an official investigation immediately, with DOJ oversight.

        – Form a community committee to identify root causes and solutions.

  18. If a good person gets murdered it’s a lot worse than if a shithead gets murdered.

    Bow down before the Omniscient State and it’s infallible executioners!

    The cop had no knowledge of the theft from the store, but his hypersensitive nose detected the inherent criminality of that jaywalker.
    Sentence: DEATH.

    1. “you could smell the crime on them”

      *not original Swiss Servator work, stolen, in fact.*

      1. Stolen, you say?

        Sentence: Death.

  19. [If] are out breaking windows and stealing shit and the owner or a cop shoots you, you are getting exactly what you deserve.

    I prefer this.

    1. I don’t. If I am the owner, I am going to hope the cops shoot someone looting my store. If the owner has a right to do it, I don’t see why the cops don’t.

      1. I suppose the question is whether the right to use deadly force to defend yourself and your property can be transferred to the police in that way.

      2. I’m not – If I’m the owner I can tell who’s a looter and who’s not.

        Cops are just as likely to roll up and shoot my staff as I have them move high-value items to a safer location.

        I’d prefer cops come into the situation a little more cold-bloodedly and rational – that’s sorta the *whole point* of passing off retribution/justice to the state.

  20. it’s

    *hangs head*

    1. Monty P-Brooks’ Flying Circus!

        1. Cue The Liberty Bell March.

  21. Here’s what I want to know. Where are the other eye witnesses? Early reports said there were several, including at least one who took some video. How has the press not spoken to any of them? Are the cops threatening them so they maintain silence? OR am I just not paying enough attention?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.