Michael Brown Shooting

No Indictment From Ferguson Grand Jury. Police Officer Darren Wilson Won't Face Trial for Killing Michael Brown.

A decision that's likely to leave many people unsatisfied.


Darren Wilson
Screen Capture

Note: Scroll down for the latest coverage.

No indictment, says St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch. "No probable cause exists to file any charge against Officer Wilson," he announced.

The grand jury has spoken in the case of (soon to be former) Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. Brown's death inflamed Ferguson, Missouri, St. Louis County, and the country beyond. There's little doubt that the grand jury's decision not to indict Wilson will leave many people unsatisfied.

Michael Brown's death raised questions about police conduct—especially with regard to minority communities. The incident excites different reactions across the racial divide, with many black and white Americans perceiving the shooting, and the proper treatment of Officer Wilson, very differently. It's no surprise that Reason-Rupe polling finds approval of police is highest among older, prosperous, white Republicans.

The reaction to protests in the wake of the shooting introduced many Americans to the sight of police officers dressed in camouflage, wielding assault rifles, and riding armored vehicles. Reason readers are familiar with the frightening militarization of American policing in recent years. But cops-as-troops came as an unpleasant revelation to much of the public.

The grand jury's decision as to the legal treatment—at least so far as the criminal justice system is concerned—of Darren Wilson hardly settles the matter. The conversation over this case, over police conduct, and over law enforcement's relationship with minority communities will continue in the days to come.

Update: 9:39 pm ET

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch criticizes media coverage and the quality of some witness testimony while describing the evidence that led to the grand  jury's decision. He declines to go into the details of the jury's deliberations, or to reveal more information about the jurors, while revealing that 12 shots were fired by Wilson.

Meanwhile, the police and National Guard prepare outside the Justice Center in Clayton, Missouri (see photo below). 

National Guard stages in Clayton, Missouri
Aaron Malin

Update: 10:02 pm ET

For context: In 2010, says the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as ferreted out by FiveThirtyEight's Ben Casselman, grand juries declined to prosecute 11 times out of 162,000 federal cases U.S. attorneys brought before them.

Update: 10: 34 pm ET

CNN and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch report violence in Ferguson in the wake of the grand jury's decision. St, Louis County PD say they're using smoke to disperse crowds, while reporters claim it's tear gas. Reason's Aaron Malin says clergy and community leaders are trying to form a buffer between police and protesters.

Ferguson protesters
Aaron Malin

Update: 10:45 pm ET

Aaron Malin reports gunshots and captures an image of a police car on fire in Ferguson:

Burning police car
Aaron Malin

Update: 11:11 pm ET

Protesters gather at the White House in Washington, D.C. Reason Deputy Managing Editor Stephanie Slade reports that more are on the way.

White House protest
Stephanie Slade

Update: 11:31 pm ET

Riot cops in Ferguson:

Riot cops in Ferguson
Aaron Malin

Protesters at the White House:

Protesters at the White House
Stephanie Slade

Update: November 25, 12:06 am ET

Yes, the situation in Ferguson is completely out of hand. Now, the FAA has implemented a no-fly zone over the area "to provide a safe environment for law enforcement activities."


Update: November 25, 12:29 am ET

Aaron Malin captures police activity in Ferguson.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: Ferguson Announcement and Immediate Aftermath, Possibly Featuring Radley Balko, Deroy Murdock, Basil Smikle, K.T. McFarland, and More UPDATE No Show

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. Acid IS Grovvy.
      Bacon tastes good.

    2. Yeah, man! People! Quit your bitching about millions of people in jail and a shoot to kill police force.


        Get over it.


  2. If you have property in Ferguson you need to be there with a Full Metal Jacket.

  3. “…that the grand jury’s decision not to indict Wilson will leave many people unsatified.”

    So unsatisfied that they couldn’t take the time to check their spelling?

    1. You’re hard to satify, aren’t you?

      1. I can’t get no satisfiction.

        1. *satification

          1. They desatified me.

  4. I called it. Now, let the rioting begin!

    1. They gave everyone who might be interested plenty of time to drive to Fergusen to participate, so I expect this to be spectacular.

  5. I’m so glad that this case is over. Now people can get on with their lives without resorting to property damage or further acts of violence.

    1. In all honesty, you gotta pick and choose your battles. This isn’t a battle I’m interested in waging. All I know is that police brutality, police militarization, looting, and race-based fear-mongering are all four sides of the same evil rectangle.

      Last thing I’ll say about this case. That, and people should neither be too quick to trust or reject police. Skepticism is good, but excessive skepticism can be blinding.

      1. I agree. There’s a bad positive feedback loop going on: police and the public are wary of blacks, which leads to generalizations and flawed judgments, which leads to violent protests, which leads to police and the public becoming wary of blacks, which….

        1. Huh. That’s funny. I didn’t know that “the public” did not include blacks.

          1. Not what I meant, and you know it.

            1. Freudian slip, but it’s nothing we shouldn’t have already guessed.

              1. You can really be an asshole, Cyto.

                1. In context of the us v them mentality of the protest I get the context.

                  It would be nice if this made Americans take a step back and realize we aren’t in Mayberry.

                2. This isn’t even my final form.

                3. Why do you respond to that prick? He’s a fucking Canadian with a war boner.

                  1. A highly selective war boner and don’t pretend you’re not jealous of my nationality. Everyone is.

          2. Libertarian|11.24.14 @ 10:11PM|#

            Huh. That’s funny. I didn’t know that “the public” did not include blacks.

            Who says it doesn’t?

          3. Not like blacks aren’t more afraid of blacks, too

      2. But it’s okay (and smart) to distrust them all the time.

    2. Only the police should resort to property damage and acts of violence! But always start with lethal force!

      1. That’s not what I’m saying.

        Property violence and acts of violence are always wrong. Doesn’t matter who initiates it.

        Wait. Sarcasm?

        1. I use sarcasm a lot, and yet I can’t detect sarcasm. Bad.

  6. This appears to be a carriage of justice.

    1. Zimmerman- 1 Trayvon- 0
      Darren 1- Michael ? 0

      Whites lead series 2-0

      1. nice try, agent provocateur

        1. Don’t get your panties in a bunch, SJW. Got to laugh or you’ll just cry.

      2. Whites tied with Caucasian-Hispanic.

      3. Whites tied with Caucasian-Hispanic.

    2. You misspelled carnage.

  7. This was a stupid hill for reason to die on. There’s plenty of cases of police abuses they could publicize. Instead they decided to take something publicized and twist it into the police abuse narrative.

    1. In my city, the fuzz just got cleared of their filmed harassment of a (black) Dad waiting to pick up his kid.

    2. Uh… what? This is big news. How is their coverage in any way dying on a hill?

      1. Because the guy attacked a cop?

        I mean, seriously, it’s like that other guy that pulled out a gun and shot a cop.

        You are never, ever going to convict cops of killing someone when they get attacked or fired at.

        A better case would be when police shoot people who didn’t attack them. Like that guy in Wal-mart who clearly had a toy gun

        1. Shot at. Meyers. They keep protesting over his death, too.

        2. Except the cop shot him well after the attack in a completely unnecessary manner that endangered the public. At least Wilson is off the Ferg PD.

          1. How do you know it was “a completely unnecessary manner”? One version is that Brown was charging him at the end. What’s Wilson supposed to do then? Brown had already assaulted him and tried to take his gun.

            I find it odd that you have no problem with shooting looters, but don’t seem to think a policeman has the right to use deadly force when physically attacked.

            1. Wait until he’s not 30 feet away and then only shoot once or twice.

              Cops =/= average citizens. They are paid to have a truncated right to self-defence.

              1. I’m not a blind defender of cops as there are plenty of examples of outright abuse and brutality, but this doesn’t appear to be one of them. It’s easy to say “only shoot once or twice” when you’re not there under the pressures of the situation. This guy, by all accounts, was dangerous. He had already strong-armed a merchant and then tried to strong arm this cop. Moreover, the case got the process it was due-it was put before a grand jury and they declined prosecution. What more do you want?

                1. One shot should do it. European police fire fewer shots in a year than a single department in the states will. Keep in mind each shot endangers the public. One of the bullets was embedded above a door!

                  But you’re right: there was a process, and not enough to indict a cop. A regular citizen would be in jail though. I’m just glad he’s not a Ferguson cop anymore.

              2. Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds.

                I mean, I know it’s not as lethal as a toy gun, but if it’s possible that a knife wielding opponent can cross 30 feet in 2 seconds or so, and he refuses to put the knife down, don’t the cops just have to shoot, at that point? Who wants them risking their lives?

                1. What were these volunteers like? Athletic? Seems pretty fast.

                  1. They confirmed it on mythbusters. 21 feet: guy could shoot knife guy.

                    Less than that: knife guy always stabs gun guy.

                    1. BTW, 21 feet / 1.5 seconds = 14 feet a second = 9.55 miles per hour.

                      Yeah, it’s not a leisurely jog, but, when you’re in a fight, you get moving fast, and you don’t have to be an olympian to run 9.55 miles per hour for less than 2 seconds.

                  2. Moving at the speed of fear, PCP, 16-year-old ATP, etc.

                  3. Actuall, when I did my concealed carry class our instructor had every do the same drill. Set up a 30 foot distance and had someone run (like they were attacking). She then had the person shooting draw and shoot at a target.

                    Everyone, even the slow older lady covered almost the full 30 feet before anyone was able to get off a shot. Yes normal people, not trained police.

                    Our instructor then got in position to shoot. She was very well trained, former MP. The person running was able to get within 10 feet before she was able to pull the trigger. And she shot from the hip.

                    I guess my point it that it does not take long at all for someone to travel 30 feet. It is really surprising, you do not have time to wait or it will be too late.

              3. goddamn, that stupid fucking idea keeps popping up. “he shouldn’t have shot him that many times” or “he should have shot him in the leg”.

                I’m not a cop, but I’ve stood plenty of armed watches in the navy- you don’t stop shooting until the threat is over. Usually that means when the other guy stops moving towards you. That could mean when he stops moving at all.

                No way, if you are being attacked (and panicking most likely), that you will carefully squeeze off two shots, and wait and see how the other guy reacts. Police officers are not gunslingers or combat veterans, and he probably fired off those shots in 4 seconds or less.

                1. The rule I’ve always been taught is 3 shots center mass and if the target keeps moving then do it again. I’ve told my wife the first mag better be empty with the second mag loaded if she ever has a home invasion. Both our guns have 1 loaded mag with 1 in the chamber with a spare mag sitting right next to it.

                2. Yeah, you never know what’s going to happen when you shoot someone. They could die instantly, they could be completely unaffected in the short term.

        3. Or our local thug-in-blue who shot a 12-yr old carrying a toy gun.

          1. Yep, that’s a better hill to die on. Doubt there are many 12 year old marksmen in the cleveland city limits if the toy gun even looked real.

        4. Yeah, cause I didn’t read anything about the Walmart thing here.


      2. Thug assaults cop. Cop shoots thug. “Witnesses” claim thug was surrendering. Rioting ensues. Cops who learned from the Rodney King riots respond in force to limit the damage, and kill no one. The only one acting the fool here is Mike Brown. Reason got worked up over this?

        1. Cops shoot thug well after it was appropriate to do so.

          Cops who learned from Rodney King riots respond in force to peaceful protesters and arrest media for no reason while allowing rioters to riot.

          FTFY. This isn’t Breitbart; you’re copsucking will be challenged and corrected.

          1. Cops are idiots, I know that. How do you expect idiots with tons of hardware to react to rioters? Rationally? How about not provoking idiots? If Mike Brown uses the sidewalk he never interacts with the cop. But he’s a dead idiot.

            1. How do you expect idiots with tons of hardware to react to rioters? Rationally?

              I don’t know how this is relevant to Ferguson given that the police weren’t stopping rioters but protesters and media.

              If Mike Brown uses the sidewalk he never interacts with the cop.


            2. People who go around with signs saying “Cops are idiots” are not part of a political movement that will go anywhere.

          2. Cop shot thug who was charging him. (As per the DA)


          3. This from the guy who would shoot pre-pubescent children if they made a possibly threatening move

    3. +1. How do they pick the worst cases to publicize? A 12 year old was just shot, and they pick the giant who (probably) beat up a cop.

      1. Except they aren’t “publicizing” it. They’re reporting on it. You know, since it’s the leading fucking story on every station, newspaper, and media blog.

    4. As if no one in America reads anything but reason. No one at reason is dying on any hill.

  8. Might as well get the riots over now, as opposed to when he would have been found not guilty in court.

    1. Maybe the weather would have been warmer then.

      1. The rioters will just have to drink more to keep warm.

        1. +1 Riot punch

  9. Wasn’t there a Ferguson PD shooting that was caught on YouTube and WAY less ambiguous than this? As in, definitely murder? Why isn’t this talked about at all?

    1. Because it was a crazy dude with a knife who was committing suicide by cop. He aggressively approached the police.

      The police were incompetent and lazy in their killing of him, but it’s not as interesting of a story.

      1. He wasn’t approaching no one when he was shit nor was he brandishing a knife. The cops lied of course. I can’t believe this is less ‘interesting’ it makes me sick.

        1. Hey, guy has a knife, you can’t be sure what he’s going to do next. And he probably didn’t obey direct orders to put the weapon down.

          You know: like the kid with the toy gun at the playground who got shot and killed by that cop.

          1. Knife =/= gun

            1. But it’s within the realm of possibility that he could injure or kill someone, right?

              Who would risk their life giving him a chance?
              Any thinking beyond that is just unreasonable.

              1. Knife =/= ranged weapon


                1. Most cops will tell you to be more wary of someone with a knife than with a gun.

                2. You’ve never seen someone throw a knife?

                  Yeah, most kids have toy guns. Most people can’t throw a knife.

                  But, if you’re the cop, do you want to take that chance with your own life?

                  I say good kills all around.


                3. Knife =/= ranged weapon


                  Cyto is the most Internetty of all Internet Tough Guys.

                  1. TV cops =\= real cops

        2. Are we talking about the same incident? There’s video.

          He was walking straight at the police. Eyewitnesses said he had a knife.


          The biggest problem with the incident is that police didn’t even attempt to de-escalate the situation.

          Yes. There’s lots of sick shit in the world. This is some of it.

          1. The police also fired at least 5 round when 1 would have done.

            1. you have not shot many guns have you? The stopping power of a single .40 round is essentially zero unless you shoot the person in the head. Aside from being somewhat difficult to fire a quick head shot on a moving target under high adrenaline conditions, most police are absolutely horrible shots. I’m not saying I disagree with all of your other points, but this assertion is simply stupid on a stick.

              1. FBI stats put the .40 SW in the 90+% one shot stop.

            2. You remind me of the morons that say the police should shoot people in the arm or leg. You aim center mass and pull the trigger 3 times. If the target is still moving rinse and repeat. Once you have made the decision to use deadly force you better be committed to it. Otherwise 2 people are going to be in body bags.

              And I’m about as anti cop as they come but this case is just a loser.

              1. His only experience is watching some western where the cowboy shoots the head off a rattlesnake at 50 yards to save the school marm.

  10. The grand jury’s decision is likely correct, but geez Louise this prosecutor McCulloch (D) is a tendentious narcissist. He his swinging his political dick. Who wrote this presentation? This is remarkable for being even more stupid than usual for political sociopaths. And his “let’s all get together” ramble is lame.

    1. And what a move to announce it at 8:00 p.m.

      1. Probably hoping not to disrupt school or commuters too much, and maybe more people will stay at home later in the evening.

        1. Monday night football

          1. The after game show.

    2. Robert McCulloch has said he plans to release the evidence collected in the case, which would give the public a chance to evaluate whether justice was served here.

      How’s about you release the evidence in any other case you’ve ever presented to a grand jury in your entire life wherein you allowed the defense to present any kind of rebuttal testimony? It’s never happened before, has it?

      Grand juries are not there to look into guilt or innocence but simply whether or not the prosecutor has any evidence to support an indictment. Since normally the prosecutor is the only one telling his side of the story, the grand jury always finds there’s enough evidence. Unless the prosecutor doesn’t want an indictment as much as this one clearly didn’t.

      1. Yeah, I’m not sure the cop should have been indicted, but the entire Grand Jury process is completely corrupt.

      2. You know the prosecutor is a Democrat and (at least in 2008) a big Obama fan, right?

  11. Another Tea Party win. Congrats!

    1. You are a proven fool. Just stop.

      1. Is this guy Dave Weigel in disguise? That’s what I’ve heard some suggest.

        1. Some believe so. I don’t know; Dave Weigal doesn’t seem to be nearly as retarded as Buttplug. Maybe he hides it well.

          1. Weigel is a lot of things, but he’s not a complete moron. Only one type of person can play a moron that well, for hours a week, without ever letting the mask slip.

            1. A professional writer?

              1. I am firmly convinced a few, if not all, of the “forum regular” trolls are compensated in some way to spread talking points and disinformation.

    2. Apparently, Darren Wilson is Jared Loughner’s twin brother.

      1. I thought he was Obama’s White Son?

      2. The guy who lost all that weight by eating at Subway?

  12. Wonder if the natives have tired themselves out or if we can expect a full on zombie apocalypse tonight.

    1. Are you fucking kidding me?
      They have been waiting a full week, and are thoroughly stocked up on booze, rags, and lighter fluid.
      You’re either hiding in you’re bunker or out there riding shotgun with Lord Humongous.

      1. This breaks my heart. Everyone should know by now that rags are dangerous, and you should only use tampons in your Molotovs. We don’t want any innocent casualties, people!

        1. I didn’t know that. Thanks.

  13. Another big disappointment for the Weigelian scum, but it certainly isn’t surprising.

    When even A.G. Holder, a certified far left, whitey hating, angry black man, basically hinted that there was no case, it was obvious at that point that it was a big nothingburger.

    1. Thanks for the Klan perspective!

      1. Poor little Dave. It has been a horrible, horrible last year for you indeed. The sorrows just keep coming in waves, don’t they?

        You know, the sweet afterlife is always just a drug and alcohol cocktail away. You should think about it.

        1. What is this plug’s point, anyway? The narcissist prosecutor, the governor, etc. are supposedly of it’s partisan ilk. It want’s to hear whines from Fox News, I suppose. Incoherent trolling, I guess.

      2. Denial: the first stage of grief.

    2. A.G. Holder, a certified far left, whitey hating, angry black man

      The buckles on your restraint suit need to be loosened.

  14. Hi JD,

    Can we just move on from the obligatory tut-tutting from Reason mag about yet another Black man was killed by the police and how we incarcerate obscene numbers of people in this country and get back to promoting anarchist-capitalism and the economic theories of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. That’s what I’m here for. The only way to properly gauge one’s liberty quotient is how low they want taxes on plutocrats, I say.

    1. Say something that makes sense.

    2. Cool story bro retard.

    3. american socialist|11.24.14 @ 9:42PM|#
      “Hi JD,”

      Hi, dipshit! Pay your mortgage yet? Still licking mass-murderer ass? Still defending O-care since Bush did wrong?
      Still the slimy asshole we all know and despise?

    4. Personally, I want taxes lowered even on ejits such as yourself. I am just magnanimous that way.

  15. Pick your battles, reasonoids. Hearsay alone wasn’t going to produce an indictment, nor should it. Police militarization only became relevant after the protests began. We’ll see if it still is several days after. Will there be a frank discussion about the latest “race” issue? Doubt it. Probably just broken glass, burnt-out buildings, and political posturing by conservatives, lefties, and Reason mag regulars.

    1. Reason’s coverage of Ferguson and the George Zimmerman case couldn’t be more different – even though they both (1) involved a man shot a would be attacker in self defense (2) whole lot of sermonizing from the black community who judged a man guilty based on racial politics.

      Brown robbed a store and was ordered by the police officer to get off the sidewalk. He then attacked the police officer and tried to take his gun. Blood was found in the car, which kills the “shot while surrendering” narrative.

      That’s it. The police militarization and interactions with minorities are separate issues. A man acted in self defense to protect his life against a criminal.

      1. A man acted in self defense to protect his life against a criminal.

        Then he shot him from 30 feet away.

        1. “Then he shot him from 30 feet away.”

          Have they actually proved that?

          I thought if someone attacked me with intent to kill, then I can shoot him (under certain situations) even if he’s not an immediate threat to me at some point of the struggle.

          Brown tried to take Wilson’s weapon.

          1. Brown did try to take his weapon and if he had been killed in that struggle, no problem. But then he fled. A normal citizen might have right to ‘lethal wrap up’ after if Brown started running back at him but a cop needs to go that extra mile to avoid killing.

            I have heard 30 feet from…everywhere. That’s like 10 meters.

            1. That is not very far. Part of our concealed carry class included examples of just how fast people can move. How to properly detain someone and all that. Someone can cover 30 feet in 3 seconds or less from a dead stop.

            2. Then the questions, are cop LEGALLY obligated to go that extra mile? If not, then he should walk free. Wilson’s lawyer might have argued that the final shot wasn’t fatal.

              Here’s what I read just now from the Daily Caller –

              “Brown bolted from the car when Wilson’s gun fired. The officer followed Brown while firing his weapon. Brown turned around at some point during the gunfire. Autopsies showed that six bullets struck Brown, all from the front of the body.

              Wilson reportedly claimed that Brown was moving towards him when the fatal shots were fired. Johnson and other witnesses who have spoken to the media said that Brown was in some state of surrender when Wilson fired.”

              So Brown made another charge WHILE fleeing, if Wilson’s story is true. I assume Wilson was firing warning shots as he was pursuing him before Brown turned around.

              There were a good amount of witnesses there. The grand jury took a long time to reach a decision.

              1. He fired WHILE Brown was fleeing?!?! Holy shit that’s insane. That should only be done when you’re sure the guy is going to go on to kill people. Like a 24 situation.

                1. Confirmation bias. Random poster says something that affirms belief cop is bad guy.
                  Other posters cite facts and figures cop was acting in defense, dismissed.

                2. Cytotoxic needs to read the evidence just released. In it I think you will find the supporting evidence for the narrative that in addition to the police officer being attacked in his vehicle, the victim was not shot while fleeing. Specifically if I am reading it correctly it appears that there is a blood trail that begins some 25 feet behind (farther away from the officer) the place where the fatal wound occurs. This seems to support those witnesses who claimed that they saw the victim “charging” the officer.

                  I haven’t had a chance to read much more of the docs that have been dumped, but it certainly looks like there is way more than enough evidence to raise something more than reasonable doubt.

                  1. ^ This and more of this.

                    1. Wilson’s testimony stated that Brown was only eight to ten feet away when he fired his third volley which was the only one in which he shot to kill. According to CNN.

            3. No it’s like 10 yards or around 9 meters. FYI in football they time you for 40 yards. Even the lard ass linemen in high school could do 40 yards in about 5.5 seconds.

        2. I’m sure making up facts to support your point makes it easy, but everybody knows you’re full of shit, so it’s not very effective.

    2. If this guy wasn’t a cop, he’d have been indicted. I’m not necessarily saying he should have been, but it pisses me off that not only are police held to a lower standard than the rest of us when it comes to the use of force, they de facto get more due process protections, simply because they’re fucking cops.

      1. Uh if he wasn’t a cop why would he have reason to shoot Brown? Are you saying if you were in your car and Brown punched you and walked away and turned toward you and you had a gun you couldn’t shoot him? Why?

        1. Are you saying if you were in your car and Brown punched you and walked away and turned toward you and you had a gun you couldn’t shoot him?

          I’m saying that if I had done the same thing the cop did, I’d have been indicted. Maybe convicted, maybe not; the fact pattern is murky.

          There’s a saying that a prosecutor, if he wanted to, could indict a ham sandwich. And it’s true. Prosecutors completely control the facts that are presented and how they are presented. It is very, very rare that a grand jury decides against a prosecutor. In this case, it’s most likely the prosecutor presented lots of evidence that was beneficial to the cop; a prosecutor would not have done the same thing for you or me.

  16. Supposedly the protesters are chanting “no justice, no peace.” Regardless of how you feel about the shooting, that’s pretty hard hitting stuff right there. Pretty hard hitting stuff.

    1. Yeah, about as hard hitting as it was in 1992 or earlier or whenever…

      1. It reminds me of the time I was at a protest and people started chanting “the people, united, will never be divided.” I was completely floored. I mean, wow. They were so right.

        The cops who were there got this look on their face…as if just in that moment they couldn’t live with themselves knowing that they were just enforcers for our fascist corporate rulers.

        1. What they were chanting sounds like a vapid tautology. Kind of stupid to blame fascist corporations (?) if it ever occurred to you that a typical person without any strong political beliefs would be suspicious of said protesters and may be far more sympathetic of the police. Are such people fascists or “corporate”?

          1. Don’t be so cynical. Once, at a protest against Monsanto, I witnessed the crowd chant in unison: “This is what democracy looks like!”

            Wow. It almost brought me to tears, because that IS what democracy looks like. It takes guts for 3 dozen bold protesters to stare down a fascist corporation like that. Guts.

            1. Don’t you feel bad for mocking the retarded?

            2. You’re really into crowds chanting in unison. Real democracy is less chanting and more actual conversations. The cynical people are the ones who think that violence brings about change. Sorry you think monsanto is fascist. They might be guilty of crass commercialism, but in my book the people who go marching around the streets chanting the same rehearsed slogan are the ones who are more likely to be fascists. Berlin 1933 anyone?

              1. Sanjuro, I think you need to turn on your sarcasm meter.

                1. If anybody’s gotten trapped in saar chasm, it’s punishment enough and they have only themselves to blame.

                2. The needle fell off on mine.

            3. Wow. It almost brought me to tears, because that IS what democracy looks like. It takes guts for 3 dozen bold protesters to stare down a fascist corporation like that. Guts.

              This made me laugh. I approve.

    2. No I remember my days in college when the collection of losers known as the SDS would parade around waving their little red books and chant something about the running dogs of imperialism. That always got to me.

      1. Did the dogs have glowing red eyes like in that kewl Pink Floyd video?

  17. After listening to the DA on the details, it was obvious that Blacks had lied about the shooting, the lies made apparent by forensic evidence(for example, that Brown had ben shot in the back) and hopefully will be prosecuted for swearing false evidence, if they continued their lies as sworn statements. It’s also quite obvious the Ferguson Blacks only care about Blacks that are killed by Whites. This obviously means that racism has been the major motivator for the protestors. The media is also to blame for spreading rumors and claims without the slightest attempt to verify. This is a pathetic portrait of a large portion of America’s Blacks and its media.

    1. Fuck off Merican.

      1. It sucks having to fight off trolls from both the left and right.

        1. The right wing trolls like ‘Murican bother me more than the ones like Shreek. Sure, Shreek’s annoying as fuck. But there’s something far more rage-inducing about the racist right-wing trolls.

          1. The fact that you fought a long time against lefties that use racism as a weapon, only to see conservaderps vindicating it.

            1. Good point.

        2. Sucks to hear a Reason poster whining about any kind of troll. I thought liberals and conservatives already had their arses handed to them.

      2. Does the truth hurt?

        1. No, but racist retards bother me.

          1. What was racist about Arthur45’s post?

            1. Fucking seriously?

          2. I’m beginning to think that overuse of the word “racist” doesn’t really silence people, even though that could well be the intent of resorting to such a word. Guessing a person’s intent can be a dangerous thing to do. But when just about every form of expression can be considered “racist”, I think that people eventually no longer fear the label and start lashing out in all sorts of negative ways.

      3. Is Mike M really Merican? They show up together every time.

        1. Mike M:’Murican::PB:Weigel

          1. Is this the solution to the crazy equation in Interstellar? The missing data?

    2. The paranoid loons, including some around here, will always say that this a giant conspiracy and coverup, but if there was any evidence whatsoever pointing in that direction, Obama, Holder, and their people would go after Wilson and the locals with everything they have.

      The feds have seen every iota of available evidence there is in this case, and there’s nothing there at all that disproves self-defense.

      1. if there was any evidence whatsoever pointing in that direction, Obama, Holder, and their people would go after Wilson and the locals with everything they have

        What is like to be insane?

        there’s nothing there at all that disproves self-defence.

        That’s not the standard cops are held to.

        1. I know you think you’re one of the biggest geniuses here, but you’re really a stupid fucking dipshit.

          If there was a single recording anywhere in the area on a local camera or someone’s cell phone that showed that the shooting was unjustified, the feds (and probably the entire country) would have seen it by now.

          It doesn’t exist, because the shooting was self-defense.

          1. So because it’s not on video, we must believe the cop’s story of self defense? Because I’m sure that’s the same standard the prosecutor uses in other cases.

            1. Pretty sure the prosecutor doesn’t vote on the grand jury.

              1. Seriously? You can’t be this stupid. I actually don’t think there was enough evidence to indict, but your statement implies the prosecutor is detached from the whole Grand Jury process. Let me clue you in. The prosecutor controls the whole process. They alone control what evidence is presented, and are entirely unopposed by defense counsel, as in they are not involved in the process at all. If the prosecutor wants you indicted, you’re indicted, period. If he doesn’t want you indicted, you’re not indicted, period. And yes, those statements are absolute and irrefutable.

                1. We’re all just a bunch of ham sandwiches.

          2. It doesn’t exist, because the shooting was self-defence.

            Call someone a dipshit immediately before a logical fallacy. Classic Mike.

            The video doesn’t exist because Ferg PD didn’t wear body cameras or have dashboard cameras. You also missed my point that cops are supposed to work at a different level. That level precludes shooting people unless truly necessary, which doesn’t seem to be the case here. Not that I’m surprised our are Conservatard Caricature would miss the point.

            1. It happened right in front of a bunch of witnesses, you idiots.

              1. Witness testimony is always high quality! That doesn’t counter half my post btw.

            2. The video doesn’t exist because Ferg PD didn’t wear body cameras or have dashboard cameras. You also missed my point that cops are supposed to work at a different level. That level precludes shooting people unless truly necessary, which doesn’t seem to be the case here. Not that I’m surprised our are Conservatard Caricature would miss the point.

              Ferguson PD is run by utter morons and, as Mark Steyn rightfully pointed out, when you don’t have cameras on your cars in 2014, it’s because you don’t want film of your activities.

              That said, lack of camera evidence in no way disproves Wilson’s story given that all of the claims made by activists in the days following this shooting were disproven by, you know, actual forensic evidence. Brown was not shot in the back. Wilson did not stand over Brown and shoot him when he was down.

              The fact that the ‘eyewitnesses’ made such wild and swiftly disproven claims makes me think that they were trying to steamroll a cop rather than trying to see justice done.

              1. Valid points all with one quibble. I have heard that Officer Wilson was firing at Brown AS HE FLED. If true, that’s nuts.

          3. I know you think you’re one of the biggest geniuses here, but you’re really a stupid fucking dipshit.

            This is fantastic discourse right here. Just fantastic.

        2. Brown struggled in the car, then charged Wilson.

          Cops are never, ever, not going to shoot someone in that situation.

          Perhaps the best argument is maybe Wilson should have had a .45, so he wouldn’t have had to shoot Brown so many times (he was 300 lbs, you know) until the final head shot.

          1. What is the ‘he charged’ line based on? All I’ve hear is 1) eyewitnesses and 2) ‘his head was declined (bullet trajectory). 1 is weak, 2 is laughably weak.

            In any event, it was inappropriate to shoot him at 30 feet you need to be closer. And only shoot once or twice. The number of times he was shot was ridiculous and endangered the public.

            1. Try to take a cop’s gun tomorrow and let us know how it turns out. If you can.

              1. WTF is your point? How is this related to anything?

            2. Dude, as psychopathic as you’ve come off here in the past, it’s strange that you know fuck and all about handguns. Not only am I not surprised Wilson shot nearly the whole mag at Brown, I’m surprised he hit Brown as many times as he did, and I’m surprised the 3-5 hits (which caused IIRC 11 wounds) actually stopped a 300 lb man. Helps when you hit them in the head, though not always.

              Yes, you or I would be in deep shit if we did what Officer Wilson did. Then again, we aren’t allowed to use deadly force to apprehend a violent felon. Cops in MO, can. Though if a guy that size charged me, after kicking my ass a minute ago, I’d have shot him too.

              I do agree that Wilson endangered the public; further reason to avoid and deescalate confrontation if at all possible.

              1. I will agree he seems to know little about guns irl. Vs say the walking dead

              2. +1

                Life and death stuff can be eary. I imagine once the scuffle started in the car and he decided to shoot it was going to result in a down Wilson or empty mag. Adrenaline does funny stuff to people.

              3. Dude, as psychopathic as you’ve come off here in the past, it’s strange that you know fuck and all about handguns

                He’s a Canadian neocon.

                He can probably tell you to the meter the killing radius of a drone launched air to ground missile, but he knows very very little about small arms.

            3. In any event, it was inappropriate to shoot him at 30 feet you need to be closer. And only shoot once or twice. The number of times he was shot was ridiculous and endangered the public.

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, okay. Next time you’re assaulted by a 300 pound man and then he charges you, tell me how you took him down in two shots.

              Do you have any idea how quickly someone can cover thirty feet and how many bullets it often takes to bring down an assailant?

              1. Is Brown The Hulk now? Does he just eat bullets? Was Brown an Olympic runner?

                Here’s a video of the effects bullets have on people. Looks like one or two will do.


                1. Yet another place you have no idea what you are talking about. If it’s still moving you keep shooting. Unless you hit the heart or the spine some people will keep coming and kill you and then die when they bleed out.

                  And with all the obvious police brutality cases out there with unjustified police killings, all the people dying on this hill is amazing.

                2. Have you always been such a tool, or did you have to work at it?

                3. Bullets are not magic. If they hit a vital spot they can drop a man in a second. If they don’t, several bullets can leave you in fighting shape.

                  As an example, there is a scene from an early episode of “Cops” involving a large, naked man invading a home above a storefront. The police end up shooting him 7 times and then proceeding to wrestle him to the ground. It takes a half-dozen of them in a lengthy battle to get the guy in custody. They talk about how tough it was to grab him because he was all slippery from the blood.

                  So no, one or two might not do the trick.

                4. This may never get seen, but…as a combat vet, I can attest that you ain’t taking one or two shots at a guy charging from 30 feet, unless you want to die. That is a staggering ignorance of how quickly ground can be covered, how many rounds a person can take and maintain lethality, and basically every single rule of combat. I am as skeptical of police as anyone, but holy shit is Cytotoxic making a horribly ignorant argument.

              2. I saw a cop take on a larger unarmed opponent with a nightstick once. It didn’t look too difficult. No camera or taser?

      2. Governments from town councils on up are too incompetent to pull off a successful conspiracy. Perhaps the US is going to become too balkanized and impossible to govern, and we’ll end up like Russia…which come to think of it has set the definitive standard for the “paranoid style” in politics.

        1. This is what makes the 911 truthers so laughable.

    3. “Arthur45|11.24.14 @ 9:52PM|#” = merkin #530.
      Pull the damn hood tight over your mouth and strangle.

    4. I guess the case could be brought up again if there was some evidence of forensic evidence tampering. But then if no two political demographics can agree on what the word “evidence” means, then the country is fucked.

  18. If you don’t believe everyone has the right to shoot looters dead, you are not a libertarian.

    1. Deadly force not in response to an immediate threat to life or limb? Nope.

      1. Castle doctrine.

      2. It can be an immediate threat to my property. My rights override all. Thanks for outing yourself as a private-propery hating liberal.

        1. can’t tell if serious

          1. Shooting looters, provided martial law’s been declared, is the historical way the crime’s been handled. IIRC, the idea’s that the lawful civil authorities are unable to handle the situation, so limited self-help is allowed. IOW, there’s no other way to deter the crime, and no way to meaningfully punish after the fact.

            Not that I’d be in any hurry to shoot a looter carrying a TV down the middle of the street. If you’re the shopkeeper though, and Lootie brought a dozen friends, it’s not hard to see the immediate threat to life and limb.

        2. Wait, what?

          Private property is incredibly important. But it’s a very long standing rule, even back under common law and the castle doctrine, that deadly force cannot be used in a case where there’s no threat to life or limb.

          Now, a crowd breaking down your door to loot? I believe that that would put one in reasonable apprehension of their own life and give them the right to shoot.

          1. But it’s a very long standing rule, even back under common law and the castle doctrine, that deadly force cannot be used in a case where there’s no threat to life or limb.

            Well that needs to change. Private property defence is more important than all the looter’s lives in the world combined.

          2. So they’re not trying to take your life, they’re just trying to take the concrete proceeds of countless, unrecoverable hours of your life during which you’ve labored.

            I’m not saying I’d shoot someone in that kind of situation, but I’m not sure I wouldn’t either.

    2. Looters aren’t a threat to America.

      1. Depends on which ones you have in mind. There are some in the government and the establishment who are definitely a threat to this country.

  19. Obama is now to speak at 10PM ET. Executive order in coming?

    1. Obama will say relax and that justice has spoken. He is a centrist. Only rednecks can’t see that.

      1. Shut up retard.

        1. He is saying just that you moron.

          1. Fuck off, turd.

      2. He’s a far left idiot. In this case he knows the local DA has all the cards, having invited the Feds to participate. He’ll add some sop to you retards.

      3. Obama’s going to take the side of the police and of government against the peons no matter the peons’s race.

        1. I was waiting for him to say “Brown could have been my nephew”.

      4. Obama’s about as much a centrist as you aren’t a complete demfag.

  20. My dad was a prosecutor. I’m an attorney. I worked in the DA’s office. I’ve never seen a prosecutor work so hard to exonerate a killer.

    ? Chris Sacca (@sacca) November 25, 2014

    1. I served on a grand jury for a month in NY state. We indicted EVERYONE. All you’re told to look for is enough to seek deeper inquiry. Wow.

      ? Chapinc (@Chapinc) November 25, 2014

      1. I’m sorry, but this is horseshit. NY state goes out of their way to indict cops? Since when? FWIW, my area doesn’t indict as many as they should either.

        1. I think grand juries go out of their way to please those in charge and who chose them, if anything. Ever heard of something called “pick a pal” jury selection? Grand jury members evidently aren’t chosen the same way as regular trial juries. They are friends and/or acquaintances of the judge and DA. That’s part of the reason the whole grand jury thing has often been called a star chamber?

          1. According to the prosecutor, this jury was empaneled before the shooting occurred.

            1. Why would that matter? Establishment people will tend to support the Establishment.

  21. The website theconservativetreehouse.com has been all over this story for a long time, with numerous very detailed posts. One thing they discovered through posted photos was that soon after the shooting, a local black activist showed up, and seemed to be talking with a number of witnesses. Soon thereafter, the “he was shot in the back” and “his hands were up” narratives appeared. But not every witness told those stories.

    Well, now we read that a number of witnesses changed their stories once they got in front of the grand jury. It sounds like, under oath, they may have had second thoughts and told the truth. I think it’s important to note that this story may well have been, in part, intentionally manufactured for political purposes.

    1. Do they actually have real proof of this or is it BS produced from outrunning the evidence, like at 80% of all the ‘hits’ that ‘conservative alternate media’ seems to produce?

      1. They just did a summary post. AFAIK, they are the people who discovered Anthony Shahid at the scene, and a number of other crucial bits of information. I think the grand jury decisions vindicates their analysis, but tell me what you think.

        1. Oh Christ it’s exactly what I expected from you and The Neu Media. Shahid was, he cleverly massaged the group to make a meme, so therefore he masterminded it. Even though there’s no proof of the last point.

          1. I don’t know what you expect as “proof.” This isn’t math, or even a courtroom. The point is that a well-known anti-cop activist showed up early, talked to some witnesses, and a particular narrative then appeared from those witnesses. That narrative did not jibe with the reports of another witness. Now, we hear that the grand jury heard witnesses change their stories, and they bring no indictment. This seems like strong evidence that Shahid was trying to “make a meme,” and that it’s now been shown to be false.

            1. Innuendo and intrigue =/= proof. It’s interesting for sure, but you and your kind have ruined it with your typical behaviour i.e. outrunning the evidence.

              1. “My kind”? Whatever. All I’ve been doing is reaching preliminary conclusions based on what I’ve read, and that conclusion was supported by the grand jury. You, on the other hand, seem convinced the grand jury is wrong, based on… well, who knows. And yet somehow, *I’m* the one “outrunning the evidence.” It seems like the evidence is in, and you’re the one not accepting it.

                1. You reach for conclusions based on gristle and then get butthurt when you get called on it. The GJ’s decision does not support this it’s supposed to be the other way around. More argument from authority from area conservaderp. I’m not even convinced the GJ is wrong.

                  1. I’m not even convinced the GJ is wrong.

                    Huh? You’ve spent how many posts saying Wilson was wrong to fire so many bullets from so far away? You seem to be descending into trollhood here, just arguing and name-calling for the sake of it.

    2. “this story may well have been, in part, intentionally manufactured for political purposes.”

      Sky blue, water still wet.

      1. Cyto doesn’t believe it, though.

        1. PROOF MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU HAVE IT or even know what it means?

          1. The pudding has been baked, in the form of the grand jury decision. You may not like the taste, but there it is.

            1. That’s irrelevant. Thanks for playing ‘deference to authority’.

              1. You keep fightin’ the power with your keyboard, little guy.

                1. Shorter Cytotoxic: “I demand evidence and proof, and when confronted with it, I ignore it, dismiss it, or call it “deference to authority’!”

          2. “PROOF MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU HAVE IT or even know what it means?”

            This from someone who above dismissed both eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence concerning whether or not Brown was charging Wilson.

            Reminds me of the Chapelle Show skit where he refuses to believe R Kelly pissed on that girl unless there was videotaped proof, with the girl holding two forms of ID, two of his boys there, and Kelly’s grandma there saying, ‘That’s my Robert, always pissing on people.’

  22. From the other thread, here’s a reddit live feed from people in St. Louis


  23. The irony is that if the cops were really racist and wanted to oppress black people and keep them down, they couldn’t do much worse than to incite a weeks worth of rioting.

    I mean, if I was a Klan leader, I would be sitting back and cackling with glee at the impotent rage of the rioters. Seriously.

    1. Mike M is not a Klan leader. He is their bootlick assigned to Reason.com.

      1. Fuck off, turd.

        1. Nah. He’s right here. Stopped clock and all. The racist assholes like Mike M do nobody any good.

          1. “The racist assholes like Mike M do nobody any good.”

            Absolutely agreed and if Mike called turd on *his* lies, I’d tell Mike to fuck off, too.
            Hey, turd! Fuck off. No one here needs your ‘advice’.

          2. Go fuck yourself Andrew. The dumbass kid charged the cop and got shot. There’s no case there. Deal with it.

            1. He got shot 10 times from 30 feet. Stop misleading.

              1. Please provide the citation and don’t include what some internet dude said

    2. To me the irony is that if these protestors actually wanted change, they could, you know, actually vote.

      Good government isn’t just going to magically going to happen if you are a snarky enough on the internet (like Reason seems to think), you actually have to elect politicians that represent your views.

      But instead they don’t, then gripe when a majority black city has mostly white politicians and police force.

      1. The reason for that disparity is that Ferguson changed relatively quickly to majority black. It’s not like police departments can say “Sorry, officers, but the city demographics have changed, so we’re going to have to fire a bunch of you white guys.”

  24. Who handed out the media credentials for the press conference? Some of these reporters’ questions are laughably op-ed-ish (e.g., the British chap accusing the prosecutor of allowing black men to be gunned down “with impunity”).

    1. Greatest group of questions since the post-Paterno firing Penn State press conference.

      1. Maybe we could get those guys to question Obo at the nest presser?

        1. The tone and content would be apreciably different.

    2. One of the questions was the reporter imagining what a protestor might say about the non prosecution.

  25. “We are a nation based on the rule of law.”


  26. At least I called this one. If they were going to indict, there wouldn’t have been so many security precautions.

    1. Your prediction was the 1,000,000,000 to 1 favorite. But congrats.

    2. You wait an see – the Globe Trotters are totally going to win tomorrow.

  27. I heard a lot of screaming and shouting on the TV in the other room, but when I went in to look, it was some kind of game show.


  28. Comment on Obama’s intervention: Not bad dorm room bullshit, winging it, general feelgood blather, moving between his normal Kansas accent and his fake black accent, but appropriate to the occasion.

  29. The race baiters always pick the wrong hill to die on. Anyone who actually cares about issues of police brutality should stay away from affiliating with them in anyway.

    1. The MSM is perfectly capable of cherry-picking local news stories to promote a national agenda. Why they outsource the racial stuff to dumbass black activists is beyond me.

      1. Well, I’d argue it’s because the media doesn’t care about militarization of cops or anything like that. Without the race angle, the story just doesn’t matter to them.

        1. Sure, but they could use their own discretion instead of assuming the black activists will finally get one right.

    2. I’ve noticed that, but I wonder if it isn’t on some level intentional. If your goals include defending your race at all costs and to intimidate whitey, it makes a certain kind of sense to claim that outright criminals are merely victims of discrimination.

      1. Whatever it is, libertarians who jump into bed with them on stories like this are asking to be made fools of.

        1. It is sad that not just commenters here, but Reason writers are often a bit quick to jump on the “police misconduct” bandwagon. Remember the black actress having sex in her car with her boyfriend? Too many people took her “racial profiling” claim as fact, but then the facts came out. Oops.

          1. Given the problems with police, I think it is a minor problem.

            1. No, it’s a major problem. Lies and exaggerations discredit real problems by making them look exaggerated or completely fake. It behooves anyone who wishes to solve any problem to be 100% honest. Lies and exaggerations are self-defeating in the long run.

              1. This is why using this case as the poster child for police misconduct has been a horrible idea. It has lead to “facts” that just aren’t true and a lot of people losing credibility.

                1. Reason has been way more on the militarization angle than the misconduct angle.

              2. No, it’s a major problem. Lies and exaggerations discredit real problems by making them look exaggerated or completely fake. It behooves anyone who wishes to solve any problem to be 100% honest. Lies and exaggerations are self-defeating in the long run.

                Exactly. There are legitimate complaints about the way cops behave in America generally and in black neighborhoods in particular. By putting forward martyrs who do not deserve that level of support, the whole thing turns into a farce.

                If you want to make a legitimate point about police brutality, you should stay away from putting forward the preferred leftist narrative on most of these issues until all the facts are in. By my count, the left is batting approximately .000 in their last 10 attempts to blame racism for a black person getting killed, so if you want to avoid being wrong you should assiduously fact check left-wing arguments before believing them.

                1. If you want to make a legitimate point about police brutality, you should stay away from putting forward the preferred leftist narrative on most of these issues until all the facts are in. By my count, the left is batting approximately .000 in their last 10 attempts to blame racism for a black person getting killed, so if you want to avoid being wrong you should assiduously fact check left-wing arguments before believing them.

                  Or: they could just yell “RACIST!” at everyone anyway. Seems to work pretty well!

          2. The only thing that I learned is that she should wear makeup all the time when in public.

    3. The race baiters always pick the wrong hill to die on. Anyone who actually cares about issues of police brutality should stay away from affiliating with them in anyway.


      The race baiters don’t give a shit about police brutality, or at least not about ending it. What they care about is whipping up frenzy for fun and profit.

      The MSM doesn’t give a shit about police brutality or the militarization of the police. The cops are their buddies / sources after all. What they care about is a good story (in the sense of a fiction) that can bring prestige and help their buddies in government.

      The donk and phant pols don’t give a crap about police brutality; they care about whipping up their bases, and skimming as much as possible from government contracts.

      So this story is perfect for all of them.

      Race baiters whip up a mob over a nubulous use of force case; reporters ramp up coverage for fun and profit. Dems and reps are both happy because the race baiters whip up the dem base and the riots whip up the rep base. And the cops will be happy because the riots and reforms will result in increased spending on law enforcement.

      Everybody wins!

      Except the 80%+ of the public that isn’t one of the above and gets to deal with a increasingly brutal police force.

  30. Good speech by the President.

    1. Mitch Connor|11.24.14 @ 10:17PM|#
      “Good speech by the President.”

      Yep, calmed everyone down, right?
      Oh, you meant his *INTENTIONS* were good! Well, in that case…

  31. Obama will throw the Ferguson protesters under the bus faster than he did Rev Wright!

    1. They are causing problems. They are throwing things at the police.

      I’m a latino of White/Black/Indian race.

      I’m ashamed of the number of STUPID PROTESTERS in the CROWD Supportng the killing of Mike Brown, a THUG who robbed a convenient store and bullying a clerk.

      I won’t go as far to say that he deserved to die, but he caused his own Death by being a THUG.

    2. Mike Brown could be his son. Doesn’t he care about his kid?

      1. Hahaha I see what u did there

    3. There’s no more room under the bus. Plenty of seats inside, though.

      1. They better not be in the back!

  32. For context: In 2010, says the Bureau of Justice Statistics, grand juries declined to prosecute 11 times out of 162,000 federal cases U.S. attorneys brought before them.

    This isn’t a federal grand jury. That figure provides no context whatsoever. I was just laughing that those morons at HuffPo had headlined this figure from the clueless fivethirtyeight guy.

    1. At least you finally credited the dumbass.
      Not that it makes you look any better.

  33. For context: In 2010, says the Bureau of Justice Statistics, grand juries declined to prosecute 11 times out of 162,000 federal cases U.S. attorneys brought before them.

    In fairness, most cases like this never even make it before a grand jury. This was put before a grand jury because they wanted to throw a bone to the rioters.

    Like the Zimmerman trial, this never should have even happened. When you put cases that shouldn’t even go before a grand jury before a grand jury, it’s not surprising when they refuse to indict.

    When you manufacture a story for political purposes in order to try and gin up hatred among a racial minority, you should not then be surprised that there isn’t enough actual evidence outside the fever dreams of left-wing activists to result in an indictment.

    It’s amazing to me that there are no riots when a black child gets burned by thug cops throwing a flash-bang grenade into his crib, but when an active criminal assaults a police officer after robbing a local business, people then riot based on the quickly disproven claim that he was an innocent schoolboy shot with his hands in the air.

    All the claims made by activists in the days following the initial shooting were provable lies which did not hold up to cursory scrutiny.

    By the way, I’m consistently anti-cop when they actually hurt a black person unfairly (like when they shot that 12 year old the other day) so my feelings on this are in no way race based.

    1. This was put before a grand jury because they wanted to throw a bone to the rioters.

      Bingo. And now the meta-message of the protestors is: “We know better than the grand jury what really happened!” No, you don’t.

    2. It’s amazing to me that there are no riots when a black child gets burned by thug cops throwing a flash-bang grenade into his crib,

      Laotians are Black now? I mean, sure, some of my brothers-in-law have a darker complexion than I, but I wouldn’t call them “Black”. 🙂

      1. Huh, I thought that kid was black.

        Fine, how about the guy who got shot to death in Walmart for carrying a toy gun?

        In that case, cops were also not indicted by a grand jury, even though it was a vastly more egregious case.

        I’m still amazed the guy who made the call to 911 in that case isn’t in jail given that he almost seemed to be sicking the cops on someone based on false claims.

        1. he almost seemed to be sicking the cops on someone based on false claims.


          The former Marine who called police said Crawford looked to be attempting to load the black air rifle and ignored police commands to drop the weapon.

          “He looked like he was going to go violently,” said Ronald Ritchie. “If he would have dropped the weapon, he could have came out with his life, but unfortunately, he didn’t.”

          That’s easy for you to say, Ron. I hope someone else’s hysterical pants-shitting gets you killed.

          What’s next, police using the rantings of paranoid schizophrenics as justification? “That man mumbling to himself on the corner said the suspect had a murder activation microchip implanted in his brain by aliens! We had a duty to investigate!”

        2. Those foreigners all look the same.

      2. The word black connotes skin color, not ancestry.

        Or is it your position that a ‘black’ person must have 50.1% ancestry from sub saharan Africans? (In which case – are you black? is Obama?)

        1. Right. That’s why Vijay Singh is always described as black, and Tiger never is.

    3. I agree there probably wasn’t enough to indict on, but this shooting was still ridiculous. From 30 feet away or so I hear, and 10 shots. Typical trigger happy cop.

      1. If he was so trigger happy, why didn’t he shoot the guy with Brown?

        Only Brown was shot because only Brown attacked Wilson. And only Brown charged Wilson.

        1. If he was so trigger happy, why didn’t he shoot the guy with Brown?

          Maybe he was a lower grade of psycho, which makes him better than a lot of his colleagues. That’s really stupid way to try and disprove he’s trigger-happy btw.

          1. He was shot six times (if memory serves), and most of that happened inside the car while he was trying to take away Wilson’s gun.

            Brown was shot in he head when he turned around during the chase.

            Why do you say he’s trigger happy? The police will sometimes shoot someone inside a vehicle more than 30 times. Brown was in his face and (or all intents and purposes) tried to kill him.

            1. I was told shots were fired as Brown ran away, which is nuts.

              Ten shots is far too much. That there are cops 3x as nuts does not make it better.

              1. I was told shots were fired as Brown ran away, which is nuts.

                The grand jury testimony seems to indicate that you were told wrong. I think they said two shots were fired inside the vehicle, with one grazing the victim’s thumb – powder burns included to demonstrate the proximity. Also powder burns on the inside of the door.

                There were no shots that hit the victim from behind. So sayeth all three autopsy reports.

                Apparently the bulk of the witnesses coalesce around a story of some sort of conflict at the car, the victim flees and the officer pursues, the victim turns around and does or does not do something (the prosecutor said the bulk of the more consistent witnesses had the victim charge at the officer twice). The officer shoots, pauses and then shoots again (ostensibly because the victim charged him again).

                Apparently the autopsy results indicate that a couple of the shots to the torso indicate that he was bent forward at the time they struck, and the killing shot to the head indicates that he was bent forward at the time. Consistent with the “charging” story (not proof, but consistent with). Apparently there was a blood trail that was consistent with the charging story as well.

            2. In this case there are no amount of facts that will get Cy off his horse. Too disagree with his version is to be a cop lover.

      2. It isn’t all Mounties chasing Snidely Whiplash down here in the REAL AMERICA.

    4. You nailed it. And when a white guy really DOES kill a black guy in cold blood, he deserves to be convicted and punished to the fullest extent of the law, like that racist down in Florida who murdered the black kid because he was playing the music in his car too loudly.

      1. That was a case that should have brought this amount of attention. This case just doesnt merit the outrage generated here. The facts just don’t fit. The police response after the fact was completely irrational and drove the violence but I don’t see why libertarians are dying on this hill.

  34. Is everyone enjoying the CNN anchors getting gassed as much as I am?

    1. Van Jones was doing a decent job as a reporter (considering who he is). As they were reporting, a small crowd came running to the police carrying an injured (possible heart attack) woman. As the police closest took her to get help, other police close by fired tear gas right among them – including the CNN crew.

      Later Van tells us that there were shots fired in the direction of the police (and them) from farther up the hill, which elicited the tear gas. It sure looked like they were spooked by the crowd with the injured chick though.

      1. “Ah; it’s the old ‘carrying the injured woman to get help’ ploy.”

    2. Mike Brown could have been creative to avoid performing oral sex on Bill Cosby.

  35. Commentariat on the local WGN channel are decrying the fact that evidence was seemingly presented to the grand jury in a neutral way. They have also compared Michael Brown’s death to the murder of Emmett Till. If it weren’t Monday night, I would make up a hilarious drinking game.

    1. They have also compared Michael Brown’s death to the murder of Emmett Till.

      But failed to contrast the two, no doubt.

  36. Assuming that Wilson acted recklessly, the real problem here was an overzealous demeanor and not racism.

    1. Well, it’s not hard for me to think that Wilson just may have been a bit on edge from having been attacked in his car by a guy who tried to take his gun. It’s not as if he decided, out of the clear blue sky, to shoot someone who was 30 feet away (if that’s the case). I think if you are attacked, the attacker runs away, stops, and comes back at you, you really can’t be expected to think “Oh, it’ll look bad if I shoot this charging 290 pound guy when he’s 30 feet away, so I’ll wait until this guy who’s already attacked me, despite the fact that I’m armed and he’s not, is more like, oh, maybe 10 feet away before I shoot to defend myself.”

    2. This. Nearly loses his weapon to a punk, shoots him while he runs away (so I’ve heard hear), far too many shots.

      1. Then you are ignoring the coroners report that said he was shot in the front and not the back.

        1. Three different coroner’s reports found that.

  37. They looted Beauty World again.

    Nothing says “justice” like looted hair care products.

    1. No Peroxide!

      No Peace!

      1. Ahem, that’s:

        No Jerri Curl!

        No Peace!

  38. For funsies, I tried explaining to my roommate that declining to indict doesn’t mean Wilson is innocent any more than indicting would mean he’s guilty. But for him it still means that the system is scandalously broken because Wilson, like Zimmerman, was already convicted in the peoples’ court.

  39. And now the Ferguson Meat Market again. Sigh Immigrant from someplace.

    1. Bosnia, IIRC.

      That’s the sort of immigrant we want, those that come and start businesses.

    2. Whence all this looting? Are there no, um, riot police?

      1. Rioters are hard to police. Their has to be some media or protesters to harass. Or property to confiscate.

        1. Well, don’t the looters — by definition — have property?

    3. From ustreams, Walgreens is on fire. And CNN is showing looting of a liquor store.

      1. They should be on fire. Last time I went to one they didn’t have long-cut cherry Skoal.

        1. They should be on fire. Last time I went to one they didn’t have long-cut cherry Skoal.

          Did they have anything for your vagina?

    4. Coming soon to a mainstream media outlet near you: “Why is Ferguson a ‘food desert’? Why is food so expensive here? Why can’t people find jobs in the community? It’s inexplicable! No, it must be… racism!”

      1. “Why is Ferguson a ‘TV desert’?”

  40. Liquor time. Free booze, right on.

  41. What happened in here? All I smell is bullshit and burned crosses.

    1. No crosses, but a Walgreens, a beauty supply store, and at least 2 cop cars are on fire.

  42. Of note: Bob McCullough (the prosecutor) is not only a Democrat (like the governor and county executive), but was part of an Obama “truth squad” in 2008 which threatened to target people if they said something untrue about Obama. So it’s going to be hard to claim this non-indictment is some sort of racist plot.

    1. I think there is plenty of racism in the Democratic party.

      Perhaps what you mean is that the fact that the prosecutor, the county executive, and the governor all all Democrats means that this doesn’t fit the Democratic narrative that “Republican racists are denying justice to African Americans”.

  43. CNN has pics of Wilson’s injuries

    Not exactly deep (not all beaten and bloody like Zimmerman was), but it’s pretty clear he was hit.


    1. From 30 feet away no doubt!

    2. From 30 feet away no doubt!

  44. Fighting the stereotype. Stealing orange soda and citron vodka.


    1. I keep coming back to this. The funniest youtube clip I’ve seen in a long time.

      1. You know there was some proggy types explaining how that reporter was making stuff up based on stereotypes and bam!

  45. Meanwhile…at Salon.com…

    Yet neither an indictment nor a conviction of Darren Wilson would have given Black Americans, or other populations of color what is so urgent: A court system that sees the history of racial injustice through serial acts of police violence, that processes justice by taking into full account the history of slavery, and that of racial, political, and economic segregation. Neither an indictment nor a conviction would have afforded long-term racial justice, in which police officers no longer represent the white ruling class of Ferguson, in which the governor of Missouri doesn’t send the National Guard to shut down the speech and protests of those who are the victims of racism. That form of racial justice?regardless of the decision not to indict?will need much more. It will need the cultural, legal, and economic defeat of white supremacy. And that is a much longer, much larger struggle.

    1. A court system that sees the history of racial injustice through serial acts of police violence, that processes justice by taking into full account the history of slavery, and that of racial, political, and economic segregation.

      How about we just start with a justice system that is actually impartial, m’kay?

      1. If I made a list of five things I’d like to pound into the head of every leftist, one of them would be the fallacy of “social,” “group,” “racial,” or “historical” justice. As Hayek explained at length, you either have individual justice, or you don’t have justice at all.

    2. Wilson should have been lynched because black people were lynched 70 years ago.

      Sacrificing white people in service to the Gods of Racial Justice is something rational societies do. In no way would this make us indistinguishable from a religious cult babbling about original sin.

      In no way.

  46. What’s interesting is that the police (and National Guard) are protecting Clayton, which is the wealthier part of that area

    But letting people run amok in the poorer sections.

  47. Seems to me that the most likely explanation is that both Brown and Wilson panicked and weren’t thinking clearly.

    Something like this:
    Wilson opens the door right as Brown is approaching, hitting Brown and causing door to rebound on Wilson’s face, as he’s getting out. Wilson doesn’t realize that and thinks that Brown pushed the door shut on his face. Wilson reaches through the window and grabs Brown’s shirt to try to pull him to the window. Brown freaks out and struggles. Wilson decides to pull his gun to subdue Brown. Brown panicks and tries to grab the gun. As they struggle over the gun it goes off. Wilson panicks and lets go of Brown. Brown tries to run away. Wilson gets out of the car and starts shooting at him, considering what just happens an attempt to assault him. Brown decides to surrender and turns around to come back, but doesn’t realize that approaching Wilson will be interpreted as a threat. Wilson sees Brown turn around and thinks he is going to attack him, and proceeds to shoot him dead.

    All in all, a lot of stupidity by both parties, with a lot of wrong assumptions about the other person’s intentions going on.

    1. There sure are a lot of wrong assumptions in that giant assumption of yours.

      1. I try to process these things as if both parties are normal humans and not psychotic rage-machines.

        1. Can you use that empathetic processor to explain what’s going on in the store video?

        2. That isn’t a bad idea. But you need to factor in the (apparently corroborated) claim that there were 3 separate altercations as the officer attempted to exit the vehicle, and about ten blows to his head. Plus the gun-grabbing part.

          The details of the altercation at the car were not public until just after the prosecutor let us know there would be no indictment. Of course, absent body cameras we will never know exactly what did occur.

    2. This fits the facts just as well as anything else. There just aren’t any facts that say that Wilson killed Brown without provocation. I kept waiting and, to be perfectly honest hoping, that the facts would show Brown was shot in the back and that Wilson had no injuries. The details that have been released just don’t show Wilson going completely off the rails here.

    3. I would like to purchase one of your jump to conclusions mats.

    4. I can believe that something like this happened. They were both not particularly reasonable people. One of them was a thug with a record of intimidating and threatening people in the neighborhood, and the other was a teenager. Accidents happen, especially when there are no consequences for them.

    5. Hazel, you have constructed a narrative that excuses Brown’s actions as much as possible. In fact, more than is possible. Your version of the struggle in the car just doesn’t ring true, and neither does the idea that Brown was just trying to surrender at the end.

      As Sidd says, the store robbery is important. It says a lot about Brown that he would commit that crime, then walk down the middle of the street with the loot, and then get into an argument with a cop. To me it says Brown was stupid and violent, which makes it very likely that he attacked Wilson, both at the beginning, and at the end.

  48. If you have a scanner app on your iPhone/android, go to the Missouri Highway Patrol Feed.

    Jesus Christ.

    1. Fire/Medical evacuating due to gunfire

    2. The pictures are beyond belief. Bring your children to loot the liquor store day. Crackheads roaming with arms full of grape soda. Just a bunch of savages.

    3. Local Fox news station has armed guards going in to retrieve their reporters

  49. They burned Little Caesars! Come on, man. It’s hot and ready.

    1. Okay, this made me laugh. It’s sick and I hate myself but I really laughed out loud.

      1. Hands up, no anchovies!

  50. Surprise! NOTAM, St Louis VORTAC

    1. So that means the news choppers are going to have to land, right?

  51. Apparently an anti-cop activist who was streaming on UStream got his camera stolen.

  52. I was about to cross 7th Ave tonight by MSG at about 10:00 and there was already a protest/parade going down the Ave. It was so sad in its artificiality. The people just mindlessly chanted Michael Brown’s name as they walked up the street. They just seemed like paid agitators, as there was no passion in their eyes.

    1. When they loot a few more liquor stores you’ll see some passion.

  53. I haven’t been paying much attention to this, but I did catch a little on NPR today. I was particularly taken aback by how the prosecutor just threw whatever at the wall to see what sticks in regards to the grand jury. Is this common? I mean, it just seemed like he was saying to them, “I dunno, we kinda got nothing. Here’s a bunch of charges that are typically pressed when people commit crimes of some sorts. See if you like any of them.”

  54. Headline: Man doesn’t attack cop. Lives.

  55. We all watched the protesters not care about the why and react immediately to the “they didn’t indict him”.

    But the media acted the same way. I watched on network TV and they cut away from the prosecutor the second he said “no bill on any count”. This even though he said he would lay out the narrative of the shooting for the first time right after he let us know the results of the grand jury investigation. They immediately began punditry on the lack of an indictment, informed by exactly zero information.

    I flipped around to find the rest of his statement and wound up on CNN. As soon as he finished laying out his fairly detailed outline of the evidence they asked their legal expert Nancy Grace to chime in. She was outraged at the lack of an indictment and said she didn’t hear anything from the prosecutor that changed her mind. Then proceeded to list several things that were specifically refuted by the prosecutor in his statement as reasons for an indictment.

    All this goes to say that nobody on the public stage gave a rat’s ass what the facts were. The narrative was set early on and everybody built their beliefs upon that foundation. The confirmation bias was palpable. Pretty much every talking head I heard from that point on came with their opinion in place, uncontaminated by any new information that was just divulged. It really made some folks sound like idiots.

    1. I gather you’re not cytotoxic. That would be too thoughtful for him.

      1. Cytotoxic is a moron who spouts off about things he has no knowledge of and insults anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his version of the facts. In no way does Cyto exhibit those qualities.

    2. Anyone who asks Nancy Grace her opinion should be stripped, shaved and sent down the street to have little kids throw stones at them. After the stoning they should be shackled to her for week. How any rational person can take anything that bitch says as accurate shocks me.

  56. Bold prediction – By Christmas Eve, the Ferguson riots will be distant memory.
    By black Friday, most African Americans will be in a shopping mood like the rest of the country.

    Remember sequestration and its terrible aftermath? I do, but just barely.

    The country’s in such bad shape that we can’t even riot right.

    1. By black Friday, most African Americans will be in a shopping mood like the rest of the country.

      It’s “African American Friday” you racist.

  57. Can an armed cop who is not cornered really be in reasonable fear for their lives from any unarmed person? If Brown charged, Wilson could have retreated. He knew backup was coming. In fact the prosecutor said backup arrived immediately after the shooting.

    1. So, a policeman is attacked in his car by a 6′ 4″ 290 lb. robbery suspect, who tries to take his gun. Two shots are fired, the suspect runs, the cop chases, then the suspect turns around and comes at the cop. You’re saying that what a cop should do then is… run away? Hoping that he can outrun the taller guy? And hope that backup is coming soon?


      1. “Hoping that he can outrun the taller guy?”

        Wait … what?

      2. Because he HAD to get out of the car after Brown was running?

        I mean, if I knew backup was on the way and the guy had just tried to beat my ass, I’d roll up the window, lock the door and pursue in vehicle.

        Of course I’m not a cop and hopefully will never be in a situation like that.

        1. I think at the point Brown is walking away he’s already assaulted a cop (as in drawn blood) and is, if nothing else, due for an assault charge. I don’t recall if they’d established whether Wilson knew about the strongarm robbery, but if he did, then that reinforces the point. Let him go and you’ve got a violent criminal strolling off into anonymity; that’s not what cops are trained to do, nor what they ought to do. I’m more skeptical of police than most people, but everything about this screams “good shoot”.

    2. If you assume a cop’s first priority should be ensuring the survival of violent criminals rather than arresting them, then no.

      1. It comes down to basic escalation and de-escalation principles the use of force continuum and of course Graham versus Connor which is the case law that is most relevant to use of force in these type of situations

        Of course the ninnies always second-guess with a 2020 hindsight and all he should’ve just stayed in the car and locked his door which is okay but if he did that every person here will be screaming and calling him a coward but since they end up having to shoot the guy of course that’s the preferred response he should’ve made in retrospect since it’s always a results based analysis here Among the bigots

        Once he committed that aggravated assault and frankly attempted murder if he was trying for the cops gun then absolutely the cop should’ve gone after him and as somebody who has criticized institutionalized police cowardice many times I’m happy to hear that he did the right thing and chased the bad guy

        Also for what it’s worth many people here who supposedly support the right to self-defense would repeatedly correctly state that nobody has a duty to retreat and guess what that holds true for police officers as well

  58. Besides the fact that the evidence just overwhelmingly points in his favor and is completely consistent with the story he’s told from the very beginning the fact is that he volunteered to speak before a grand jury and that is something a guilty person never does and no lawyer in their right mind would ever let their client do so

    There is no defense attorney to object there are looser rules of evidence and what he says becomes useful if there is a criminal trial to impeach him etc. and sometimes even can be used against him in the civil hearing or a federal indictment so the fact that he volunteered to speak before a grand jury is a distinction that of course reason magazine ignores since they just concentrate on the fact that he’s a police officer but I’ve testified before grand jury over 100 times and none of those cases get a defendant ever volunteer to speak before a grand jury

    It reminds me of the do not actually a rape case where the suspects volunteered to provide DNA without a search warrant. that is how innocent people act


    1. Fuck off slaver

  59. Not satisfied because they did not get their way and it seems the facts did not fit their preconception. I guess they would have been satisfied if an innocent man had been lynched… What a bunch of scumbag N!$$#R$. I mean these are not the Black people that are your neighbors, these are the Underclass that is full of hate and ignorance…. “The rule of law” it seems is not good enough for them… Or is it that they have so little self control that they have to burn down their town and destroy businesses that serve the town… More likely they just want to LOOT since this is one of the many “Entitlements” of the Black Underclass… We don’t expect them to behave as civilized people so they get to do things we don’t with no repercussions. What I cannot figure is why the owners of these stores allowed the looting…. I would be there with a shotgun protecting my livelihood.

    1. I’m pretty sure you can say niggers on Reason. I don’t think you should, but censorship pisses me off.

  60. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  61. “grand juries declined to prosecute 11 times out of 162,000 federal cases U.S. attorneys brought before them”

    Wow! If true that means grant juries are a pointless waste of time.

    1. That should be the main take away from this article.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.