Ferguson

Sorry, But the Grand Jury Got It Right With Darren Wilson

In the end, there wasn't probable cause to file charges against Wilson.

|

For many in the media, the St. Louis County grand jury's decision was going to confirm the existence of deep American injustice one way or another. If it found there was insufficient evidence for an indictment against Darren Wilson—the white police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, a black teenager, in August in Ferguson, Missouri—it would mean that the American justice system is corrupt, unjust, and rife with racism. If the grand jury decided to move forward with an indictment, it could only mean that American law enforcement is corrupt, unjust, and rife with racism.

Even if many of your grievances are legitimate, "justice" doesn't exist to soothe your anger. In the end, there wasn't probable cause to file charges against Wilson. And after all the intense coverage and buildup, the predictable happened. Even taking a cursory look at the evidence the grand jury saw and heard, the details of Brown's death were far more complex than what we heard when the incident first broke. Lawyers will, no doubt, analyze every morsel of evidence in the coming days. But if Wilson's testimony is corroborated by forensic evidence—and much of it seems to be—it seems unlikely that any jury would be able to convict him.

That doesn't mean that many of black America's concerns about these kinds of incidents aren't genuine. It doesn't mean that police departments like the one in Ferguson aren't a major problem. It only means that this incident should be judged on the evidence, not the politics or the past or what goes on elsewhere.

No person should be shot by authorities for stealing some cigarillos. Too often, cops in this country use excessive force rather than prudently avoid violence. Just the other day, a 12-year-old boy playing with a BB gun was shot dead in Cleveland. We have a need for criminal justice reform and law enforcement reform. After reading through the grand jury testimony in the Wilson case, it's obvious there are far more egregious cases that deserve the attention.

According to Wilson's grand jury testimony, Brown hit Wilson 10 times while he was in his police car. He had punched Wilson twice in the face and was coming for more. Wilson asked Brown to get down. Witnesses saw Brown charge the police officer. Brown also reached for the cop's gun.

In this case, a number of witnesses paraded out by the media had never actually seen Brown's death and simply repeated what they had heard elsewhere—namely, that Brown was shot in cold blood from afar. Those stories became part of a narrative—repeated even after the report was released—that is almost certainly believed by many of those protesting in Ferguson and elsewhere in the country.

Cramming all those problems into one microcosmic event has had tragic consequences. Of course, plenty has happened since Brown was killed that has been disconcerting. Watching a militarized police force treat African-American neighborhoods as if they were war zones is troubling. Watching cops unable to deal with rioters—most of whom probably do not care about Brown—and protect private property, even when they do have a militarized police force, is distressing. All of this continues to fuel more anger and frustration.

For the sake of argument, let's concede that prosecutors punted and allowed Wilson to walk because they were racist or incompetent or terrified. Let's concede that the grand jury capitulated to the will of the prosecutor. Even if that were the case, we still don't have an out-of-control cop callously gunning down an innocent, defenseless black man. This does happen in the United States far too often, and all too often there is no indictment. But there is no proof that racism played a role in this shooting. Unless all scientific evidence in the case is debunked and unless new evidence emerges, it's fair to say that Brown was an aggressor and, at the very least, put himself in a perilous position. So indicting Wilson to soothe the anger of the community would not be just. It would be the opposite.

Advertisement

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Obama's Dumb, Rash, and Unilateral War

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. USA Today Reports on Navy Yard Shooter

    “A civilian contractor and military veteran with a valid base entry pass went on a shooting rampage at a U.S. Navy command complex building Monday, killing 12 people before being shot dead himself, authorities said.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/na…..g/2819543/

    USA Today Reports on Today’s Austin Shooter

    ” A white, middle-aged gunman, in what appears to be a politically motivated anti-government attack linked to immigration, fired more than a hundred rounds at buildings in downtown Austin early Friday and tried to set fire to the Mexican consulate before he died of a gunshot wound.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../19607141/

    1. And something actually relevant:

      http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/fer…..on-oxygen/

      1. wnd

        1. And?

          Is the video just biased?

    2. USA Today is as corrupt as the rest of the media. I NEVER read that paper anymore.

      It isn’t even a good bird cage liner. My parakeet has a fit when I put it in his cage.

  2. Things you don’t want to hear if you’re in Ferguson

    “We pretty much got surrounded quickly by maybe, 10 young black men, who started taunting us and saying, ‘You look like Darren Wilson, you’re Darren Wilson,’ that’s when you have the uh-oh moment.”

  3. Neo-liberals just will never get over the fact that a black person has been proven to be a thug killed in self-defense and the person who killed him was a white officer. And the neo-liberal corprate media would’ve ignorned the thing if it was a black cop and white citizen. And the neo-liberals accuse conservatives, libertarians and nationalist of being racist. What an utter joke.

    1. Define “nationalist” – as if I couldn’t guess.

      1. One who has pride or devotion to a nation.

        1. OK, let me ask: Which nation do you have pride or devotion to?

          1. I think in this instance ‘National’ should probably be followed by ‘socialist.’

            1. In the particular context which this guy is using, “nationalist” tends to be a euphemism for white supremacist or white separatist.

              1. In any context, it has become part of the Liberal Establishment’s narrative to CLAIM that nationalist is a euphemism for white supremacist or white separatist.

                There are cases where they are right, but the over-use has rendered the connection automatically suspect, at least for me.

            2. What I follow is a mix of conservatism and socialism.

              1. Ah, the Third Position. Includes such wonderful claimants as Peronism, fascism, White Aryan Resistance, and Afrikaner nationalism.

                1. Better then what the neo-liberals want. In terms of social and political issues. I simply am a mix of traditionalist and patriotist with beleifs such as government not getting involved in religion. As for socialism, communitarian and bipartist corpratism and public ownership of the means of production is the form of socialism I advocate for.

                  1. I meant traditionalism and patriotism mixed with a government that doesn’t interfere with marriage.

                    1. I meant traditionalism and patriotism mixed with a government that doesn’t interfere with marriage.

                      So what you’re really saying is that you’re a R?hmite?

                    2. Please explain what a “r?hmite” is. I took a search through it, and I cannot fins any defintion of it.

                    3. I believe he’s referring to Ernst Rohm, a rival of Hitler in the Nazi Party until he was assassinated.

                    4. I thought the Nazis wanted large government regulations over marriage to prevent bisexuals like me from ever thinking of getting married.

                    5. “bisexuals like me”

                      You *definitely* want to look up R?hm, he was totally into alternative lifestyles.

                    6. That had to do more with Hitler’s early rivalry with R?hm, a gay man, over the leadership of the SS.

                      R?hm’s modern-day followers, like Jack Donovan, imagine a New Sparta. That is a militaristic and tribal state in which male homosexuality between members of the warrior caste is the basis of societal relationships.

                    7. IIRC, Rohm commanded the SA, the National Socialist Party militia. The SS was separate.

                      Hitler offed Rohm to appease the regular military, which didn’t want to compete with a Nazi militia.

                    8. 1934 was a cut-off year for Hitler’s attitudes toward gays – going from winking at gay SA people (like Romh) to killing them off.

                    9. You’re right. My statement was awkwardly worded. I meant the leadership of the SS within the party as opposed to the more citizen ‘militia’ SA. The rivalry was similar to that between the Colonial militias and the Continental Army as to which were the “true” face of the revolution.

                    10. Sounds more like Thebes and the Sacred Band than Sparta.

                    11. RedFlag450, your National Socialist role models attacked both marriage and religion. To them, as long as you had “pure” blood, you should keep pumping out kids regardless of whether you were married or not. But if you had “impure” blood, your marriage rights should be restricted.

                      Not to mention the suppression of religious organizations to repress competition with the Party, the removal of crucifixes from schoolrooms, etc., etc.

                    12. I honestly find marriage to be bullshit. Im also an atheist. Now please proove I’m a National Socialist (Nazi).

                    13. I didn’t say you were a National Socialist, just that they were your role models.

                      And your rejection of marriage will leave *so many* women disappointed!

                    14. You support turning private enterprises into ‘public’ industries for the collective good, and wish to invoke nationalistic tendencies? You honestly haven’t given us much to work with but what you have said describes national socialism.

                    15. “As for socialism, communitarian and bipartist corpratism and public ownership of the means of production is the form of socialism I advocate for.”

                      Brilliant, I mean, that’s why the Venezuelan oil industry is doing fantastic lately, right?

                    16. Venezuela has State ownership of the means of production, not public. I want a system based on cooperative interest groups that serve as organic bodies.

                    17. Define ‘cooperative interest groups’, and what ‘serving as organic bodies’ means in your ideology please.

                    18. Cooperative corporations.

                    19. That’s a regular business in a market economy, which isn’t socialist at all. Hell, I can go to Corporations Canada and form a co-op right now.

                    20. cooperative interest groups that serve as organic bodies.

                      Hm. Voluntary cooperation among people who voluntarily work together to produce something? So, like a business? We already have those.

                    21. No. Corporations that are owned and controlled by the workers, for the workerd. And all communities will be corporations.

                    22. That’s called a worker cooperative. And that runs entirely separate to what the goal of a corporation is. A corporation exists to provide a good or service, nothing more, it does not exist for its workers’ sake. It may engage in some kind of worker cooperative through stocks or direct ownership but that is something for the owner(s) to decide, not a state-enforced policy.

                    23. Also, for the record, the Nazi Party did, in fact, support the concept of worker cooperatives in their 1932 NSDAP Economic Policy, including the ‘social liberation of the German worker’.

                    24. Fine. I’m a national socialist.

                    25. Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go back to talking to my amazing boyfriend.

                    26. Is he Ernst Rohm’s corpse?

                    27. No. Idiot.

                    28. No. Idiot.

                    29. The state IS the manifestation of the public!

                  2. Got it RedFlag. You are a Nazi.

                    1. Perhaps I’am. 🙂

              2. Slappy!? Welcome back! How the hell have you been you crazy Afrophobic bastard?

            3. Heil to the Chief, baby!

              1. If the Ferguson rioters were white, they’d be “white nationalists.”

                1. (because they’re retards)

                    1. Riddle me this, riddle me that
                      Who’s afraid of a big black bat?

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuy4828wpvg

                    2. Ok. For that, you get a Batdance. I mean you could have prevented this outcome, but you didn’t listen.

                    3. Oh, I suppose I ought to include this seasonal favorite:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Veju4PxhuGc

                    4. This is the Borderland’s series in its entirety. It relies on referential humor and memes. I am not lying when I say that I have not once laughed at a single “joke” in any of Gear Box’s shitty attempt at comedy.?

      2. I’m going with the ‘Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer’ kind.

      3. nationalist

        In this context I would assume he means the type of person that starts a conversation with Doctor Savage thinks.

        1. But isn’t the Man of Bronze a bit swarthy for his tastes?

    2. It’s the missing auxiliary verb that makes the whole thing.

    3. I don’t think that was proven.

    4. You do realize that “neo-liberal” has a definition, right? It’s an economic one. The word you are looking for is “progressive”.

    5. It is a joke. I’m not sure when the media became so biased towards blacks, but they are loath to report on black crime. To the extent that they seldom mention the race of a black criminal.

  4. if you can’t be shot for stealing cigarillos or walking down the middle of the street anymore, then this isn’t the country i was accidentally born into and financially can’t afford to see if there’s anything out there i like better. i weep for the children….mostly because of the education system, but i still weep.

    1. Keep telling yourself it wasn’t about punching a cop, trying to take his gun and then turning and charging toward him when he has you in his sights if it makes you fell better about being a moron.

      1. Ya think you’d be on trial right now if you acted as the cop did?

        1. No. It was justifiable homicide all the way around.

          1. You’re dreaming. You’d be in a rape cage awaiting trial.

            1. The real question is whether you think MarkinLA should be in a cage awaiting a kangaroo trial with certain conviction under those circumstances.

              Because that is clearly what you want for Wilson.

            2. And you are a fool. Wise up, moron.

        2. And would it be right that MarkinLA was on trial under such circumstances? It strikes me you’ve made a better case for outrage at the right to self-defense being so heavily curtailed than for prosecution in the cases where it is applied.

    2. Well, from first hand experience, Josh, I can tell you that other countries are worse. So, make the best of where you are. That is, be polite to cops and start saving some money.

    3. You do realize that you are admitting that you are a complete buffoon, don’t you, Josh?

  5. OT: According to the fascists over at The Right Stuff, the only way to create libertopia is through an authoritarian power structure and crushing political dissent by putting people in camps.

    And I’m not using fascists in the ‘idiot university student calling everything they dislike fascist’ way, I mean they call themselves fascists:

    “Creativity, innovation, free actors, decentralization, free markets ? it’s all great stuff. This point is granted; spontaneous order is the best. But not always. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances.

    Drastic measures are required. We’re too far gone now. A small elite always rules over the herd, and this elite has the power to mold public opinion. We must become the elite, by any means necessary. Martial law is probably required, and that means the imposition of a fascist leader’s arbitrary will.”

    “True justice has just outcomes. Advocating radical universalist libertarian policies in our current world results in a terrible injustice. Supporting libertarian principles while outside the necessary framework moves a society towards chaos and destruction. You can’t take a libertarian approach, sanctifying the greatness of free choice, when the vast majority of people are refusing to choose libertarianism. You must bash your way into power, and from there you can have libertarian policies emerge.”

    1. These guys sound like people who speak for…themselves.

    2. Pinochet needs to become popular again in libertarian circles. A heavy-handed police force isn’t always a good idea but sometimes it is quite proper. Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops. If libertarians are really out to stop crimes against the individual the real enemy isn’t the policeman; it is the street thug and the common progressive. To re-install a libertarian order we will need police, they must become the libertarian’s ally. As Murray Rothbard himself declared: “Cops must be unleashed? and allowed to administer instant punishment.”

      Wow.

      1. Also, tomorrow on various left-wing websites: “Look! This random guy on the internet proves libertarians want fascism and are big fans of Augusto Pinochet!”

        1. Yeah, I’m sure it looks fantastic for you guys when fascists are posting articles titled “Libertarians ain’t so bad.”

          1. “Bad person X supports some aspects of ideology Y, therefore ideology Y is bad” is both a fallacy and a common propaganda tool. It’s not worth worrying about.

            What is worth worrying about is the fact that Democrats and progressives oppose individual liberties and pursue a political program that coincides substantially with the political program of 20th century European fascists.

            1. Hey man, I’m just sayin’, when you’re branded fascist reactionaries to the revolution, blame these guys.

      2. Yeah, I didn’t really know what I was getting into when I dove into their ‘libertarian’ posts. Ignoring the insanely racist stuff, I do enjoy how they’re basically repeating Marxist failures without any self-awareness, that is, that the authoritarian state will create the conditions for utopia and then magically whither away.

        Hilariously, their criticisms are better than most of Salon’s because they’re at least aware of core libertarian concepts.

        1. Ignoring the insanely racist stuff, I do enjoy how they’re basically repeating Marxist failures without any self-awareness, that is, that the authoritarian state will create the conditions for utopia and then magically whither away.

          Yup. I can think of a few instances where dictatorships withered away into something acceptable – South Korea, the ongoing situation in Vietnam, Chile…there may be a few more. Most of the time authoritarian governments obliterate civil society to such an extent that any attempt to recreate a free society fails and throws the nation into chaos.

          The situation in Egypt, where the country whiplashes between one dictator and another, is far more common than what happened in Chile.

          1. The situation in Egypt, where the country whiplashes between one dictator and another, is far more common than what happened in Chile.

            I think the main difference is culture. The Chileans, even under Pinochet, had some historical association with principles of liberty. For Egypt this is not exactly the case.

      3. administer instant punishment

        Judge Dredd was not intended to be a ‘how-to’ manual.

      4. Wow, indeed.

        “Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops.”

        I think they should take a look at this:
        http://www.nbcnews.com/news/in…..ys-n255261

        1. Anyone that uses NBC News as a source is not to be taken seriously.

      5. Well, I will say that the attacks on Pinochet have always struck me as excessive. As I understand it, while fighting a civil war at the behest of the national legislature, he is blamed for what, 9000 deaths? By the over the top “the man is the reincarnation of a certain Austrian corporal” faction?

        Castro has murdered AT LEAST twice that many.

        Amd Pinochet is a monster and Castro is a World Leader.

        Foo.

    3. Never heard of The Derp Stuff, will never visit.

      1. Actually based on the comments they’d love your foreign policy recommendations.

        1. I highly doubt you understand my foreign policy recommendations.

          1. Oh but I do. I also understand the psychological neuroses that causes you to advocate for them.

            1. Thanks Dr. Phil. Is there anyone with a worthwhile contribution?

            2. Now, now. Just because Cytotoxic often uses ad hominem arguments doesn’t mean you should, too.

              1. I don’t even mean it as an insult, I am legitimately interested in a professional psychologist’s opinion on his behaviour.

                1. You will be deleted soon… like as in any club that truly sucks with a cytotoxic patron…. He his like lame horrible club owner… the worst of the worst

          2. I highly doubt you understand my foreign policy recommendations.

            If it’s brown and has a gun, the US should spend ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money to kill them.

            That about sum it up?

            1. Francisco the Idiot. Why don’t you move to Cuba or China and see how that suites you, moron.

    4. You can’t take a libertarian approach, sanctifying the greatness of free choice, when the vast majority of people are refusing to choose libertarianism. You must bash your way into power, and from there you can have libertarian policies emerge.”

      In other words: You can’t let people have free choice if they refuse to choose what you wish them to choose.

      1. Yes you can, because they can only choose to surrender their own liberty and no one else’s, furthermore they always have the right to reclaim their liberty at will.

        In an imposed autocracy there is no choice, all people must follow.

        Under an imposed Libertine government it is all choice, one may choose liberty or one may choose to follow an Autocracy exactly like the one aforementioned, the difference is that the Autocracy exists UNDERNEATH the condition of liberty. A member may always choose to leave which is not the case in the imposed Autocracy.

        Libertarianism is not mutually exclusive to any viewpoint, a libertarian may choose to be a communist, fascist, or whatever. The only thing required of a Libertarian is that they acknowledge that they have no right to coerce others to follow them.

  6. Holy crap. Thank you. I didn’t think this article would ever exist (and that Reason would get back to ‘reason’). Agree with all the author’s points here.

    1. Actually not, he did have to include this idiotic nonsense:

      No person should be shot by authorities for stealing some cigarillos.

      1. That’s not nonsense. You are advocating evil.

        1. The only time shooting at thieves is okay is during looting.

          1. The only time shooting at thieves is okay is during looting.

            Shit, Cyto. Don’t move to Texas. (Despite all of the biotech jobs in the Medical Center.) As I think T here put it, if you want to fuck with someone’s stuff, Texas is not the state you should be doing it in.

          2. The only time shooting at thieves is okay is during looting.

            Please clarify what you think the difference is between Brown’s strong arm robbery and looting.

            1. Robbery is fine, just don’t do it while angrily smashing things.

          3. Arizona doesn’t necessarily agree with you. In Chandler, a young man and several of his cohorts tried to crash a party. When they were asked to leave, their hurt fee-fees drove them to attempt to steal a keg of beer.

            The wife tried to stop them, one of them shoved her, and she tumbled to the ground. Her husband then began firing his 9 mm at the Beer Bandits. One of them died, and a second was injured. They piled him into the car, leaving the deceased lying in the street.

            The Chandler prosecutor consulted with the chief of police, then declined to file charges against the party host for sending the VERY bad guest to his eternal dirt nap. The chief of police explained it thusly: “This is Arizona. You need to be careful whose beer you steal.”

        2. He was shot for attacking the cop not stealing.

          Why didn’t Brown drop the cigars and run? Maybe they would have given him 60 days in county jail for the robbery since the clerk wasn’t hurt too bad.

          1. For that matter, why did he turn around and charge the cop. If he’d kept running he would have gotten away.

            1. Did you see how fat that kid was? He couldn’t outrun a glacier, no way he was getting away.

      2. Not for stealing them.just for smoking them.

      3. Hey MarkinLA, are you really that ignorant? No one was shot for stealing. He was shot because he attacked a cop. You are a drooling moron.

    2. Except for this part:

      “…we still don’t have an out-of-control cop callously gunning down an innocent, defenseless black man. This does happen in the United States far too often, and all too often there is no indictment.”

      Where is the evidence for this? When, and how often, do callous cops gun down innocent, defenseless black men? Does intent play any kind of part in these instances? I can’t just accept this statement at face value.

  7. This verdict works for me. The more people who lack faith in the system or outright hate it the better.

    1. The more people who lack faith in the system or outright hate it the better.

      Which is why we’ve been losing for over 30 years … and why the libertarian label is rejected by 85% of libertarians.

      When did libertarianism become a cult?

      1. Oh Christ. This thread is becoming a retard party.

        1. Oh Christ. This thread is becoming a retard party.

          All we need is mtrueman and we’ll be set!

      2. Who’s this we? I ain’t your buddy, friend.

        1. I ain’t your friend, amigo.

      3. When did libertarianism become a cult?

        Sometime in the early 70s when the point shifted from political action to an alternative morality.

      4. Michael Hihn. You are just bitter, because you are so obnoxious that no one would vote to elect you. You are the only one who has been losing for the last 30 years.

      5. Since the Constitution became an anachronism.

  8. I wonder how many activists would have been disappointed by a Wilson indictment? If they got what they asked for, they would have lost the momentum. As it is, they get to beat this dead horse for months to come. They’re now boycotting retailers on Black Friday as if those retailers have some influence on social/racial issues. In the end, crisis is good for political activists–and I believe many are happy with the outcome.

    1. Black Friday sale, with prices so low you’ll think you’re looting!

    2. They’ protest anyway. When the news interviewed them, they all tried to throw in as much bullshit about protesting low wages, bad conditions, ‘evil corporations’ and such. The verdict is just the pretense, the protestors are really just Marxists or pseudo-marxists trying to overthrow capitalism and saw a chance to get some media exposure. Half of them are white university students, go figure.

      1. I doubt they’d even change what they were protesting/looting for. The anti-Zimmerman folks certainly didn’t let an indictment get in the way of a lynch mob mentality.

  9. One of the functions of a grand jury is to do what prosecutors don’t have the guts to do – drop a dog of a case and spare a suspect whose guilt cannot be proved – and who could well be innocent – the expense and oppression of a trial.

    1. No libertarian supports that!

      In libertopia, grand juries exist only to railroad innocent victims of the system and any deviation from that standard is evul speshul treetment.

    2. Well said. It says a lot that prosecutors really trying to railroad someone avoid grand juries. Zimmerman and the man in DC charged with gun violations for owning ball bearings being some of the worst examples.

  10. Countdown until Kickstarter’s Community Manager gets fired – begin now.

    Nicole He @nicolehe
    @knguyen the funny thing about this is that he almost gets that whiteness is bad

    White and Nerdy @TheStr8WhiteGuy
    @nicolehe @knguyen So whiteness equals bad?

    Nicole He @nicolehe
    Follow
    @TheStr8WhiteGuy @knguyen you got it!

    1. Do you people trawl the web looking for idiots, or does this stuff come in on your facebook feed?

      1. Instapundit has a Twitchy feed. That’s where I see good Twitchy items.

  11. I would have more confidence in this grand jury result if the grand jury process had gone the way it was supposed to. It makes it harder to accept the result of a system where it appears that the prosecutor went out of his way to sabotage the process.

    It seems that a grand jury will indict a sandwich if the prosecutor wants it to, and will not indict a white policeman if he doesn’t.

    1. I think the country would be worse off without grand juries.

      For one thing, prosecutors who didn’t have grand juries as a buffer would just bring charges in sketchy cases where the mob demanded it. Consider Zimmerman’s case – Florida prosecutors bypassed the grand jury and let the trial jury do the necessary work of throwing out the charges – after imposing increased costs on the defendant and the public.

      For another thing, there still are a few cases – I know of some – where grand jurors told the prosecutor to fuck off, and refuse to indict.

      There could be even more such cases, if instead of saying ha ha ham sandwich we actually educated grand jurors about their functions.

      1. Exactly.

        The only theoretical reason for grand juries is that they can serve as a ‘common sense’ break on prosecutorial over reach.

        But WTF, race baiters and marxists want to crucify a cop, so who cares about checks on prosecutors that get in the way of that.

      2. It would definitely be worse without them. Some people perhaps would rather live in a country where anyone could bring anyone else to trial for anything and say “as long as there’s a jury to sort it out in the end, it’s still fair.” But just the risk of a trial is a significant threat to drive people to cop pleas to crimes they never did. With the politicization of the legal process already underway, soon we’d be like the ancient Romans, where the moment you pissed off someone important they’d try you before the senate for a bogus charge and if they had a good enough orator on their side, they could get you exiled or worse.

    2. This. I doubt there’s grounds to convict, but the appointment of McCulloch ruined the GJ.

    3. I am just not seeing how the prosecutor “went out of his way to sabotage the process.” Did he withhold damning evidence? Did he introduce false exculpatory evidence? It looks there were dozens of witnesses, without unanimity, but enough to indicate the no-indictment decision was justified.

      1. Conflicting evidence is supposed to be hashed out by a trial jury, not a GJ. There was plenty of evidence to indict. If the cop wants to raise a self-defense claim at trial like any “civilian” would have to do, fine. But to refuse to even indict is ridiculous.

        1. Why can’t a Grand Jury take into account the entire body of evidence? Is there anything that says they cannot, or should not?

        2. Stampede, IANAL, but AFAIK, yes, grand juries are supposed to hash out conflicting evidence, in a sense: to decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. In this case, there wasn’t, apparently because 1) Wilson’s story matched the forensic evidence, 2) it matched that of many of the witnesses, and 3) the rest of the witness testimony was partly false or perjured, and didn’t match the forensic evidence.

    4. How exactly did the prosecutor “sabotage the process”? Did he fail to inform the jury of the lower evidentiary standard for grand juries? Apparently not. Did he stack it with white people who’d be sympathetic to Wilson? No, it was a mixed race jury.

      Here’s the thing. I think if the prosecutor had done a “better job” and got an indictment against Wilson, we’d be hearing much the same thing if he were acquitted at trial. People have already convicted the guy in their mind and nothing short of their conclusions is legitimate. But, that isn’t justice and it isn’t how the courts are supposed to work.

    5. More stupidity from the moron section.

      OK MrMK, how do you explain the fact that a lot of legal scholars have gone on record assaying this was the most fair Grand Jury proceeding they have ever seen?

      I guess that gets in the way of you idiotic beliefs.

  12. “…it’s obvious there are far more egregious cases that deserve the attention.”

    Bingo. Brown was not a complete innocent like some people make him out to be. Punching a police officer (which the evidence seems to indicate) is a good way to get shot. Did he deserve to get shot? Maybe not, but the rules for using deadly force in Missouri are looser than in many states. By all means change the rules, but in this case the officer did not egregiously violate current policy.

    The cases in Ohio (both the 12-year old in the park and the young man in a Walmart) are much better examples of what people should complain about.

    1. Punching a police officer (which the evidence seems to indicate) is a good way to get shot.

      Wait. Stop. Cops should kill you if you punch them? What is this ‘shot’ thing? You throw ‘shot’ around like semen. You deserve dead when punching a cop? Because, according to your standard all humans should be killed when punching a cop.

      So. CC types should kill on a punch?

      What.The.Fuck. has happened to common sense?

      1. He got killed for turning back toward the cop at close range. If he wasn’t such a dumb ass he would have assumed the position and waited to be cuffed once the officer told him to halt.

        Oh wait Brown was going to the pen for probably 10 years anyway, maybe he thought he could punch his way out of that.

        Why don’t you try it some time and let us know how it goes.

      2. So. CC types should kill on a punch?

        What.The.Fuck. has happened to common sense?

        Um. Yes. Assaulting someone can get you killed and probably should.

        1. Perhaps there’s a distinction to be made when the “someone” is an agent of the state?

          1. Probably, since the agent of the state is 9 times out of 10 the aggressor in the situation.

        2. Sadly, I agree with Cytotoxic.

          Unless you and I decide to duke it out mano e mano, if you assault me, I’m going to put you down the most efficient way possible.

          That is the way it should be.

      3. Wait. Stop. Cops should kill you if you punch them? What is this ‘shot’ thing? You throw ‘shot’ around like semen. You deserve dead when punching a cop?

        I have no idea whether you “deserve” it, but the fact is that if you physically threaten or attack a cop, the cop can shoot you legally, and there is a good chance that he will. That’s currently the law. If you don’t like the law, go through the process of changing it.

        Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with the law as it stands.

      4. Late to reply but couldn’t let this stand. If you punch a cop he is going to take action to arrest you. If you appear like you have a good chance to win a fight with said cop they will draw their gun to get you to comply. If you keep trying to fight at this point they will shoot you. If a cop guesses wrong on being able to win the fight and they can lose their gun and subsequently their lives. This is why you can’t get in bar fights if you conceal carry.

        1. Even later to the party, but still coming in. I’m getting pretty sick of the way some people around here conflate a knee-jerk hatred of police (esp. white police, it seems) with legitimate concerns about police brutality or state power. I’m the first person to question a police shooting, and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the victim. In this case, however, there’s nothing Wilson did wrong.

          If Wilson was a guy in a car, not a cop, these same people would be applauding him for defending himself. If a 300 pound dude is punching me through my window and reaching for a weapon in my car, I’m going to kill him. The NAP doesn’t have a Marquis of Queensbury clause. There’s no proportionality requirement. If someone is attacking you, you have a moral right to defend yourself however you see fit, provided you don’t subsequently harm bystanders or innocents. Morally speaking, police don’t have more rights in this regard, but they sure as hell don’t have less.

      5. Cyborg needs his ‘brain” recharged. If you assault a police office, expect to be dealt with harshly. The thug was trying to get Wilson’s gun. Then after he got out of the car Wilson told him to stop and he turned around and charged him. What would you do if a 6’4″ 290 pound thug was charging you?

        Idiot.

    2. I’d like to see complaints about all cases of excessive use of force, and I’m coming back to this being a case of that for reasons I outlined below.

      The initial shot seems to be warranted if there was a scuffle with Wilson being stuck in the car. Once they are out of the car, I question whether he really needed to fire, what, 10 more shots against a wounded suspect?

      Missouri has its laws, and that’s one thing. The standard for police use of force is still an issue that can legitimately be brought up here.

      There is no way Wilson would have been convicted. There is a separate argument about whether cops like him should be allowed onto police forces, though.

      1. Would you kill an unarmed aggressive?

        1. You keep thinking having no gun means you gets to jump on a cop and start beating him if you want to. Brown found out you don’t.

          1. Well, I’m sorry I stole your barbie doll dress, cop lover.

            1. I hope this is some cop-fellator trying to discredit civil libertarians by pretending to be an imbecilic version of a Reason cop-skeptic.

            2. You do realize that it is possible to kill a person with one’s bare hands, don’t you? Especially when you’re the size of Brown and your attacking a person the size of Wilson.

              So yeah, Wilson had every right to use potentially lethal force if his own life was in danger. That he was a cop even is beside the point.

              What would you do if someone twice your size started bashing your head in and you had a gun? Curl up in the fetal position and promise you’ll help pay his college tuition if he stops?

              1. It seems to me that Wilson being a cop is the entire point. The state has the power to kill people and, unfortunately a lot of people don’t question it. Given this immense power over our very lives, agents of the state have to be held to much more stringent standard than any Joe on the street.

        2. Damn right I would kill him if I thought he meant me harm. I will defend myself, my home and /or family with deadly force.

          If you won’t than you are pathetic.

        3. Yes

    3. Punching anyone is a good way to get shot if you live anywhere that doesn’t ban CC.

  13. Put the wreath with red bow on the grille of the Jeep. (zip ties are the new duct tape)

    The Christmas Season? may now begin.

  14. this reminds me – why has not one of my many cable channels shown “Army of Darkness” recently? Hmm – perhaps it’s time for the Netflix.

    1. It’s time break out the BOOMSTICK !!!

      1. The ’73 Olds 88 that belongs to Sam Raimi’s mom making an appearance in every movie is also Must See. I learned to drive on my mom’s ’73 Olds 88, so there’s a connection there.

        Old Woman: I’ll swallow your soul!
        Ash: Come get some.

  15. Increasingly, I’ve found myself more and more cognizant of left-wing authoritarianism, as well as more and more repulsed by it.

    1. Their authoritarian tendencies got very obvious after the Obama election because they thought he was ‘one of them’ and that they would be politically ascendant forever. It’s the same reason neo-con authoritarianism became so pronounced during the Bush presidency.

      Thankfully, I think the left’s coalition is incredibly fragile and so they’ll never be able to implement an authoritarian government because the various parts of the constituency will never agree.

      Their attempts to become authoritarian will fracture the coalition and probably result in chaos or secession rather than an actual authoritarian government.

    2. What do you think about right-wing iron fist?

      1. I’m all for it if it means putting criminals in jail or in the ground.

        I don’t have to ask what you think. Fool.

  16. The one thing I do come back to on this is the number of shots fired.

    I’m also curious – how big is Wilson? I’ve seen claims he’s 6’4 and packing some weight himself (210). So, if he can’t subdue a wounded suspect or is really in fear of his life at being charged as a police officer, then I question whether he should have had a badge and a gun in the first place.

    I mean, my bullshit meter starts going off when I’m told that he was really scared for his life at that point, and not just tired of dealing with Brown’s stupidity.

    A lot of libertarians are back onto this being a good shoot, but the bottom line is a police officer should have to use the least amount of force NECESSARY. And Wilson fired 12 shots.

    I’m back to thinking the force used was simply excessive, but he’s getting the benefit because he’s a cop.

    1. I’m also curious – how big is Wilson? I’ve seen claims he’s 6’4 and packing some weight himself (210). So, if he can’t subdue a wounded suspect or is really in fear of his life at being charged as a police officer, then I question whether he should have had a badge and a gun in the first place.

      6’4″ 210 pounds is not particularly big. It’s actually pretty small. If you’ve seen pictures of him I seriously doubt he would be able to handle himself in any kind of fight, even with someone of average size.

      The real issue is your point about the fact that someone in this kind of shape shouldn’t be a cop. Cops should be put through strenuous physical exercises and should have to meet physical guidelines. One of the big problems is that a lot of the time you’ll see fatal cop shootings because the police officer was incapable of taking the suspect down physically, and had to resort to shooting him when the guy got the upper hand. If cops were in better shape and more able to handle themselves physically, I think you’d see less fatal shootings when a cop is getting the shit kicked out of him.

      1. You are making too many ridiculous assumptions. Cops aren’t special forces trained in hand-to-hand combat. You also have no idea how skilled the other guy is or if there is an accomplice (as there was) if he will help. You can lose control of the situation in a second.

        You may remember that dash cam video of the officer who was murdered when one of the other people in the car came out after the fight started and helped his friend.

        You also sound like an asshole thinking it is OK for the cop to get the shit kicked out of him. Cops used to use a choke hold until a few people died and it was taken away. Then you did have fewer shootings but people cried about things like Rodney King.

        No matter what you do a 55 year old cop and a 24 year old gang banger who outweighs the cop will never be something a cop wants to take a chance on.

        1. Cops used to use a choke hold until a few people died and it was taken away.

          Tell that to Eric Garner

          1. In Los Angeles.

            1. Ah, how silly of me! I forgot that Los Angeles is the axis mundi upon which the entire universe revolves!

              1. no just where the choke hold was eliminated.

            2. Yea, because the LAPD never crosses the line and uses excessive force.

              It’s banned in NY, as well. That hasn’t stopped the cops from using it.

              1. I have personally seen cops do shitty things. There is a process to deal with it. This wasn’t one of those cases.

                I don’t give much of a shit about cops harassing gang members since they do so much to fuck up what were formerly decent neighborhoods.

                1. It’s also worth noting that cops are no more causa sui than criminals. Police aggressiveness is largely a response to violent criminality in their precincts. You can’t reasonably expect the police to model citizens on one hand and then tell the community to go crazy, do whatever the helll they want, they’re oppressed so it’s not their fault. It’s a positive feedback loop. The worse the communities get and the more confrontational they get with police, the worse the police get, and so on ad infinitum.

        2. Shorter Markin LA: cops should be allowed to do whatever they want because all that matters is officer safety.

          1. You act as if this is some kind of movie where if the director doesn’t get what he likes you can do it over. Nobody knows what was in Brown’s head when he turned toward Wilson when the gun was drawn on him.

            If Wilson lets Brown get close enough to grab him, it could be all over for him. Wilson made the best choice for Wilson and society.

            Lets see who should live, a police officer who never did committed any crime that we know of or a thug who came from a family of criminals who liked bullying people and was likely to have a career in the pen as an enforcer for the Black Guerrilla Family.

            1. 1. The choice isn’t between one person having to die and the other living. You are making it into that. Wilson wants us to believe that was the case. That is precisely what is in dispute.

              2. I’m not in the business of quantifying who deserves to live or die. Libertarians typically aren’t.

              3. There is video of Wilson making a wrongful arrest because he was being video taped. So, I have enough reason between these two incidences to think that the guy was an asshole cop who has abused his power.

              4. Cops should be held to HIGHER, not lower standards. No one here is going to place them on a pedestal, so spare us your irrational talking points about how he was an upstanding police officer.

              1. The evidence seems to prove that Brown attacked Wilson and went for his gun. That alone tells you he’s dangerous and stupid. Not to mention how he assaulted the store clerk. So to me, charging back at an armed cop justifies Wilson’s fear.

                (I think it’s hysterically unaware for Ezra Klein to go on about how Wilson’s account is “unbelievable.” Yeah, Klein, because 18-year-old black males from broken families and who like to throw gang signs for photos never do anything more stupid and violent than you can imagine.)

              2. 1. Deserving has nothing to do with it. One could shoot someone robbing a store with a gun and later find that the person’s weapon was empty and so wasn’t really a threat; and clearly robbery doesn’t warrant a death penalty, but it would still be a justified kill; this has noting to do with who deserves what, and until you get that you’re opinion is likely fatuous.

                2. When someone likely capable of killing you is assaulting you, how much would you say you should be expected to calculate in your head what the best way is to respond in order t maximize your attacker’s chance at survival? To defy every self-preservation instinct and remain completely level-headed in that situation, and knowingly forfeit a few percentage points on your own probability of survival to add a few to that of your attacker? Does that sound like an easy demand to meet?

              3. Cops should be held to HIGHER, not lower standards.

                and

                No one here is going to place them on a pedestal

                You don’t see the contradiction?

                1. No.

                  High expectations != idolatry

        3. Cops aren’t special forces trained in hand-to-hand combat.

          I actually don’t assume they are. I just no that they like to talk up their level of training regularly, and I also know they are paid more and compensated better than those special forces guys who are more disciplined and skilled.

          So, the point here which you have repeatedly missed – cops SHOULD be trained better, and they should have different standards for the use of force.

        4. You also sound like an asshole thinking it is OK for the cop to get the shit kicked out of him. Cops used to use a choke hold until a few people died and it was taken away. Then you did have fewer shootings but people cried about things like Rodney King.

          This is fucking idiotic. My argument is that if we expected a minimum physical capability for our police officers, meaning forces not staffed by doughboys, they would not have to use their tasers and guns in order to subdue suspects as often. That way, not only would police officers be safer, since they would be able to handle themselves more effectively in a fight, but the public would be safer, since cops wouldn’t have to use their weapons as often.

          You are making too many ridiculous assumptions. Cops aren’t special forces trained in hand-to-hand combat. You also have no idea how skilled the other guy is or if there is an accomplice (as there was) if he will help. You can lose control of the situation in a second.

          I don’t think it requires special forces training to meet a minimum degree of strength, fitness, and skill. Go look at pictures of Darren Wilson. There’s a legitimate chance I, a 5’11” suburban white person, could take Wilson in a fight. And Wilson is not 55, he’s fucking 28. If 28 year olds don’t have a minimum level of fitness, they should not be put in situations where they may have to subdue a suspect.

          1. This is true, but if police were removed from such situations, then people would blame the absence of police when they get harmed by criminals. Remember, expecting people to take any responsibility for their own personal safety is ‘victim-blaming.’ Hell, even the idiots in Ferguson complained that the police didn’t do enough to stop the looting. They’re doing too much and not doing enough. People want to have their cake and eat it too.

          2. Right, the only reason you need a gun to defend yourself is cause you’re a “doughboy”. Derp.

            Michael Bloomberg is on the phone, he needs you to be his spokesperson.

            1. I’m sorry, did I stumble into a moron convention? Are you and Mark intent on misreading what I said, or are you just illiterate?

              The point is that having unfit people on the force increases the possibility that lethal force will be necessary in order for the cop to protect himself. I saw a video yesterday where a cop had the upper hand, was thrown on his back when he really had no reason to lose control, then had to shoot the guy to death to defend himself. Now the man he killed certainly deserved to be killed once he got on top of a cop and started punching him in the fact, but if that police officer had been better trained so he knew how to maintain the upper hand, he never would have ended up in a situation where lethal force was necessary.

              That’s what I’m talking about. If people are better trained and more fit, the odds that they will find themselves in a situation where they must use lethal force to survive will decrease.

              In particular, Darren Wilson is a slob who should never be put in any situation where fighting might be necessary because his slobbishness means he’ll be in greater danger than someone who is actually fit.

              If you want to disagree with my point, feel free. But don’t argue with the voices in your head, they sound pretty stupid.

              1. Then I don’t see the significance of your point. There’s more to a cop’s job than subduing suspects, so choosing a bunch of over-muscled idiots isn’t going to be a solution. If you want both muscle and mind, well, you’re going to have to pay them a ton more and give them a lot better working conditions.

                Anyway, the cases of lethal force you want to strive to avoid are cases of lethal force against people who you admit deserve to die.

              2. You would, I assume, preclude +97% of women on the force from ever being hired.

              3. You do realize that requiring the level of physical fitness necessary to subdue Brown in a fight (and meet all the other qualifications for the job that are still probably not being properly met) would reduce the pool of eligible applicants to a negligible number, right?

                How many officers in Ferguson do you think would have been in a better position physically to handle that situation? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a small minority of them.

                1. Lat reply was to Irish, btw.

                  But my sense of duty complels me; to DrAwkward: MYSOGYNIST!!!!!!!!!

          3. The 55 comment was to show you how ridiculous your comment about fitness was not about this case. So you want every cop to undergo a fitness test or be thrown out of the force at a mandatory young age like 35 so we know they can subdue guys like Brown?

            How realistic is that, a 15 year career? I guess it saves on pension costs.

      2. He was closer to 300, from what I’ve read. 295, I think, which is pretty fuckin’ big if true. And think about the assumptions you’re making here for a second. What if Wilson had been a 5’4″ woman? What if Wilson wasn’t a cop, just a person being carjacked? If I’m in my car and have a pistol on me, and after a heated exchange I’m attacked and subsequently fire on my attacker, and then said attacker runs away, turns, and starts running at me, I’m not going to holster my gun and put on some boxing gloves. Would you? Police should be held to a higher standard because they have privileges the rest of us don’t, but that doesn’t mean they should lose the most basic rights of self-defense that we all have.

    2. I mean, my bullshit meter starts going off when I’m told that he was really scared for his life at that point

      Dude, Brown had the face of a demon! Motherfucker could have been Spawn for all we know!

        1. Public execution. Not his first one either, judging by his sword skills. Jeez, don’t break the law in KSA, I guess…

          I don’t see the problem, provided the criminal received due judicial process. Don’t many death penalty opponents advocate for, if we must have executions, that they should be public?

          1. Most of them died drinking gin and dancing to ‘Happy’ you fucking retard. Are you actually living in the states? If so, is there a law where we can MAKE you fucking go empty garbage in Dubai?

    3. Your ‘bullshit meter’ has been run through a battery of tests. And, well, it passes. My worldview… for what it’s worth… but side two for Fox and Friends coming up…

      Quit fucking thinking. This isn’t Saudi Arabia or an ISIS camp where it’s actually allowed and you can go to heaven for loving killers of flesh… chortle..
      So, sez, those who love authoritarian cock jammed deep into their throats. thrusting and busting loads of cum. right into the mainstream and police unionist throat… cops win. always… suck this, bitch.

      1. Are you retarded? Is it congenital or something you got from tumbling down the stairs?

        1. I think Agile Cyborg likes to comment while under the influence of… something.

          1. Now that’s not fair. His mother was the one who drank a gallon of vodka a day while pregnant with him. Or maybe just forgot to give him a chromosome.

    4. I don’t have a problem with the number of shots he fired. Handguns, unless you hit them in the head, just aren’t very good at stopping people right then and there. They certainly can be—we had a case in Houston where a car thief managed to kill two people who dropped right away with two shots from a .380 of all things—but it’s not the way to bet. Even if the assailant dies from their wounds at the hospital, it’s cold comfort if he was still able to beat your head in before he bled out. So people shoot until the guy drops. And if he’s really motivated to hurt you, he’s not dropping until he loses enough blood to cause him to pass out, or his nervous system gets compromised. That usually takes a lot of holes to accomplish. Michael Platt’s another example.

      With larger ammo capacity in semi-auto pistols today, compared to revolvers of yesteryear, and qualitative immunity that takes care of missed shots, cops seem to take the view that getting the most rounds downrange as soon as possible, even if they only connect with some of them, is the way to quickly stop a threat.

      Was Brown a threat? He’d already tried—allegedly—to take Wilson’s pistol before, and would have done so if Wilson hadn’t shot him in the hand/arm. When Brown turns around and approaches Wilson, it’s reasonable to think that Brown’s going to try and do it again. Based on Wilson’s experience with wrestling him, it’s also reasonable that Wilson felt Brown would have been successful if he got close.

      1. Wilson killed a human. Best to trust people that kill other humans?

        1. If justified yes.

          1. I knew a dude that would that would slice deep if you bumped him when I was young…

            Now that I know you..

        2. I thought cyborgs were supposed to be intelligent.

      2. I’d go back to my original point on how we should expect cops to handle these situations as a society, and I’d add to it that if cops don’t like it, they can go find a job as garbage men or something else.

        Brown was wounded, and he wasn’t much larger than Wilson. Cops are SUPPOSED to be trained to handle physical engagements with suspects without the use of deadly force.

        So, it’s entirely possible the suspect here kept coming despite being hit. That doesn’t mean we should allow cops to empty their clips until they drop unarmed suspects.

        The unarmed thing is key, and the reason Wilson threw in his bit about him reaching for his waste. This is also the line of thought that probably led him to start his testimony talking about his own size.

        In the car, Wilson was at a clear disadvantage, but it doesn’t look he got it that bad. Once out of the vehicle facing a wounded suspect, I have major issues with the fact that cops are allowed to just fire away.

        1. Wilson has the entire county at his disposal… weapons, bullets, all sorts of shit…and the state… how was WILSON AT A CLEAR ADVANTAGE to a fat punk carrying pot swishers?

          1. …what?

          2. My sophistry meter is redlining.

        2. …So, it’s entirely possible the suspect here kept coming despite being hit. That doesn’t mean we should allow cops to empty their clips until they drop unarmed suspects…

          Actually, it does if a reasonable person would think that Brown was a threat to seriously injure Wilson, and if it takes the entire magazine to stop that threat. No different than if you or I had a guy charging towards us, threatening to take our weapon away from us. Wilson felt he was a threat to take Wilson’s weapon away, even with Brown’s shot hand. And they’d just wrestled over the pistol a few seconds ago, so I think Wilson’s view on that is pretty authoritative.
          Now, if Wilson continued to empty the magazine into Brown, when it was no longer reasonable to think that Brown posed a threat to Wilson, that would be unjustifiable, and might constitute murder or manslaughter.

          Once out of the vehicle facing a wounded suspect, I have major issues with the fact that cops are allowed to just fire away.

          They’re not supposed to, unless there’s an immediate threat of serious bodily injury. Despite Brown’s wound, I think his moving towards Wilson constitutes one. If Brown stops, or lays down, or otherwise stops advancing on Wilson, there wouldn’t be an imminent threat, and Wilson wouldn’t be justified in shooting. Now, if Wilson was shooting at Brown while Brown was running away, that’s a lot harder to justify.

          1. I don’t think ‘muh feelingz’ are going to cut it for justifying shot after shot. They’re bullets. They make holes in people. Even a few holes should turn Brown into a non-threat.

            1. If he stops which he did not according to witnesses. Brown was probably also operating on shock, fear, and adrenaline and kept coming because he wasn’t thinking just reacting. Wilso has no way to know what is in Brown’s head.

            2. Even a few holes should turn Brown into a non-threat.

              You’d think so. And that thought might kill you, as it did to Special Agents Grogan and Dove. At the time Michael Platt killed those two men, he’d already been shot at least five times with 9mm bullets, twice in the chest. One of those chest hits started a cardiac tamponade which would have quickly been fatal. But not quick enough to prevent him from killing those two.

              This guy ended up taking 14 .45 bullets, the last two or three being the head hits that ended up dropping him. Naturally, he was returning fire with two pistols during this. Good thing most gang members can’t shoot for shit.

              I am beating this into the ground to hopefully convince some of you that people don’t always stop being a threat once they’ve been shot with a handgun. Even if they’ve been shot multiple times. I hope that this discussion remains only of academic interest for all of us.

              1. 9mm is used because of the high capacity. If you are using round nose bullets to make sure you gun won’t jam, the high velocity of makes them over penetrate and they won’t drop somebody. That is why law enforcement went to .40 caliber.

              2. Brown was unarmed. Your incident is the case of a shootout.

                Did Brown put his hand near his waste as if he was going to grab for a weapon? I don’t know, but I do know that’s the common excuse anytime a cop shoots anyone so I’m kind of skeptical.

                1. So, yea – if you’re shot, a trigger finger still works and everything. You can still use a weapon.

                  But a cop is supposed to be trained to use different levels of force. And bullet wounds are going to take a bit of strength out of someone.

                  1. Cops are not trained to the level you think. You also don’t know if the other guy is trained. If Wilson was 250 pounds and the other guy was 150 pounds but training tom be an MMA fighter, I’d put my money on the small guy.

                2. If some guy has already punched you and turns toward you with your gun drawn on him should you wait for him to punch you again?

                3. Did Brown put his hand near his waste as if he was going to grab for a weapon? I don’t know, but I do know that’s the common excuse anytime a cop shoots anyone so I’m kind of skeptical.

                  I actually don’t think Brown did, and that Wilson was full of shit when he claimed that. Or if Brown did, that he was trying to pull up his pants while running.

                  The examples I cited were to show that people can still run around, fight, and kill you, even after receiving bullet wounds that would kill them within the next 10 minutes or so. Brown received a wound to his hand or arm during the struggle in the car. I don’t know if Wilson could even see it, bullet wounds being small. Even if Wilson could see the wound, Brown advancing on him, even with a wounded hand, is a reasonable threat to attack Wilson and take away his weapon. Like he’d just tried to do ten-fifteen seconds prior, and nearly succeeded.

              3. Yes, most people I think do not understand that guns do not work like they do in movies. There is no formula. Some people (especially if they big) can will manage to survive ten shots, some even to the torso, or sometimes even the head, if they’re really lucky. Some die when they get shot just once in the leg (always a wound shot in the movies) if it hits an artery.

          2. Actually, it does if a reasonable person would think that Brown was a threat to seriously injure Wilson, and if it takes the entire magazine to stop that threat.

            You think you are smarter than you are. I haven’t been arguing for legal liability. I have been arguing on the level of force we should tolerate from cops.

            They should have stricter constraints. That’s supposed to be the reason they get their cushy pensions and benefits.

            A cop should not be held to the same standard as ‘you or me.’ We are told all the time that we should call them when trouble happens because they are supposedly ‘trained.’ Highly so, I’m often times told.

            What the hell good are they if their training just consists of shooting their guns? And POORlY, at that.

            1. I am arguing on the level of force we should tolerate from all of us. Not cops particularly. And I am saying that when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm to you or me—that you are justified in using deadly force to stop that threat. Unfortunately, physics being what it is, that sometimes requires using an entire magazine or more to stop it.

              Far better police work (and general practice for you and I, assuming neither of us are cops. I mean, I know I’m not one) is to de-escalate situations, and avoid them if at all possible, that might result in an imminent threat of serious harm to you or a third party. Due to their work, they can’t practice the kind of situation avoidance you and I can. But, IMHO, and in my very limited experience dealing with officers, some of them could really work on their de-escalation skills. I don’t get the attitude from some officers where they act like they want to start a fight. Just ask sarcasmic all about that.

              Anyway, we wouldn’t expect either one of us to tolerate taking a beating that we didn’t instigate. Especially if we’re armed with a weapon that could be used against us, and if our assailant has already tried to do that. Why should we expect a cop to tolerate that then?

        3. Why don’t you take the job since you know so much more than anybody else?

          1. He probably has too much moral fibre to be a cop, and too high an IQ.

            1. Well it is obvious that he doesn’t have much sense. The IQ thing doesn’t say much. There are plenty of high IQ morons who if they left academia would starve and who serve no useful purpose.

          2. This is a cop out of an argument.

            Cops are public servants entrusted to enforce the law. At least, nominally that’s what they are supposed to be. They should be answerable and using the level of force we deem ok.

            Unfortunately, there are a lot of people just fine with cops shooting people when it’s not necessary.

            1. Yeah, well guess what they only get one life too. Want to keep yours, don’t attack a cop, especially when he has a gun drawn on you.

              1. That isn’t a rational argument. It boils down to cops can do it so take that.

                The point is, they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

                I have been asked by our lovely government to take risks with my life that would put anything asked of Wilson to shame. I was paid half of what he was at best, and had more restrictions on my use of force.

                So, fuck Wilson. Fuck the cop fellators who want to pretend that cops have it rough.

                They get compensated very well for their job based on their qualifications. I don’t think it’s asking much that they earn it and actually take the risks people like you pretend they do.

                1. Get a real case of a bad police shooting. I do think they need better training like when they shot that old guy who called them about a burglary from his car. They should have positioned themselves so they were not in danger and let the guy out of the car slowly instead of shooting at the first movement.

                  There are bad cases, this one wasn’t.

                  1. There are bad cases, this one wasn’t.

                    For Chrissake’s this. Reason, at least when Balko was here, covered so many police uses-of-force that were flat out undefendable. (Though dunphy, and to a lesser extent Tulpa, did give it the old college try.)

                    There is a large problem with the militarization of police, and the willingness to go right to deadly force on their part. This case doesn’t show that, and harping on it discredits their valid position for the hundreds of other cases where cops are so wrong, it hurts.

                  2. There are bad cases, this one wasn’t.

                    I agree with you on this, which is why it makes it even more perplexing that you reacted so angrily to my earlier post.

                    1. I was responding to the comment above yours and somehow it got below your. Probably me not paying enough attention.

                2. The point is, they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

                  Get away with what? Getting assaulted, having someone try to steal their gun, and then shooting that person when he tries to re-instigate the fight?

                  I have been asked by our lovely government to take risks with my life that would put anything asked of Wilson to shame. I was paid half of what he was at best, and had more restrictions on my use of force.

                  Good for you and thank you for your service. I have a difficult time seeing how you deciding to sign up for the military in any way negates Wilson’s claim of self-defense. Wilson’s not a soldier – he’s a police officer without half the training you probably got.

                  So, fuck Wilson. Fuck the cop fellators who want to pretend that cops have it rough.

                  I’m the last person on Earth who’d be considered a cop fellator, and I’ve said repeatedly that claims by police officers that their jobs are ‘dangerous’ are generally complete bullshit. Cops don’t have it rough. I agree.

                  However, the fact that cops don’t have it rough in no way changes whether or not in this particular instance Wilson was acting in self-defense. You can’t say ‘cops are assholes in the aggregate, therefore Wilson was clearly wrong.’ We base our legal system on what happened in a particular case, not on whether or not we like the class of people a defendant belonged to.

                  1. However, the fact that cops don’t have it rough in no way changes whether or not in this particular instance Wilson was acting in self-defense.

                    I have talked specifically on this case, and I’ve made my point that a cop in that position should be duty bound to handle an unarmed suspect with the least amount of force necessary to subdue him.

                    Not to mention the risk involved in firing off 12 shots half of which are errant.

                    Wilson’s not a soldier – he’s a police officer without half the training you probably got.

                    Then how about we change the pay accordingly? Or, better yet – we actually start talking about the training cops receive and pushing for that to be changed.

                    In every instance of these cases, the same line gets thrown out. They followed their training. It’s one of the few things I believe, actually. So, how about we change that training?

                    I refuse to buy an argument that a cop should have the same specific standards for self-defense as you or me for obvious reasons. They are entrusted with the authority they have because they are SUPPOSED to be highly trained to handle these situations.

                    My point is the training they receive is wrong, and arguments that point out how it was a justified shoot skirt around that issue entirely. Legally, yes. It was self-defense; particularly by Missouri’s laws. In terms of what we should expect from our cops, though? It was not. And you’ve at times agreed with that sentiment here.

                    1. In Missouri are the laws on the books determining the use of lethal force (self defense) different for the peace office than for the rest of the population? The Police are not only required to follow the law but they take an oath to uphold the law as well as the State and National Constitutions.

                  2. Thank you. That was exceedingly well put.

                3. No one, and I mean no one (maybe save for the the on in a billion pure altruist) takes a job that says ‘we’ll pay you nicely but you have to be willing to risk your life’ and actually carries through with it. They may think they do, but again, put in the situation, self-preservation takes over virtually always, and no amount of training can undo that.

                  I’d say it’s foolish to expect cops to be much more selfless than civilians. That may be what the job requires, but again, putting in the job description doesn’t make it so, and training doesn’t replace your instincts or your rational desire not to die.

                  So really, there are two choices: we can expect police to keep us safe, but accept that they’re almost invariably going to put keeping themselves safe first (and to reiterate, this is not a fixable institutional problem, but a human nature problem), or people can agree to have police do less, agree to fewer risks (and therefore much lower pay of course), and civilians can take more responsibility for keeping themselves safe and live with the consequences of a less thoroughly policed society.

                  Most people try to choose option 3: have their cake and eat it too. As always.

                  1. Amazingly, there are police forces in the world where the cops have guns and they don’t kill suspects on a daily basis.

                    Officer Wilson fired more shots than the entire police force of Germany fires in an entire year! Amazing. They must not care if they make it home alive at the end of the day, huh?

                    You people create these false dichotomies as if there is no gray area. This was an unarmed suspect already wounded.

                    What the hell do they pay beat cops for, exactly?

                    1. ‘we’ll pay you nicely but you have to be willing to risk your life’ and actually carries through with it.

                      Not to mention this is pure bullshit. I know people who risk their lives for free. I know people who risk their lives for shit pay, and I know some lucky enough to risk their lives and get paid relatively well.

                      There are a lot of jobs where there is inherent, and unavoidable risk that people do because they either enjoy it in some way or it’s all they can do to earn a living.

                    2. Being willing to walk into an abstract situation knowing there is a certain probability they will be injured or killed is not the same as having someone on top of you pounding your face and still choosing in that instant to value their life as much as your own.

                      Abstract risk and immediate risk are not the same thing. Many people may consciously accept the latter, and never experience the former, but if they did, would have actually behaved just the same as someone who would have declined the abstract risk.

                      Oh, and comparisons to Geramany? Now there’s a bastion of civil libertarianism for you.

                    3. Sigh. Germany, not Geramany.

                    4. Another brainless moron. How many black thugs are in Germany? How many corrupt media outlets that cover up black crime? How many racist presidents and AG’s?

                      Idiot.

        4. empty their clips magazines

          Other than this, carry on.

        5. It’s not a clip, it’s a magazine. Sorry, it’s a pet peeve of mine.

          Have you ever fired a pistol? At the best of times it’s more difficult to be accurate with a pistol than with a long gun. Imagine that you’re actually using a pistol in a combat situation where you’ve already been attacked. Adrenaline’s pumping, you’ve been socked in the head a few times, and if you don’t bring dude down (who actually was 6’5″ and 289 lbs according to the autopsy) he’s probably going to take your gun and kill you with it. Think about how you’d really react in that situation.

          Also, the point is that Brown DIDN’T drop until he’d been shot in the head. So the preceding shots didn’t stop him.

          1. And hold up, I just caught that Brochetta was military? How do you mix up a clip and a mag?? Damn near half my friends are or were active duty military in combat. Not a single one mixes the two up, ever…

      3. Much better police work would be to not escalate an encounter with a jaywalker to the point to where the jaywalker is getting hands on with a cop. Because I’m sure Wilson had absolutely nothing to do with a simple situation—telling someone, who’s just robbed a 7-11 and thus should be looking to not get noticed by the po-po, to get out of the road—and turning it into said robber trying to beat on the cop.

        Or to not have such a bad relationship with the people in the city that employs you, that those people riot over an officer shooting a thug. Entirely rational to simultaneously think that Wilson shouldn’t have been indicted, but that Ferguson P.D. is really, really fucked up in how they deal with their citizens.

        1. I ran across an ad in Saudi Arabian Times where they are lookin for a ruthless fuck to behead people who riot or have bad relationships or don’t pay for the orange juice they stole…

          Better work on your swing, muthafuka. You might be hired in the land of the subhumans who’ve remained retarded for 5 thousand years… At least the fucking Catholics grew out of the middle ages, right.

          1. They certainly do behead a lot of people over there. Especially given how small their population is (even if you double or triple it to account for all the guest workers.)

            But life’s too short to deal with a drunk troll such as yourself, so back to the Reasonable filter you go.

            1. Saudi Arabian = ISIS

              Purely and simply.

          2. Can Reason please delete this guy’s posts? His writing suggests mental retardation.

            1. You’d make an awesome prison guard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            2. He gets drunk every night and plunges far below the Hitchens/Marcotte line of coherence.

              1. Your last fight. Did you kill someone?

              2. He gets drunk every night and plunges far below the Hitchens/Marcotte line of coherence.

                ??? I don’t understand this saying. Christopher Hitchens was never ‘incoherent.’

                1. ??? I don’t understand this saying. Christopher Hitchens was never ‘incoherent.’

                  Hitchens is on the upper half. Then there’s a border. Marcotte is on the lower half.

              3. No, I’s still say he’s overqualified to write for Slate.

        2. So what other crimes are you willing to overlook? By all accounts, Wilson ask the thug to get out of the middle of the road. brown is the one that escalated the encounter.

      4. There was a video I saw that was a reenactment of some famous gun battle that happened on the streets after the bad guys robbed the place in the 70s. They were using rifles and fired hundreds of rounds at the police following them and the police shot out of their car.

        Less than 1% of the shots hit anything.

        During the hysteria over that black cop Dorner, they shot at the wrong truck. I think they shot 96 rounds at relatively close range and the two women were wounded but lived.

        What happened with Wilson was not unusual.

        1. MarkinLA|11.28.14 @ 7:30PM|#
          …”Less than 1% of the shots hit anything.”….

          Well, no. Everyone of them hit something, and it’s just plain dumb luck that some of the things that were hit weren’t people.

          1. Most probably just ran out of energy and dropped to the ground. Cops are not trained marksman. It takes years of practice to do what Tom Cruise does.

            1. It takes years of practice to do what Tom Cruise does

              And even then, not everyone reaches OT VIII.

            2. Which doesn’t address the fact that it was dumb luck that no one else was injured.

              1. Not really dumb luck. It’s surprising how small the casualty numbers are in battles relative to the number shots fired. It isn’t really luck; the probability of hitting someone, even in a crowd, is just much lower than one would intuitively expect. Sometime, of course, the shooter gets ‘lucky.’ But those cases are the rarity; missing is far more common.

                1. This is just wow dumb. Soldiers actively try to avoid being hit. The ‘gun fight’ you are referencing was probably the OK Corral one which they talk about (guessing, as I’ve seen subjects on how many bullets hit during it). Of course, you had dudes taking cover and not standing out in the open or charging at one another as you during any shoot out.

                  The kill rates during WW1 when you had people charging into gun fire were pretty high.

                  Someone with a handgun actively aiming at a single individual in a neighborhood should be more precise.

                  And there are cases of gang and cop violence in which bystanders are hit all the time.

                  1. Saw the ’70’s part, but the point stands.

                  2. Someone with a handgun actively aiming at a single individual in a neighborhood should be more precise.

                    Completely agree with you, which is why I think cops’ qualified immunity needs to go. As it is, unlike you or I, cops bear very little responsibility for the bullets they send down range. This incentivizes them to send as many as possible at their target, which puts the rest of us at risk. See, e.g., the Empire State Building NYPD shooting, the shootouts with the Boston bombers, and others.

                    Another problem is that most cops aren’t gun people. They don’t as a rule practice often with that tool, and what practice they do is often archaic and has little to do with the task of putting bullets on vital areas of an assailant during an armed confrontation. Then again, pretty much everyone’s pistol marksmanship goes straight to hell in a gunfight, based on the studies I’ve seen. It’s hard to hit someone with a pistol while they’re trying not to get hit, and trying to kill you.

                    But getting rid of their QI would, IMHO, help tremendously towards their current callousness towards threatening the rest of us.

                  3. “And there are cases of gang and cop violence in which bystanders are hit all the time.”
                    And there are cases where people get killed by bullets coming down that were fired in the air during fourth of July. But what exactly does that prove? People also shoot at each other and miss everyone altogether “all the time.”

    5. 12 shots was too many. It endangered the public.

    6. Why don’t you try to subdue someone that out weighs you by 90 pounds, and is 20 years younger, moron.

  17. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ———————- http://www.jobs700.com

  18. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ———————- http://www.jobs700.com

  19. I really wish we’d stop throwing around terminology like “white privilege”. The minute we stop obsessing over racial identification is the second that actual change happens.

    1. Check your privilege privilege.

  20. So my question is…

    What Reason reader of all the stripes would take on the role of Saudi Arabian head slicer?

    Please comment…

    Because, evidently death seems preferable for many readers here- NOT all.

    WHICH of you would make a great beheader?

    1. SO! WHO would behead Micheal Brown for ‘assaulting’ a rather dumbass looking shit-faced cop called Wilson?

      Beheading for all the retards new to Reason is exactly the same thing as 20 bullets.

  21. In this thread, actual, no-shit Nazis.

    1. Good to have you on the side of ethics.

      1. Says the guy who apparently wants to eradicate all of Saudi Arabia. Seriously, did an Arab steal your puppy when you were a kid or something, and now you’ve got a hard on for the whole peninsula?

    2. I blame myself, posting The Right Stuff links. Must attract them.

      1. Your last fight. Did you kill someone?

        1. I’m a time traveler from post-apocalyptic Florida, of course I did.

          1. Ha!

  22. If Wilson had been indicted, and then later acquitted?

    1. Same question here. It strikes me that some of the arguments here amount to claiming anything short of Wilson going to prison (and probably getting killed there) is an injustice because “fuck cops”.

  23. I think Reason should have a beheader award. Frankly. Among all of us commenters for the year… who can behead to sweet women and men reacting delightully.

    It should be called the Beheading Trophy and YOU.DO.NOT.WANT.TO.EARN.IT.

    Which means the optimistic attractive man in black who tries to lead this whole thing will NOT have the ball juice to create such a world-shaking award.

  24. SO! WHO would behead Micheal Brown for ‘assaulting’ a rather dumbass looking shit-faced cop called Wilson?

    Beheading for all the retards new to Reason is exactly the same thing as 20 bullets.

  25. SHOULD Michael Brown been arrested QUICKLY pulled aside for Ferguson court for fuckin’ with a cop and then.

    BEHEADED!!!!!!!!!

  26. SHOULD beheading be accepted in America? OUR greatest ALLY that the BUSH family in totality from old mom to all the sons (Dad is almost dead and gone) and the Clintons from the old cigar stuffer to the new baby jacks all his/her cum to beheads all the time…

    1. Could you please take your snuff erotica somewhere else? It’s really starting to get me hot and bothered.

  27. ITT, possible Mary Stack.

  28. Cops should carry swords and behead bitches because god’s work.

    1. “Since then the Deliverator has kept the gun in the glove compartment and relied, instead, on a matched set os samurai swords, which have always been his weapon of choice anyhow. The punks in Gila Highlands weren’t afraid of a gun, so the Deliverator was forced to use it. But Swords need no demonstration.”

      1. Why hasn’t Snow Crash been made into a movie yet? The book’s already laid out like a story-board, and it wouldn’t need that much updating.

        1. Apparently the guy who made Attack the Block wrote a script that Stephenson really liked in 2012, and I have heard nothing about it since.

          1. Your last fight were you did not kill someone.

          2. Your last fight where you did not kill someone.

  29. Are bullets different than…. http://nsnbc.files.wordpress.c…..eading.jpg

  30. Ultimately, why is human life the last thing humans wish to protect?

    1. We protect dolphins, owls, frogs, coral, sharks, snakes, salmon, whales, and so on…. but few humans FIGHT to protect humans aside from one or two orgs.

  31. In the morning, when you’re sober, please go back on your meds.

    1. So beheadings are wonderful…

  32. I think someone is off of their rocker.

    1. Your last fight where you did not kill someone?

      1. Agile Cyborg. You beautiful crazy fucker !!!!!! =D

  33. This thread is worse than Zardoz.

    1. Is that better or worse than Hitler? How many pico-Hitlers are we talking here?

      1. Humanity has not yet established with precision the units of measurement for the level of failure in which this thread is operating.

        Personally, I blame socialism

        1. X the level of controversy times Y the level of misinformation = the total level of retardation.

      2. Is a buttload of pico-Hitlers more or less than a shitload of pico-Hitlers.

    2. So does that mean it reaches so-bad-it’s-good status before Zardoz does?

      1. Zardoz, like this thread, never attained that staus.

  34. For many in the media, the St. Louis County grand jury’s decision was going to confirm the existence of deep American injustice one way or another.

    The grand jury reaching the right conclusion doesn’t disprove the existence of deep American injustice when anyone who wasn’t a cop would have easily been indicted under a similar set of facts.

    1. Why would anyone not a cop try to arrest Brown for a strong arm robbery?

      But even the, I think if the same thing happened to a non-cop, it would have been self defense. Maybe it would be another circus, like George Zimmerman.

      But carry a gun for self defense isn’t against people with guns or even knives, it’s also against much bigger people.

      1. Maybe it would be another circus, like George Zimmerman.

        Which is precisely my point. Zimmerman got indicted. The chances of anyone not a cop managing to avoid indictment are practically nil. Wilson avoided one because the DA appears to have gone out of his way to make sure the grand jury didn’t indict.

        1. Which is precisely my point. Zimmerman got indicted.

          Nope. There was no Grand Jury in the Zimmerman case. The State filed an Affidavit of Probable Cause and went from there. Florida State Attorney Angela Corey did not seek an indictment because it’s unlikely she’d have gotten one, due to the same reasons Zimmerman walked. Also, a grand jury would have locked her witnesses into one story before testifying at trial.

          1. Again, pointing out how the process was completely different for Zimmerman doesn’t do much to dispute my point that Wilson got better treatment than most people would because he’s a cop.

  35. Well… If the store owner was given the Liberty to protect his store, (without any infringement) from Mr. Brown then we would not be having this conversation.

    1. In other words. Law Enforcement has rendered property owners so impotent, that they can no longer defend themselves. They cannot defend themselves from police corruption, or from common criminals. When people are denied liberty, responsibility, and basic human integrity, this is the kind os shit show you can expect.

      1. Actually, if you hear what the store owner said, he’s more afraid of the people in his neighborhood.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

        “The convenience store where the robbery took place was boarded up, but open for business on Friday. A store manager, who declined to give his name, said he fears for his life and pleaded with reporters not to suggest that he called police.

        “”It’s very dangerous,” he said. “They kill us if they think we are responsible. People don’t understand that.”””

        I’m not saying the police aren’t heavy handed in Ferguson, but that’s largely a reaction to the inhabitants of Ferguson.

        On the night of the riots, someone was basically executed – shot to the head, then his body set on fire. The police didn’t do it. The people of Ferguson did.

        The people of Ferguson attacked reporters. One got his Prius carjacked. They assaulted that guy from Fox who is normally a war reporter.

        If they want to stop being treated like thugs and criminals, maybe they should stop acting like thugs and criminals?

        1. It’s unclear how much overlap there is between the rioters and “the people of Ferguson”.

        2. JeremyR you are missing the point, and making my point. The store owner was afraid to defend himself, and was afraid to call the police, because he felt they could not protect his life, and property.

          Who’s fault is that ?

          Ferguson PD.

  36. It would be nice if we ever get to a place where we don’t have to point out the obvious. Specifically, the lie that Brown was shot for stealing some cigars. This is a tactic used over and over again when some idiot manages to escalate a situation to the point that they make it much worse than it ever needed to be. Brown did that. He’s the one that reached into the patrol car and started punching. Normal people DON’T DO THAT. To try to tie his death to some petty theft (forget the fact how much of a thug that footage of the theft shows him to be) is to simply lie for the sake of a completely separate agenda. And as self serving as it is, it’s more destructive to the community in question because it leads to events like the recent riots that turned the neighborhood into a war zone.

    Oh sure, there will be some money for building things back up but my sense is that the people in the community that are most productive are going to get as far away from there as they can. Nobody wants to see their life’s work destroyed.

    So in the end I suppose Al Sharpton managed to boost contributions and some people managed to loot some things and some idiot anarchists got to wear their stupid Guy Fawke masks and tear shit up, but this served no purpose to the community and only further widened the divide between black and white americans. Screaming at people that they are racist when they are simply trying to get by in life does nothing to build understanding.

  37. I don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that it was reasonable without analyzing and discussing the laws defining the use of lethal force. In fact you did not actually analyze the events and evidence that may or may not constitute self defense. You merely give an opinion that it was legally self defense. Please explain, support and defend your opinion.

    1. Perhaps it would be better to say that, from a legal standpoint, it was self defense because a) the presumption is self defense b) the physical evidence, such as it was, did not contradict the self-defense claim. Charging Wilson with murder might have been satisfying to a number of people, but if the system worked the way it is supposed to it would have ended in acquittal; his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      And if he were acquitted now, then it would be impossible to charge him in the future if he, say, posted on Facebook boasting he’s killed one damn big buck nigger (hard to believe he’d be that stupid, but some rogue cops seem to be).

      It is always tempting to announce that the system is “broken” because it has not allowed the conviction of someone we “know” is guilty. That leads to what I call “We gotta gettem” laws. Laws like asset forfeiture, or the RICO statutes, that are then used by unscrupulous jurisdictions to harass and ruin people who are not criminals.

      The system we based on English Common LAw is not perfect (I, personally doubt we could stand perfection, but I’m a Crank), but most of its more egregious flaws work against the accused. Undermining the existing protections in order to stand in solidarity with swine like Al “I’m so racist I’d be in the Klan if I wasn’t black” Sharpton isn’t smart, or safe.

  38. Earning money online was never been easy as it has become for me now. I freelance over the internet and earn about 75 bucks an hour. Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. A little effort and handsome earning dream is just a click away…………….. .

    Try this………….. ?W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  39. Look at it this way;

    IF Wilson is guilty of gunning down Brown for no good reason, then decision to not charge Wilson was the right one, because based on the evidence available he was not going to be convicted. Scofflaw cops are, as is demonstrated by the way they lis even when they should know their actions are on video, formidably stupid. If Wilson is the kind of cop who shoots young black men because they are young black men and he thinks he can get away with it, there’s at least a chance he will say so somewhere.

    If that happens, THEN HE CAN BE TRIED AND CONVICTED, because he wasn’t tried band acquitted now.

  40. “No person should be shot by authorities for stealing some cigarillos.”

    Sigh. The cigarillo theft had no bearing on why the cop used deadly force against Brown; that’s about as logical as saying, “Michael Brown shouldn’t have been shot for wearing socks with sandals”.

  41. This is similar to the Martin-Zimmerman trial. Except here there were wotneesses, forensics, etc., that was — at best — inconclusive as to probable cause, not to mention beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Officer Wilson’s testimony, however, was laughably stupid. He’s an officer of the law testifying presumably with a straight face that an unarmed alleged teenage robber looked like a “demon”. Please. If that’s an example of Ferguson police officers, that department needs to be scrapped.

    1. I can agree with that. Wilson needs to be left uncharged until such time as it looks like there might be an actual chance to convict, AND the Ferguson Police Department needs to be disbanded and all persons associated barred from further LEO work.

      1. ^ I second that.

  42. Thank you David Harsanyi for injecting some much needed sanity into these discussions here at Reason.

    The Trayvon Martin case and now this one has caused some people around here to go completely full retard, but you continue to be a rare gem in what has slowly devolved into a pile of crap in recent years.

  43. my neighbor’s step-sister makes $68 hourly on the internet . She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay was $17839 just working on the internet for a few hours. read this article….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  44. OT: Oath Keepers have been guarding buildings in Ferguson since things got out of hand.

    This from StlToday: http://www.stltoday.com/news/l…..86194.html

  45. “If Wilson’s testimony is corroborated by forensic evidence?and much of it seems to be?it seems unlikely that any jury would be able to convict him.”

    That’s hardly the question.

    The question is whether the process was just. When a district attorney behaves like a defense attorney in front of a grand jury–to protect his endorsement from the police union–does it really matter whether the grand jury comes to the right answer?

    Imagine being forced to play a game called “Spin the Bottle of Death”. If a spin of the bottle doesn’t land on an innocent person, does that mean the game was just? Actually, in this case, the game wasn’t a game of chance–far as I can tell, the prosecutor was acting as the defense!

    I doubt the cops that killed this apparent thug would have been convicted either, but whether there was enough evidence to have a trial is another question entirely.

    1. Bullshit. No matter what the conclusion, once Al “If I couldn’t yell ‘Racism!’ I might have to WORK for a living” Sharpton got involved, the process was going to be largely politically driven. Not a perfect option, but perfection was not on offer.

      With that issue settled, the decision to not charge Wilson is probably about as good as it’s going to get. Charging Wilson would have dragged things out as long as the trail process took, and ended in riots because (unless somebody has hid some very convincing evidence) Wilson wasn’t going to be convicted. Further, if he was acquitted, and something turned up later that COULD have convicted him, we would be SOL. Yes, in recent years there had been a tendency for certain factions in the Federal government to come up with “Civil Rights” charges when local trials didn’t go the way the Feds thought they should. That’s STILL double jeopardy, dammit, and not a trend we want to encourage.

      Unless you LIKE living with the government’s boot on you neck.

    2. Most certainly, it is unusual for a DA to bring ALL the witnesses and evidence. But the DA did so because he was politically mandated to let the grand jury do a “full investigation.” It’s what the Brown family demanded, so it’s hypocritical for them to criticize it now.

      The fact is, under normal circumstances, the DA chooses whether to bring a case to judge or grand jury for charges. The DA only brings cases he can win. Under normal circumstances, he never would have brought this to the grand jury in the first place. It was a dog and pony show forced upon him by the media, Governor Nixon and other powerful politicians, and the loud voices supporting Brown.

  46. I saw the check 4 $8776 , I did not believe that my brother was like actualie bringing in money part-time on their apple labtop. . there brothers friend haz done this 4 only seven months and just cleared the dept on there place and got a brand new McLaren F1 .
    You can find out more ?????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  47. is this a Reason 180 ?

    1. Reason LIKES differing opinions, unlike the MSM, which needs to be in lockstep.

  48. Thank you. This is exactly what I’ve been saying. And I at least have the qualification of being an experienced, licensed attorney in St Louis, so you’d think people might give my opinion some weight. Instead, what I’m encountering is people so badly want to see a police officer — any police officer — indicted for using excessive force, that they are all too willing to be blind to the law and facts here.

    There are lots of cases of excessive force that deserve righteous anger. This just doesn’t happen to be one. We can’t lynch a police officer just because we are frustrated that so many get away with abuse. People need to put away their pitchforks and start looking at each case on its merits. All that’s happening here is distraction from the meritorious cases.

    Remember, most of America thinks cops are good guys. Cases like this one are unsympathetic. Most Americans are going to side with Officer Wilson. Acting like this is a great injustice when Brown outright assaulted the officer will only make the average middle class American think that the anti-police people are crazy. If you want to get more abuses indicted and start changing their minds, focus on sympathetic cases. These people vote in “tough on crime.” You won’t win any hearts and minds by screaming racism over a jerk who robbed, bullied and stupidly assaulted a police officer without provocation.

  49. It certainly would NOT be just to indict Wilson just to please a mob – but it also appears that the prosecutors torpedoed their own prosecution to make sure Wilson was not indicted.

    As for the events themselves – it is likely impossible to know what really happened. Certainly there were some significant problems with area policing (both in Ferguson and nearby small towns) that contributed to the incident and to the current mess.

  50. “Just the other day, a 12-year-old boy playing with a BB gun was shot dead in Cleveland.” What?? Report the facts, not an inverse Fox News narrative. Reason magazine has taken a turn for the worse, compliments of hacks like you.

  51. Seems like the police cars in Ferguson weer older models. Perhaps they wanted them to be replaced by newer models so they left them where rioters could torch them.

  52. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start…

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  53. Does anyone care about the business owners, many of whom are not white, whose businesses were destroyed by the rioters?

    1. It’s sad that there needs to be such a qualifier to defend individual rights.

  54. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  55. This is one of the few cases that the grand jury did its’ job. Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the governor is upset due to the lack of Officer Wilsons’ indictment. What if Governor Duvall Patrick were indicted in order to bring transparency to the many scandals of his administration? Only to have the case dismissed, but a year or two or three of his life turned upside down. Reason has repeatedly shown the breakdown of a justice system that pays for itself with the fines it collects and the confiscation of money and cars by the police. St Louis County should have only one police force at the county level and only state courts each entity being separate from each other.

    1. Reason has repeatedly shown the breakdown of a justice system that pays for itself with the fines it collects and the confiscation of money and cars by the police.

      You recognize the moral hazard and see the logical inconsistency used to justify it. That’s really great.

      St Louis County should have only one police force at the county level and only state courts each entity being separate from each other.

      And here you miss the moral hazard and the logical inconsistency. You would merely change the power structure within that system of injustice but it remains nonetheless a system of injustice. A monopoly of justice production is not a solution to problems caused by the existence of a monopoly of justice production.

      They will never be “separate” institutions unless under very different circumstances from what you described.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.