The Grievance Syndicate’s Push For An Indictment Based On Ideology

Posted by Bob Stone

Here’s an interesting article summing up how the grievance syndicate corrupted the thought process of the protesters and much of the country.  

Justice Was Served in Ferguson—This Isn’t Jim Crow America

‘Civil rights’ figures decided long ago that the only fair outcome would be indictment. But that was driven by ideology, not facts.

By Ron Christie (Daily Beast)

The day of reckoning has arrived not just in Ferguson, Missouri, but also across America. For some, the grand jury proceedings to determine whether the shooting of a black teenager by a white police officer was justified was never about seeking justice. As widely anticipated in the media, the jury of nine whites and three blacks elected not to indict based on the evidence before them. Sadly, hundreds if not thousands of individuals descended upon this small St. Louis suburb to agitate for an outcome based on their ideology rather than the facts under consideration by the grand jury.

Even though the grand jury elected not to find Officer Darren Wilson responsible for the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown, sadly, I never believed that the gathering protesters gathered in Ferguson were seeking justice or a peaceful resolution to the case, which has roiled race relations in America to levels I haven’t seen in decades.

How else to explain those chanting “No Justice, No Peace” in the days leading up to the grand jury’s determination? The only justice sought by those folks involved a conviction against Wilson for killing the “gentle giant” teen. Evidence that favored Wilson’s account—that he tragically shot the teen in self-defense—was conveniently ignored, as doing so neatly fit into the narrative that whites are racist, white police officers assassinate blacks at their leisure, and America is as prejudiced toward people of color as it was in Selma, Alabama, in 1965.

Full Article Here

This entry was posted in Constitutional Law, Evidence Law, Jurisprudence, Law Enforcement, Legal Analysis, Legal Theory, Uncategorized, United States. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to The Grievance Syndicate’s Push For An Indictment Based On Ideology

  1. po says:

    Sorry, Bob, I couldn’t get through the whole article, saw some familiar fallacies, looked up the byline and saw the name of the author. I saw him once on the Bill Maher show being torn up a new ahole by Cornel West, and this what I twitted thereafter:
    “Po ‏@minutebol 7 Nov 2011
    Ron Christie can’t be for real. He must be a Bill Maher created character to rattle us liberals. I am speechless….Who the f is this guy?
    9:57 PM – 7 Nov 2011 · Details”
    That question is still valid: Who the f is this guy?

  2. Bob Stone says:


    You attack the man and completely ignore the argument and you talk of fallacy?

    You are a funny guy.

  3. michaelbeaton says:

    That is a pretty weak article. Or so it seems to me. I wonder if you’d be interested/willing to detail the reason(s) why you found it compelling. I feel like I must be missing something obvious…Else why would an article of this quality show up in the pages of this blog?

    One of the flaws in the article, to me, is this line:

    Disheartening because Lewis’ words will give strength and solace to those who believe in the narrative that our country remains overwhelmingly prejudiced toward blacks, instead of confronting the sad reality that almost all shootings involving black men in America today take place at the hands of other black men rather than white police officers.

    Seems to me that whether “almost all shootings involving black men take place at the hands of other black men rather than white police officers” is completely irrelevant to the specifics of the case at hand. It is a serious logical fallacy.

    This point echos the one posted in these pages earlier : “Rudy Giuliani Tells Michael Eric Dyson That There Wouldn’t Need to Be So Many White Police Officers in Black Communities “If You Weren’t Killing Each Other 70-75% of the Time”, and seems to have the same depth of insight and value.

    I certainly do not know enough of the facts to make a conclusive statement on the case. But it does strike me as v.odd that the only solution to these problem seems to be to kill. Even if the kid was indeed charging him, which seems dubious, but stipulate it for now, why not shoot his legs? Why not warning shots? Why 12 shots? It seems to be more indicative of the officer being out of control. Maybe he was afraid…but then should someone who is that threatened by a kid be certified in the first place with lethal force?
    Anyway.. that also is not the point…

    What does seem to be the point is that killing of Citizens done in the name and power of the State do seems to be out of proportion : White police killing Black men. And that has to indicate something … doesn’t it?

  4. Is this the same Ron Christie that was a Cheney staffer? Thought he was reasonably intelligent but he usually sided with the “man”.

  5. Bob Kauten says:

    I suspect that you cited the wrong article. I searched for the words “grievance” and “syndicate” on that page. No occurrences.
    Didn’t Allen West have anything to say about this?
    I note your fascination with the phrase “grievance syndicate.”
    Was that phrase created in response to the “compliant flock of sheep” comprised of our authoritarian friends?
    Here’s Allen West’s take on it. Save you the trouble.

    You’re welcome.

  6. randyjet says:

    While it may be correct for the GJ to not indict Wilson, I have real doubts. I saw Wilsos’s interview with George S and he was credible and practiced in giving his story. There is no doubt that there was a confrontation with Brown, and Wilson did not address the kid in a civil manner which is what started the incident. Wilson made NO mention of that. Then he admitted Brown was about 40′ from him when he turned around from running from Wilson and Wilson started shooting. It makes no sense that any person would charge an armed person, much less a cop. The only rational thing is that Brown stopped when the cop fired at him, and decided to not continue running because he figured he could not outrun a bullet. Then one has to believe that Brown was insane or on drugs, which was not the case. So that is one big hole in Wilson’s story.

    I believe the real facts are that when Wilson ordered the kids to get on the sidewalk, using not very good language. Brown got pissed off and did assault the cop. Then he took off running,which is a rather reasonable thing to do. Then Wilson by that time got out of his car, plenty pissed off and started shooting. Brown had to hear and feel the bullets, so he stopped and turned around. What Wilson asks us to believe is that Brown lost his mind, and charged a cop who had his pistol out and was shooting at him. While that may be possible, it is highly unlikely. I think Wilson was super pissed off, and he was going to get this kid, no matter what. The whole process that they used in the grand jury was exceptional for such a body. They in effect tried the case which is NOT their job. All they are supposed to do is decide if there is any grounds for an indictment. The trial is what a jury is for.

  7. You may snub the middle and low American class for being fed up with the tyranny of the status quo; and find 1000 Clear Channel-esque babbling incongruous bantering baffoons to support your purported (perverted) sense of what is right and wrong.

    But what you can do, without proverbials draconian and staunce haughtier of never ending in relentless conclusions bent toward nolle prosequi for white powers

    Is to call the liberty gor Officer Wilson


  8. Bob Stone says:


    It was the idea of “agitating for an outcome based on their ideology rather than the facts under consideration by the grand jury” that sold me.

    The forensic evidence supports Wilson’s account of events.

    Johnson and Crenshaw lied to the media; i.e. giving you a false narrative from which to base your beliefs on up to this point.

    Johnson also lied to the grand jury.

    Did you read the journal and testimony of Witness #40?

    The “hands up” meme was started by a racist black activist that happened to be on Canfield Drive that day.

    I have never, NEVER, in my life ever seen or read about people protesting out of sheer ignorance of facts.

  9. po says:

    The reason I attacked the man and not the article is for some of the reasons Michael brought up. I have heard the man speak, and I know already he is not intellectually trustworthy, and is certainly biased in his thinking, which is why you offered him as valid source.
    I can deal with a middle of the line argument, but not one on the edges.

  10. Bob Stone says:


    There’s nothing rational about attacking a cop and wrestling him for control of his weapon; and yet the forensic evidence supports Wilson 100% on that.

    The blood evidence and shell casings also shows Brown turning and advancing on Wilson for 25 feet.

    He doesn’t get a pass because he’s black and Wilson is not a racist for shooting a man that he had a reasonable belief could kill him once inside the 21 foot zone after nearly killing him the first time.

    • randyjet says:

      bob, I saw those photos of the poor Wilson, and he did not come close to losing his life in his car. He sure as hell did not come close to losing it outside of it either. Those so called wounds were as bad as a girl would give you with a slap. Wilson himself state that he opened fire at 40′. Now I CAN buy the idea that the kid did attack the cop to keep him in the car. Given Wilson’s past history of abuse, I KNOW he was PISSED OFF, and probably rightly so when he got out. So when Brown stopped running after feeling those shots go by him, you have to assume that he was out of his mind insane if he charged an armed and shooting cop. THAT is the only explanation that is possible. Absent testimony to that fact, THAT part of Wilson’s story is simply outlandish and requires an unquestioning belief that cops cannot and will never lie.

    • randyjet says:

      Bob, You might try and explain why Brown would stop, and then charge at Wilson. I can understand his stopping when Wilson was shooting at him. THAT makes sense since he figured he would be shot if he kept running and he lost one of his sandals. It makes NO sense at all that he would CHARGE Wilson when he is SHOOTING at him. If you think Wilson acted reasonably , you must account for that discrepancy. A more likely scenario is that Wilson was plenty pissed off, and once he started shooting, he determined to finish off Brown. Wilson himself stated Brown was about 40′ away which is a lot further than Brown could reach or hit him again, so there was NO legitimate fear for his life at that distance.

      As for a witness backing up Wilson, I recall the murder of Randall Webster by Houston cops when they put a gun to his head while handcuffed and executed him They then put a throw down gun by him and found a civilian to back up their story that he was armed and a threat when they executed him. The requirements to believe ALL of Wilson’s story are incredible, and simply beyond belief. It may have happened as Wilson said, but absent some other finding of Brown being insane or drugged, it is impossible for any rational person to buy his whole story. The most logical finding is that once Wilson started shooting, he had NO desire to take him into custody and wanted to kill him. THAT is not the function of a cop. THAT is also illegal. There is no law that allows cops once they start shooting to finish off their suspect.

  11. Bob Stone says:


    Have you read any of the witness statements or looked at any of the forensic evidence?

    I know you don’t approach your profession in such an ignorant way; so why do it here?

  12. FACT — Transcript quotes Officer Wilson capitulation that Brown had his hands up.

    FACT — The story is the officer started the saga by (twice) suggesting Brown and his buddy not walk in the middle street.

    FACT — Officer Wilson shot 12 times.

    FACT — Where’s the (purported) rap sheet yards long on Brown?!?!?

    FACT — Transcript describes a scenario of events that makes the JFK magic bullet pale in compare.

    FACT. —– (are you paying attention to this one?) —- Even the American Bar Association proposed that there should be an independent prosecutor;

    Because THE prosecutor manages the organization known as”Backstoppers”

    Which was selling F…..!….. T-shirts seeking support for Officer Wilson.

  13. Please retrieve my comment?

  14. Mike Spindell says:

    Regarding the rarity of grand juries failng to indict;:

  15. Bob Stone says:

    I retrieved your comment purely out of free speech concerns.

    You have truly mastered the art of the irrelevant and inflammatory.

  16. Bob Stone says:

    Hey Mike,

    Why did Crump hire Shawn Parcells when he already had the world renown Dr. Baden?

    Where did the issue of racism enter into the picture in this shooting?

  17. Transcript.



    The cliche is that “they” can indict a ham sandwich. The BS about Brown prancing forward, while being shot at and hit multiple times,

    while (purported) keeping his hand tucked under (implication “reaching for a—“)

    Is total B S!

  18. Bob Stone says:


    How many protests have you ever heard of that were based on PURE IGNORANCE OF FACTS?

    I can’t think of one.

  19. po says:

    Sorry to say this Bob, you are exactly one of the fringe elements you decry, and they at least have the benefit of the doubt of having experienced oppression at the hand of the police. You are not offering us anything new, you are still trying to vilify the “mob” in order to cover the holes in your courthouse argumentation!

  20. Bob Stone says:


    The Prosecutor has an ethical obligation to the court and the people not to indict a target if he knows he could never get a conviction.

    Otherwise, the DA in your county could indict you like a ham sandwich just because you looked at him wrong.

  21. Bob Stone says:


    You are so out of line regarding law and logic right now that you are on par with Israel trying to justify bulldozing the houses of Palestinians that killed themselves in terrorist attacks recently.

    Simply because they say it’s right, doesn’t mean it’s morally and legally justifiable.

  22. Bob;

    You can —– your purported graciousness!

    This “flowers” realm is supposed to be FREE from such bias BS. You are the one flamming any sense of purity purportedly here. And the transcript, along with the “Backstoppers” issue is only irrelevant to those backstabbers of justice who don’t give a hoot about the facts.

  23. Bob Stone says:

    Did you read the transcript?

    Don’t answer. Just know in your heart that if you didn’t even try that you “don’t give a hoot about the facts.”

  24. WTF with the apple and orange yanking Israel into the mix? I’m going to take my shavitz and shove it..,…


    WTF guys/gals?

    This is suppose to be the holy plac if pure pursuits better than JT’s realm.

    W. T. F. ?????????

  25. Bob Stone says:

    “There was only one road back to L.A., U.S. interstate 15. Just a flat-out high speed burn through Baker, and Barstow, and Berdoo. Then on to the Hollywood freeway straight into frantic oblivion. Safety… obscurity… just another freak in the freak kingdom. We’d gone in search of the American dream, it had been a lame fu(k around. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. Fu(k no, not today, thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Algier, a man on the move, and just sick enough to be totally confident.” — H.S. Thompson

    “Goodnight Austin Texas! Wherever you are!”

  26. bettykath says:

    “Did you read the journal and testimony of Witness #40?”

    Yes, I read it. A white woman who sees Blacks as “n……s” would never, ever drive alone into a Black neighborhood by herself. In fact, if she found herself there by accident, she would probably wet herself, or worse.

    Which cop was telling the lie? From the transcript:
    Wilson said he backed up to the boys b/c of the theft at the convenience store.
    A Sgt said that Wilson told him very specifically that he did NOT know anything about the theft of the cigars. Testimony of Wilson and the Sgt have been cut/pasted here

  27. blouise says:


    Don’t be drawn by the cheap shot.

  28. blouise17 says:

    Re bettykath’s link

    The transcripts are a thing of beauty once again revealing probable cause that a crime was committed.

  29. Amen blouise

    Truth and purity

    No legitimate GJ could hear such babbling BS by Wilson and not find it reasonable to proceed

  30. blouise17 says:


    We are no longer held hostage by unnamed sources and spin-masters. Now we can read for ourselves that to which those who were sworn testified. The conclusions we draw are based upon said sworn testimony.

    McCullough is one very stupid sob, but thank god he is.

  31. mespo727272 says:

    Anybody who thinks this indictment was handled like any other matter before the grand jury has never been involved in the process. The prosecutor did a classic evidence dump on the jurors letting them hear from all manner of witnesses both credible and incredible. He gave them a myriad of conflicting evidence along with testimony from a sympathetic target of the investigation and then said, “here you decide.” That’s what petit juries are for but when both sides are represented with professional advocates.
    Under the crafted guise of fairness he got the desired result. Welcome to justice with a thumb on the scale.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Anybody who thinks this indictment was handled like any other matter before the grand jury has never been involved in the process.”


      Thank you. Sometimes people have logs in their eye and therefore are unable to see what is before them. I of course don’t have your knowledge, or experience, but it was obvious from the first that in this case the “fix” was in. The prosecutor abdicated his responsibility, either from cowardice, or from collusion and I choose the latter, throwing in a good deal of stupid ineptitude.

  32. mespo727272 says:


    Like I’ve said all along this should have been decided with a public trial where it could all be hashed out. I’d like to know if Wilson is guilty or not but I’ll never know because the powers that be won’t let me know.

  33. Mark/Mike,

    As the oft quoted Delman O’Dell once said, “I’m with you fellas.”

  34. Elaine M. says:

    Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation

    that, if this case had gone to trial, could have been highlighted by prosecutors (not including the witnesses who appeared to contradict Wilson’s testimony):

    1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

    In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body — physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson’s testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. “I think it was his blood,” Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

    7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.

    In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown’s death, Wilson didn’t claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.

    Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn’t know what the item was, referring to it only as “something.” In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown’s hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.

  35. Elaine M. says:

    Regarding the behavior of a member of the non-grievance syndicate:

    Car Mows Down Protestor At Ferguson Rally In Minneapolis (VIDEO)

    A driver mowed down a protestor Tuesday at a rally in Minneapolis, where people were demonstrating against a grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Mo. police Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

    In footage shot by the Minnesota Star Tribune as well as another video obtained by local TV station KSTP, a driver could be seen plowing through a crowd of protestors and driving directly over one female demonstrator’s leg as she screamed in pain.

    • randyjet says:

      Elaine, In Texas, I could have pulled my pistol and shot and killed that driver. Concealed carry has some good things about it, as well as Texas law.

  36. Mike Spindell says:

    “In footage shot by the Minnesota Star Tribune as well as another video obtained by local TV station KSTP, a driver could be seen plowing through a crowd of protestors and driving directly over one female demonstrator’s leg as she screamed in pain.”

    Obviously the actions of a sane and sober individual confronted with the actions of a mob, or so some say.

  37. mespo727272 says:

    MIke S:

    This prosecutor should have recused himself. His police officer father died in the line-of-duty at the hands of an African-American suspect. He is closely aligned with the police department and even runs a support group for them. His judgment is questioned by a significant part of the population. That all spells recusal in most jurisdiction but in Ferguson ethical orthography is challenging to some.

  38. mespo727272 says:

    Mike S:

    I’m betting he’s from Wisconsin and has a four-letter first name.

  39. bron98 says:

    Help Natalie rebuild her business she lost to looters.

  40. Hey guys/ gals;

    Sorry for my outbursts – (for your all graciousness sake; but I dont desire any redaction of the “cat” callings). This thread premise is almost as bad (to me) as if someone put up an support Mitt. we have a Clear Channelist in the making.

    Blouise and you all nailed it this morning. We are the new age (only truth telling) mediums/ journalists.

    Via social media (including blogs) we are able ro get the truth out faster than the spin masters can draft their babbling BS.

    I’M living a saga that has taught me justice only comes from the system, when unity of U.S. socialites is strong nough to compel it to do so.

    Keep up the goodness (pursuit of truth) — Please? For it is what keeps me instilled with hope and curtails my raege desire and temptations of incivility

  41. bron98 says:

    It has been nice knowing you guys, I am going to commit suicide today and just wanted to say good bye and thanks for the interesting discussions.

    This is how I am going to do it:

    1. I am going to start the day by beating the shit out of a Muslim [I like Indians, not that I dont like Muslims, I just would feel more comfortable beating hell out of and stealing from them. They are in the news, you know] store owner and stealing a box of almond joys [smoking is bad for your health and you can still consume sugar in public].
    2. I am going to walk down the middle of the street.
    3. When a cop asks me to get on the sidewalk, I am going to tell him to fuck off and then I am going to walk up to his car and start punching him and grabbing for his weapon [I ate half the box of almond joys so I am on a sugar buzz].
    4. If he doesnt kill me at the car, I am going to start running away from him and when he gets out of the car and chases me [hopefully he will shoot me in the back and my wife and kids can sue for wrongful death since the last 6 years of progressive economic policy has been hard on the pocket book] I will stop and turn around.
    5. If I havent been shot in the back, I will start moving toward him disregarding his commands to stop until he does finally kill me. If by some miracle he doesnt shoot me before I reach him, I will put another beat down on him and I will grab his gun and wait for the other cops to show up. I am pretty sure that the new arrivals will take me out once I put a couple of rounds into the engine block of one of their cars.

    I just dont have the courage to put a gun to my own head.

    If by some miracle I survive, I will be back here once they give me computer privileges at the state mental facility.

  42. Bob Stone says:


    I commend you for having done enough research to know who Witness 40 is. Kudos and insert every other statement of praise here. You are truly in the top 1 percentile.

    Regarding Witness 40

    “I always wonder why it is in court if a woman’s a prostitute she has to have bad eyesight.” — Jim Garrison “JFK”

    Unlike Piaget Crenshaw and Dorian Johnson, her story didn’t change. Also, she kept a journal in which she recorded her recollection of that day. Also, she’s the only witness that personally saw Johnson lose that gold bracelet he was wearing in the robbery video during the altercation with Wilson.

    Regarding which cop is telling the truth; the radio transcript where Wilson has ID’d the suspects and calls for backup trumps both of them.

  43. bron98 says:

    maybe the 30 plus years I have on Michael Brown gives me a better perspective but all he had to do was walk to the curb and he would be alive today.

    How come Brown’s buddy didnt jump on Wilson when he [Wilson] was focused on Brown?

  44. Bob Stone says:


    It’s no cheap shot; it’s an outline of the moral reasoning at work.

  45. Bob Stone says:


    I wouldn’t care if Wilson had mascara on his face. You’re ignoring nearly all of the forensic evidence that supports Officer Wilson’s narrative and refutes the narrative of Johnson and other “hands up” witnesses.

    It’s as if Wilson came in a door and said “It’s freezing outside” and you saying “I don’t believe you, because you don’t have frostbite.”

    Try poking your head out the door and look at the evidence yourself.

  46. Bron,

    Wait until Black Friday and steal from a Walmart of you want the best news coverage. :mrgreen:

    Nice snark, btw.

  47. Bob Stone says:


    I do hope you know that this paragraph was crafted with you specifically in mind:

    Do you know what Trayvon Martin, Emmett Till, Sgt. Major Dan Page and all the other anecdotes about racism and class warfare in Ferguson or the rest of the country have to do with the actual guilt or innocence of Officer Wilson? Absolutely nothing—unless of course you’re a sucker for the association fallacy.

  48. Bob Stone says:


    Life is a cabaret old chum.

    Pleasant journey!

  49. Bob,

    I still find it interesting that you hinge Davis’ response being correct based on the “21 foot rule”. Which, aside from not being codified in any legal way I know of, is a scenario that involves an armed opponent, not an unarmed opponent as in this case. You also seem willing to ignore the prosecutions inept handling of the case. Guaranteed process should mean equitable process where the prosecution acts in good faith taking matters to the grand jury, not the time worn tactic of getting no true bill by doing an evidence dump and providing little or no framework to understand it or even defining the charges sought.

  50. Bob Stone says:

    “I still find it interesting that you hinge Davis’ response being correct based on the “21 foot rule””


    Honestly, I think the 21 foot rule popped out of my head simply because it was the last thing I heard while agreeing with an analyst on CNN.

    I hang my hat on the forensic evidence supporting Wilson’s narrative that hasn’t changed since his first interview.

  51. Bob Stone says:

    “Bob, You might try and explain why Brown would stop, and then charge at Wilson.”


    No, I might not; since the forensic evidence shows a blood trail supporting Wilson’s narrative.

    Hands up while approaching a cop with his gun drawn is not surrendering; not even in a parallel universe.

    Furthermore, comprehending the mind of Mike Brown at that moment is an exercise in irrelevance.

    • randyjet says:

      Bob, I did go and read a good part of what was released. The FACT is that twelve shots were fired in total. With only six hits one of which could have been from behind, the rest being from in front, that means that six shots missed, presumably while he was running away. The FACT is that there is that tape of two white construction workers who saw Brown with his hands up, surrendering. The one in the pink T-shirt is very upset the cop shot the kid while he was surrendering. That alone says Wilson is simply lying. I DO believe there was a physical altercation at the car, and Wilson was plenty upset. His rage must have really gotten going when he missed him so many times. It is obvious that he just wanted to finish the kid off. You are right in that the most important mindset is that of Wilson, not Brown. IT is clear from his ACTIONS which are corroborated by his own testimony and the physical evidence, that he had no desire to arrest Brown. Then we have the FACT that Wilson arrested a man for simply videotaping him. That was a CLEAR violation of the LAW. So I have to laugh at his post facto testimony he asked himself whether or not he had the legal right to shoot. He had no problem throwing his weight and authority around on weaker folks, so one can understand his reaction to a black kid shoving him down and telling him off.

      I suggest you look at ALL the facts, not just the ones that bolster your prejudice, and use some common sense of your knowledge of people.

  52. Slartibartfast says:


    Were Officer Wilson’s actions consistent with the behavior we should expect from law enforcement or did they demonstrate incompetence or worse? Mr. Brown may well have been a bad guy, but the police are supposed to be trained to deal with bad guys, so why did Officer Wilson make so many stupid mistakes?

    Here are just a few that I noticed:

    Putting the car in Park.

    Exiting the car to pursue at least two suspects (one clearly dangerous) without backup.

    Failing to properly request backup.

    Destroying evidence by washing the blood off of his hands.

    Given just these errors on his part, I’d say Officer Wilson is very lucky to be alive and should never be allowed to serve as a police officer again.

  53. National Bar Association calls for further federal investigations. Soon to depart USAG Holder confirms that the Department of Justice’s investigations continue; and he promises a push toward quick analysis.

    Prosecutor in Ferguson was required by any (ALL) sense of fairness – to recuse himself;

    but he DIDN”T!.

    See the smoking gun (pardon the pun) revelations about the Ferguson prosecutor.

  54. Mike Spindell says:

    “No, I might not; since the forensic evidence shows a blood trail supporting Wilson’s narrative.”

    The forensic evidence indeed. . Then again I suppose you don’t think much of the “Innocense Project” because you believe the police never make a mistake. You keep trumping forensic evidence as if it were a proven science, which it most certainly is not.

  55. Mike Spindell says:

    A quote from Bob’s dogged hero: Wilson: “At that time I gave myself another mental check: Can I shoot this guy? You know? Legally, can I? And the question that I answered myself was, I have to. If I don’t, he will kill me if he gets to me.” thus spoketh the 6’4″, 200 lbs. plus “hero” with a gun, as he faced an unarmed man from how many feet away. From the interview with George Stephanoupolis.

  56. Mike Spindell says:

    “National Bar Association calls for further federal investigations.”

    What do they know, from Bob’s perspective they’re just a bunch of hippie liberals with unfounded grievances.

  57. Here’s another grievance for ya….

    Andre Joshua, purported friend of witness 10 – reported shot dead, in the head and set on fire.

    Witness number 10 (possibly Dorian Johnson) – gave conflicting testimonies.

  58. Mike Spindell says:


    Ain’t it the truth! Some of us don’t…..or won’t realize what is going on.

  59. Mike Spindell says:

    Even Antonin Scalia would say this Grand Jury was improperly handled:

    Compare Scalia’s position on the role of a GJ:

    “It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”

    With the GJ position in Ferguson that Bob agrees with:

    “Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

    And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.

    As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.”

    It was all a put up job, as has been the whole investigation. Given this how “real” is all of the prosecution’s evidence?

  60. Bob Stone says:

    “His rage must have really gotten going when he missed him so many times. It is obvious that he just wanted to finish the kid off. ”


    I fail to see how you get to that conclusion based on everything that happened unless you brought it with you apriori.

    • randyjet says:

      Bob, I got that conclusion by looking at all the facts. Wilson admitted shooting at Brown as he was fleeing. It is safe to assume that all shots missed, until one nicked him. Then he turns around because he thinks that he cannot get away or outrun a bullet. Then as even you admitted, he raised his hands, and started towards Wilson. From the blood marks on the ground, he advanced about six steps. At which point Wilson continued firing and killed him and used most of all his ammo in the gun. The body wound up about 20′ away from where Wilson stated he had been if he stayed stationary while he was shooting. Now if he had been backing up, that would place the body much FARTHER away. How you can be threatened at that point by a guy you have shot a couple of times and is unarmed and is at such a distance is flatly absurd.

      It is very germane to look at Wilson’s mind and thought at the time, and in his past. He has a demonstrated propensity to act outside the law as is demonstrated by the case of his arresting a person who was video taping him. He is willing to lie and construct testimony to get a conviction of a person he does not like. So I had to laugh when I heard him say, I stopped to think if I had justification to shoot at Brown. That was the last thing on his mind! He was pissed off at this ni**er who hit him and he was going to get him. Let’s get real and use some common sense for a change. I don’t blame him a bit for being pissed off, but I do blame him for using deadly force against an unarmed suspect who was surrendering.

  61. Mike;

    As is evident by my case against Romney et. al.; I’m well versed in those damnation bent to ignore tge facts (where I’m blessed {as it were} with confessions and chief jystice guarantees for me)

    But the naysayers dont care about the facts; which pull the rug out from under their desired conclusions.

Comments are closed.