Jason Valentine
By Gene Howington
Jason Valentine, 35, of St. Louis, Missouri, was charged with ten counts of making a terrorist threat. That is one count for each of ten tweets Valentine allegedly made during the month of December with the intention of “frightening 10 or more people”. Making a terrorist threat is a felony that carries a potential seven year sentence for each charge in Missouri. According to The Guardian:
Several referred to New Year’s Eve as ‘kill a pig night’, according to a probable cause statement released on Thursday by the St Louis circuit attorney, which claimed Valentine ‘used the slang “pig” … to describe police officers” and was threatening to kill them.
One tweet allegedly said: ‘St Louis City Justice Center Mysteriously Exploded 12/31/2014’. Prosecutors charge that was a threat to cause an explosion at the building. Their statement said police ‘considered these threats to be serious in nature’ and claimed that ‘kill a pig night’ had ‘gained momentum nationally’.
Another tweet allegedly used the hashtag “#KillJeffRoorda”. Roorda, the business manager of the St Louis Police Officers Association, is a prominent supporter of Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot dead Michael Brown after an altercation on 9 August.”
But does any of this actually constitute a terrorist threat?
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), SCOTUS held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. The so-called Brandenburg Test has three elements:
1) intent,
2) imminence, and
3) likelihood.
As a consequence, government cannot constitutionally punish (the next word is important) abstract advocacy of force or law violation and that the “mere advocacy” of any doctrine (including ones that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation) was per se protected speech. The Brandenburg imminent lawless action standard is still the standard today and has been since 1969.
Calling for a “kill the pig night” sure sounds like per se protected speech. There may have been intent, but imminence and likelihood are a stretch as that seems to be mere advocacy. “St Louis City Justice Center Mysteriously Exploded 12/31/2014” isn’t even a sentence with a verb, just a mock headline with an adverb. None of what was reported by The Guardian seems to readily meet the Brandenburg criteria, but let us consider the tweets as listed in the probable cause statement released by the St. Louis circuit attorney.
- On 12/3/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “St. Louis City Justice Center Mysteriously Exploded 12/31/2014 #Ferguson #VonderritMyers Shawtown 211MOB 2014Riots. Free all my Niggas”.
- Again, not even a real sentence let alone imminent or likely. An abstraction.
- On 12/6/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “Get $ Kill DW. Fukk Police. 12/31/2014. Kill a pig Night. $$$$$. HAPPY NEW YEARS EVE 211MOB SHAWTOWN RIP LIL DROOP #VonderritMyers”.
- This could be construed as offering a bounty and possibly could be a threat with some chance of likelihood but I think imminence is up for grabs. However, the vague nature of the alleged offer is problematic and could be considered abstract.
- On 12/6/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “12/31/14 Kill a pig night in Stl. #Ferguson #VonderritMyers 211MOB Shawtown #KillJeffRoorda #KillDW Fuck12 Happy New Years Eve. $”.
- Per se protected advocacy in the abstract.
- On 12/6/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “Kill a pig Night in St. Louis 12/31/2014 pick a side or stay. Home #Ferguson #VonderritMyers Rip Lil Droop Shawtown 211MOB”.
- Per se protected advocacy in the abstract.
- On 12/8/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “Kill a pig Night 12/31/2014 Fuck12 211MOB Shawtown Rip Lil Droop #VonderritMyers #Ferguson#Shaw”.
- Per se protected advocacy in the abstract.
- On 12/11/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “Fukk the STLPOA Kill a pig Night 12/31/2014 #Ferguson #VonderritMyers Shawtown 211MOB 2015 Riots Get $”.
- Per se protected advocacy in the abstract.
- On 12/11/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “Fukk 12 Kill a pig Night 12/31/2014 #Ferguson #VonderritMyers #NoJusticeNoChristmas Shawtown 211Mob”.
- Per se protected advocacy in the abstract.
- On 12/14/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “All u Uncle Tom ASS NiggaZ Dead too Pick a side Bitch Kill A Pig Night 12/31/2014 #Shaw pic.twitter.com/J9kryyTemq #Ferguson #VonderritMyers”.
- Per se protected advocacy in the abstract.
- On 12/14/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “Fuck 12 and u. PICK A sidE or die with em. #Ferguson #VonderritMyers Shawtown 211MOB New Years Eve Massacre Kill a Pig Night 12/31/2014”.
- Per se protected advocacy in the abstract.
- On 12/14/2014 defendant using user handle @jdstl314 posted to twitter “Fuck12 the KKK and u if u haven’t picked a side #Ferguson #VonderritMyers Shawtown 211MOB 12/31/3014 Kill A Pig Night”.
- That isn’t even a threat in the abstract but rather an invitation to self-fornicate.
In light of Brandenburg, it seems that the prosecution here faces an uphill battle at best and getting tossed for failure to state a claim at worst (although that is extremely unlikely to happen). Is Valentine a shit disturber? Probably. Does he pose a threat of imminent lawless action? Probably not. Is this a legitimate prosecution or a simple attempt at intimidation by the local authorities?
What do you think?
Source(s): The Guardian, Probable Cause Statement
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
Valentine will be serving a lot of time unless he is able to get a lawyer who can make the argument that you did. Even then, given the power structure of the county, he is still likely to serve time unless he can turn white.
Are the cops learning? or is this just proof of racism in the ranks?
http://www.alternet.org/white-woman-goes-shooting-spree-yet-somehow-isnt-automatically-killed-police?paging=off¤t_page=1
bk,
On the plus side, Brandenburg is standard fare if you graduated law school any time after 1969, so if they don’t know the standard or can’t find out what it is, shame on ’em.
Gene, there you go thinking like a lawyer. This is not about convictions or acquittals. It is about intimidation. I read a diary on Daily Kos about the law showing up at a guy’s house at 1:00 AM, pounding on the door, shining flashlights through the windows. No warrant or anything, just sending a message.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/30/1354745/-To-Discipline-and-Punish-Milwaukee-Police-Make-Late-Night-Visit
The issue is that the meaning of imminence has been switched from about to happen to possibly/certainly happening, as evidenced by the administration’s use of it to justify droning any person “of a certain age” in Yemen and Pakistan.
Our whole foreign policy now relies on that switch in meaning …and it is obvious to me that it is a usage that will be established as precedent in criminal court.
As the mass protests become more vehement against the abuses of the system, and the system goes back hard at them in order to attempt making an example of some, intent, imminence and likelihood will become undiscernible one from the other, which means that everyone could be successfully prosecuted for terrorism based on anything.
Didn’t someone post something recently about a man facing prison time for rap lyrics that were deemed terroristic?
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
A little history on race relations in the St. Louis area.
http://pando.com/2014/09/25/ferguson-is-our-libertarian-moment-but-not-in-the-way-some-libertarians-want-you-to-believe/
http://www.unz.org/Pub/Reason-1981aug-00018?View=PDF
Haven’t checked but it’s probably on fox this morning as I type.
And what** bettykath** said.ditto.
Gene, I guess we can hope that the prosecutor remembers but wouldn’t it have been the prosecutor that make the charges? I know, not necessarily. The law is different depending on your economic status or the color of your skin. It would be easy for a prosecutor to forget Brandenburg.
Seems that I’ve lost a bit of grammar along the way. it’s not my brain, it’s my fingers that don’t translate brain to keyboard very accurately.
BettyKath’s link beginning this thread is apropos of the entire debate going on about police violence and police abuses. Police apologists invariably cite two lines of defends to deflect away from any criticism of police action. The first is some sort of imminent danger to the officers and the second being that the ethnicity of the person killed was irrelevant. In this instance though a middle-aged white women wearing body armorial was shooting at people randomly and brandished her gun at police. By all rights they should have shot her and had they done so I would understand it. They took her into custody without incident. Had she been a person of Colorado they would have riddled her with bullets and the police apologists would parrot the line that race had nothing to do with it.
armorial = armor
Colorado = color
Dammed Kindle!
Here’s another f’rinstance. These two men figured out how to shoot bb’s and not get killed – they’re white. It looks to me that cops know how to capture armed bad guys who happen to be white but are absolutely clueless when it comes to unarmed Black men.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/two-men-shoot-up-walmart-threaten-customers-with-bb-gun-arent-shot-by-police-for-some-reason/comments/#disqus
“The two men exited the store before police arrived, but officers and sheriff’s deputies were able to set up a perimeter and take them into custody without incident.
“According to police, the two men were charged with aggravated assault, discharging a firearm in city limits, and malicious damage to property.”
“Thus, for example, a State may punish those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra , at 572, 62 S.Ct. 766 ; see also R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, supra , at 383, 112 S.Ct. 2538 [***552] (listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech). We have consequently held that fighting words”those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction”are generally proscribable under the First Amendment. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 , 91 S.Ct. 1780 , 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra , at 572, 62 S.Ct. 766 . Furthermore, “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 , 89 S.Ct. 1827 , 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam). And the First Amendment also permits a State to ban a “true threat.” Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 , 89 S.Ct. 1399 , 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (per curiam)[**1548] (internal quotation marks omitted); accord, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, supra , at 388, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (“[T]hreats of violence are outside the First Amendment”); Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 774 , 114 S.Ct. 2516 , 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U.S. 357, 373 , 117 S.Ct. 855 , 137 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997).
“True threats” encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. See Watts v. United States, supra , at 708, 89 S.Ct. 1399 (“political hyberbole” is not a true threat); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S., at 388 , 112 S.Ct. 2538 . The [*360] speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats “protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence” and “from the disruption that fear engenders,” in addition to protecting people “from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.” Ibid. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so. As noted in Part II, supra, the history of cross burning in this country shows that cross burning is often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence. (Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, (2003))
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Virginia_v_Black_538_US_343_123_S_Ct_1536_155_L_Ed_2d_535_2003_Co/2
Oh, forgot to mention; Valentine’s tweets look like true threats to me.
Mike Spindell: “Police apologists invariably cite two lines of defends (sic) to deflect away from any criticism of police action. The first is some sort of imminent danger to the officers and the second being that the ethnicity of the person killed was irrelevant.”
Thus, according to Mike, the negative implication here is that most police killings are driven by the dark forces of racism.
Of course you would, Bob. He was talking about your dog(s).
Is that your legal opinion Gene? Regarding “true threats”?
Bob,
Exactly. Most police killings of unarmed individuals are due to racism. I’m glad you understand my position just as I understand yours, which is police have the right to use deadlyy force when dealing with unarmed people whenever they choose, as long as they can lie about being under attack. You are simply a dog lover.
“Most police killings of unarmed individuals are due to racism.”
“I want the light of God, I want the sweet love of Jesus! I danced for the Devil; I saw him, I wrote in his book; I go back to Jesus; I kiss His hand. I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!”
Same thing.
Bob,
The issue isn’t “true threat” but rather the Brandenburg test, however, those are my grammatical opinions as to whether they are direct and substantive (like cross burning) or rhetoric (like fake headlines and statements of general advocacy). The only tweet arguably a substantive direct threat is the second which could possibly be construed as an offer of bounty (as noted). The rest? Are no different than some hothead saying “White House Explodes 3/17/15” or that “Someone should shoot President Obama.” Which, hey, somebody was actually picked up for saying something like that last one online. Guess where that case went? Nowhere.
But then again . . . white guy . . . just sayin’.
Citizens are not required to like the police let alone treat them as sacred cows in public discourse, Bob. If they have personally had a long line of bad experience, I expect their views on the police to be as biased as yours. My experience is somewhat more moderate than either bias. In my experience, a lot of cops are just trying to do (an increasingly) difficult job(s), but some of them are only different from the criminals in that they carry a badge and a gun and get preferential treatment from the system if and when caught. Some are simply apathetic. In other words, some are good people, some are indifferent people, and some are bad people, no different than any other people. But I’m not biased one way or the other, so you
can’twon’t go by me.My question here was “what do you think” which you kindly answered.
Thanks for playing.
Gene,
Your whole “Bob has a pro-cop bias” is a load of crap since it’s really short hand for “I don’t have a legal counter argument.”
A lot has happened since Brandenburg Gene, and the fine tuning of “true threats” is just part of it.
Your “grammatical opinions” comment smacks of a desire to impose a subjective intent test.
SCOTUS is currently considering whether subjective intent of the speaker controls.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/
Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for the Court to impose a mind-reading requirement.
Bob
Do you agree that there is an increased level of threat cops feel when dealing with colored people?
Po,
Is statistical reality is the only reality? If so, then judgment and decision are not only superfluous but impossible.
And not for nothing Po, but that’s an incredibly sophomoric question.
Actually, no, that is accurate in re your bias. I just happen to actually understand English in great detail is why I’m sure those are statements of general advocacy and not actual threats, your biased reading skills notwithstanding. Has any specificity been made in those statements? No. Is there imminence or likelihood? No. And we are left with hashtags. A hashtag isn’t a fucking sentence, Bob. As for fighting words? I suggest you re-read the law on that matter. The words “from their target” are important.
Again: Citizens are not required to like the police let alone treat them as sacred cows in public discourse, Bob. No matter how much you might personally disapprove.
Unless of course you are arguing that Valentine was trying to incite the cops to kill him, in which case, carry on with your fighting words argument.
Burning crosses aren’t sentences either Gene; but they constitute true threats.
Bob, sophomoric question perhaps, and perhaps required…
What’s your answer? In every realm you choose, personal, statistical… you define the zones, you define the terms, you define the eras…you even define the breed of dogs… just give me an answer.
Po,
The NYPD is 60% black and other minority.
Would you say your sweeping generalization applies to the NYPD?
Bob Stone says:
January 2, 2015 at 7:02 pm
Burning crosses aren’t sentences either Gene; but they constitute true threats.
———————————–
Criminally?
Again, substantive versus rhetoric, Bob.
Because by the imbecilic rationale you’re pushing here, I think you’ll need to be arresting all the members of N.W.A. for this lil’ ditty:
Also, objective is just fine in re intent, however, there is more than simply intent to Brandenburg.
No Gene,
That’s an over simplification of my argument.
A work of art does not constitute a “true threat” — they’re not locking up film makers for depicting scenes of terrorism and crime now are they.
Your “counter” arguments grow tiresome.
Simple is as simple does, Bob. Reductionist argument tactics now require your approval too? Interesting.
I’ll answer your question after you answer mine, Bob. Go ahead, it won’t bite you!
Really, Bob? It’s the same kind of language done over mass media. Whether or not it is art is up for debate, but the content is almost identical.
The study, based on Census data and 2007 federal figures for police diversity, shows that:
Whites make up 33 percent of New York City’s population and 54 percent of the NYPD.
Blacks represent 23 percent of the city’s population and 16 percent of the NYPD.
Hispanics make up 28 percent of the city’s population and 24 percent of the NYPD.
Asians represent 13 percent of the population and 4 percent of the NYPD.
The NYPD’s own most-recent numbers show that, as of June 2014, the department has become even more diverse since 2007.
Whites make up 51 percent of the department, Hispanics 26 percent and Asians 6 percent, with the percentage of blacks about the same, according to the newer figures.
http://nypost.com/2014/09/08/nypd-is-as-diverse-as-new-york-city-itself/
“…60% black and other minorities…”, when the issue is black and not other minorities!?
In light of the fact that blacks make up only 16% of the NYPD, and I suspect even less of other PDs across the country…here I go again:
Bob
Do you agree that there is an increased level of threat cops feel when dealing with black people?
Po,
Considering this recent mythology concerning racist cops killing unarmed black kids traces back to Ferguson, tell me what happened between Officer Wilson and Mike Brown.
Mind you that failing to read the evidence would be considered “reckless disregard for the truth” — should you recite a claim that has been proven to be a lie by forensic evidence.
And finally, by what principle do you justify concluding that all/most cops are racist — based on unproved allegations from such a small sampling?
By the principles you’ve adopted in your anti-police rhetoric, I’d be justified in concluding that since most terrorists are Muslims then most Muslims are terrorists.
It’s time to grow up Po.
Gene,
I cite you case law, you respond with ipse dixit.
What more is there to say?
Bob,
You cite case law that in no way invalidates the principles found in the Brandenburg test. Your “argument” isn’t actually. Show imminence and likelihood. Intent alone is insufficient.
So put that in your ipse dixit, pardner.
What’s your conclusion from the figures Elaine?
Wait, don’t tell me. You have no conclusions; you just posted that at random.
Bob Stone says:
January 2, 2015 at 9:32 pm
Po,
“Considering this recent mythology concerning racist cops killing unarmed black kids traces back to Ferguson, tell me what happened between Officer Wilson and Mike Brown.”
———–
Not my question, Bob, and not my topic.
“Mind you that failing to read the evidence would be considered “reckless disregard for the truth” — should you recite a claim that has been proven to be a lie by forensic evidence.”
————–
no claim, Bob, just a question.
“And finally, by what principle do you justify concluding that all/most cops are racist — based on unproved allegations from such a small sampling?”
—————
No such conclusion, Bob, just a question to you about whether or not YOU agree or disagree as to the belief that there is an increased level of threat felt by cops when dealing with black people.
“By the principles you’ve adopted in your anti-police rhetoric, I’d be justified in concluding that since most terrorists are Muslims then most Muslims are terrorists.”
———–
1- no such principles
2- not anti- police (almost joined the force but felt I wasn’t cut out for it, feared losing my humanity seeing what human beings do to one another…)
3- Being justified emotionally makes it not reality. You can conclude whatever you want based on any false premise, says more about you than it does about reality.
You had to create a false narrative, put in my mouth, then use it to derive a conclusion that seeks to further placate me. problem is, I did not say that which you accuse me of having said. So, wouldn’t it be just easier for you respond to my question? Ain’t it straightforward enough?
“The NYPD is 60% black and other minority.” – Bob
“Blacks represent 23 percent of the city’s population and 16 percent of the NYPD.
Hispanics make up 28 percent of the city’s population and 24 percent of the NYPD.
Asians represent 13 percent of the population and 4 percent of the NYPD.” – cite by Elaine
16+24+4=44, thus leading to the conclusion that your math skills are apparently on par with your reading skills.
“You cite case law that in no way invalidates the principles found in the Brandenburg test. ”
Why must I invalidate the principles in Brandenburg to analyze the case properly? After all, that’s exactly what they did in the case I cited.
Well, for one thing, Brandenburg is still controlling law and your “analysis” defies basic fundamentals of language use.
Gene: “16+24+4=44, thus leading to the conclusion that your math skills are apparently on par with your reading skills.”
“Hispanics 26 percent and Asians 6 percent, with the percentage of blacks about the same, [i.e. 16%] according to the newer figures.”
26+6+16 = 48%
What were you saying about your reading and math skills Gene?
Not a single thing said cannot be cast with the “political hyperbole” marker, Bob.
Nothing wrong with the math there, Bob. My typing, however, sucks. However, that doesn’t address that your 60% figure was apparently pulled out of your ass.
However, not as bad as your reading sucks.
“16 percent of the NYPD.” + “24 percent of the NYPD.” + “4 percent of the NYPD.” still equals 44.
Flustered much?
The first rule of law is to read.
The second rule of law is to read on.
You failed to follow the second rule of law Gene; i.e. when you said “Asians represent 13 percent of the population and 4 percent of the NYPD.”
Ah, so when your insult backfires in your face, revealing you as the one who doesn’t read, it’s just a typo. Gotcha.
And not for nothing, since half of the NYPD is not white, my argument still stands.
“A trident with one prong is a spear and a donut with no hole is a danish.” – Ty Webb
“Not my question, Bob, and not my topic.”
What is your topic Po and how did it come about?
“Whites make up 33 percent of New York City’s population and 54 percent of the NYPD.” – cite by Elaine.
“And not for nothing, since half of the NYPD is not white, my argument still stands.” – Bob
I’m not sure what kind of bad acid you’ve been given, but anywhere outside of bat country, Bob, 54>50.
My conclusion about Elaine’s figures?
That you were trying to cloud the debate by trying to show the NYPD as less white and more colored, and you did that by refusing to address the white figures and the black figures, which contrasted would have not suited your point. By including “minority” percentages together, you inflated the black figures artificially by making them seem larger than they are.
Problem (1) is:
“The NYPD is 60% black and other minority.” that was a sleek move, Bob!
All of that in support of your unstated point that if the NYPD is such a mixed force, my premise of racism driven behavior is rendered moot by the fact that the NYPD is a white minority, or by the fact that the non-white majority of the force is responsible for most of the “racist driven” issues.
Problem (2) is that I never referred to the NYPD, I spoke generally about cops across the nation.
In response to your question Po,
“Do you agree that there is an increased level of threat cops feel when dealing with colored people?”
I say the answer is no.
Also, I didn’t say “typo”. You inferred “typo”. My typing does suck. Just not as bad as your math and reading skills. I specifically stated there was nothing wrong with the math.
Ooo. Watch it wiggle.
Also, 54% is not a minority.
Seriously, Bob. I’ve argued with and against you many times over the years, but on this one subject? It’s as if you are completely unhinged. Everyone has a blind spot though. I guess your dogs is yours.
Po,
By what principle are you basing your analysis and conclusions?
Or should I say, how is it different from one concluding that since most terrorists are Muslims then most Muslims are terrorists?
Amphiboly Gene?
Cut the crap.
“…54% is not a minority.”
It is if you are a Democrat and a member of Congress.
“In the uniformed ranks, it’s virtually 50-50 [white vs. non-white],” NYPD spokesman Stephen Davis told The Post
Half.
Also, 51% is still not a minority.
“Also, 51% is still not a minority.”
Yes, those white cops run the joint don’t ya know.
Let’s see what other bullshit we can pile on top of your baseless allegations.
Oh, I know; I’m sure those white racist cops get the Jews to run the money for them too.
“Mitch McConnell explodes at midnight. #turtlesallthewaydown #fuckmitch”
Tanner was racist; therefore all the Bears were racist. Brilliant.
Now you’re just being silly, Bob.
A relatively homogenous block of 51% can exert more control over an organization than their raw numbers represent, especially when three other disparate (although relatively internally homogenous) groups compose the remaining 49%. That? Is just organizational psychology.
And the Jews control all the money; right Gene?
Also, why are you so fixated on race again, Bob? The original column has nothing to do with the racism element and indeed the only racist language mentioned is Valentine’s. I didn’t say the prosecution here was racist. I asked if everyone thought is was being deliberately intimidating for charges that they have (at best) an uphill challenge to successfully prosecute.
That “Jews/money” remark earns you a sincere “fuck you”, Bob.
“Also, why are you so fixated on race again, Bob?”
Oh, maybe it’s because a few people started a fucking race war based on the claims of a pathological liar because they were all too willing to use the non-debatable indictment of racism as a political tool; the Good Lord’s injunctions to the contrary notwithstanding?
That “Jews/money” remark is apropos; considering the Archie Bunker level of thought being tossed around regarding cops being racist killers.
Race war? Really? You must be reading different news outlets than me, Bob, or have a very different definition of the word “war” and/or a very poor memory of how this situation compares to racially charged events of the past like the Watts Riots (34 deaths, 1,032 injuries, 3,438 arrests, and over $40 million in property damage) or the LA riots (53 people killed and over 2,000 people were injured, estimates of property damage was over $1 billion).
Seriously, man, don’t take the brown acid.
Did I say cops were racist killers, you dumbass?
No.
Try again.
“In light of Brandenburg, it seems that the prosecution here faces an uphill battle at best and getting tossed for failure to state a claim at worst (although that is extremely unlikely to happen). Is Valentine a shit disturber? Probably. Does he pose a threat of imminent lawless action? Probably not. Is this a legitimate prosecution or a simple attempt at intimidation by the local authorities?
What do you think?”
Does any of that mention race or cop killing, Bob?
If anything, this column was about prosecutorial abuse in using the system to intimidate with felony charges highly unlikely to stick through trial much less appeal.
Really Gene?
The entire Valentine case now exists in a vacuum?
No context; eh?
It has context, Bob, just not the hyperbolic context you seem to want. It is also a materially substantially different case despite being rooted in the Wilson/Brown shooting. It’s at its heart a free speech case, not a homicide (rightful or otherwise).
Looks more like the prosecution was a necessity due to the Jared Loughner turned loose last December by a certain portion of the political spectrum bearing false witness against cops.
Bob,
Where did you get the 60% figure? What conclusion should I draw about that?
I apologize for the 60% — okay?
I heard it on the radio a few weeks ago while Christmas shopping.
I understand you’re butt hurt that no one was buying what you were selling vis a vis Wilson (but your buddy who got shown the door for being disruptive and trollish)? But you, my friend, have lost all critical perspective on the matter if you insist on framing this particular case as being about “racist killer cops”. It has a tangential relationship, but that is it.
You guys remember Jared Loughner; right?
And you remember the principles you relied on in your arguments as to why Palin and Limbaugh shared responsibility for the shooting of Gabbie Giffords; right?
They were specifically urging “2nd Amendment remedies”, Bob. And no one argued they were legally culpable that I recall, only morally culpable. Legal and moral and/or ethical are not the same thing and you know it.
BTW, I agreed with the principles applied in the analysis of the Loughner shooting. However, I, like Mark, didn’t think they quite fit the fact pattern.
But regarding those principles and the higher standard of care required of public officials….
I’ll leave you all with this:
Excerpt:
“The “Hands up, don’t shoot!” slogan is a fraudulent rendition of the Michael Brown shooting, but it is clearly political speech presumably intended, however wrongheadedly, to advance policy arguments about institutional racism and police brutality. It may not be forbidden. The state does, however, have the power to forbid it from being yelled outside my bedroom window at 2 o’clock in the morning. And it has a duty to forbid it from morphing into calls for killing police and a license to shut down major thoroughfares — such that police, fire-fighters, and ambulances cannot respond to emergencies, people cannot get to their jobs and homes, and merchants cannot operate their businesses.
People who organize mobs knowing full well that eruptions of violence are foreseeable are culpable when violence erupts. You want to say they are not guilty of murder? Fine, but that should not absolve their contributory responsibility for the loss of life that predictably occurs. The same goes for others who incite the mob: those who call for the killing of cops. They are not equally as culpable as the murderer. That’s why our law punishes murder more harshly than it does incitement. But those who incite are proportionately responsible — and when what they are inciting is atrocious, they should be regarded as atrocious, too.
Public officials also bear responsibility because they have special duties. They are keepers of the order that must be assured if liberty is to thrive. They are not like the average 21-year-old anthropology major bemoaning the police because “black lives matter” — notwithstanding that the cops protect millions of black lives while the nitwit student protects none. When public officials signal to the mob that its anger is so justified that its criminal behavior, even if not exactly condoned, will be rationalized, minimized, or ignored, they are facilitating criminality. So of course they should be deemed contributorily culpable when the criminality happens.
To say that the mayor, the attorney general, and the president are not guilty of last weekend’s murders of two police officers is not to say they are blameless. To distinguish them from the murderer is not to pronounce them suitable for the weighty public trusts they hold. There is guilt here to be apportioned. Apportioning it is not collectivizing it — it is not engaging in the same convoluted demagoguery that blamed Sarah Palin’s electioneering for a mass-murder in Tucson by a man with a history of mental illness, or that blamed bourgeois America for the killing of John F. Kennedy by a Communist.
A radical movement has openly called for the killing of cops. The officials responsible for keeping order abdicated their duties, and cops predictably started being assaulted and killed. We should not tar all the culpable actors with the same brush, but we should absolutely hold them accountable for what they have done.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395389/whos-blame-nypd-killings-andrew-c-mccarthy/page/0/1
Was Jason Valentine “organizing a mob”?
Or was he a frustrated guy ranting at the Twitter-verse?
He certainly wasn’t a crazy person who went and killed people himself.
No crazy person acted on his ranting as evidenced by no STL cops dying on the date in question and the STL City Justice Center is still not energetically disassembled.
But if the National Review has something to say about it? Well then, I just may get the vapors. I wouldn’t use that neocon rag to line a cat box. The cats would look at me like like “Poop on this? That would be redundant!”
Bob Stone says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:11 pm
Po,
By what principle are you basing your analysis and conclusions?
————————
If by conclusion you mean that cops seem to feel more threatened when facing a black person than a white person, then the analysis in informed by the evidence that cops respond more violently when facing a black man.
Or should I say, how is it different from one concluding that since most terrorists are Muslims then most Muslims are terrorists?
——————–
yes, it is different. According to the FBI, Muslims committed only 6% of terrorism in the US, right above communists. So, not most terrorists are muslims.
On the other hand, most cops killing of black men were committed by cops 🙂
Secondly, NO ONE is claiming that all/most cops are racist, which is what you keep reasserting. I, and others, are saying that most killing of black men by cops are due to racism, whether that racism is unconscious, systematic or personal.
Stop and frisk is racist
Black cops in civilian clothes are stopped and frisked routinely.
Black cops in civilian clothing fear being shot before identifying themselves as cops
Blacks cops have reported their white supervisors for inciting increased targeting and arrests of black and brown men, with recordings as proof.
Bob,
The funkiness National Review, seriously. Do you knowing anything about that rag, or its first publisher William A. Rusher? Perhaps it’s any port in the storm that shelters your bias.
Fucking not funkiness.
Damn Kindle.
Mike,
I have the same funkiness problem all the time. Try to remember to sight read it before hitting the post icon.
Bob, “In the uniformed ranks, it’s virtually 50-50 [white vs. non-white],” NYPD spokesman Stephen Davis told The Post
Who are the guys in the white shirts? One of the problems is the management.
You can’t just look at the folks at the bottom. You need to see who’s directing the action. Who’s doing the hiring. Who’s setting up the training. It sure isn’t the guy in the uniform.
Blouise,
I’m far to impulsive to proof read.
Mike
funkiness
terroristic threat with funkiness
Pete 🙂
Gene: But if the National Review has something to say about it? Well then, I just may get the vapors. I wouldn’t use that neocon rag to line a cat box. The cats would look at me like like “Poop on this? That would be redundant!”
Mike: The [fucking] National Review, seriously. Do you knowing anything about that rag, or its first publisher William A. Rusher? Perhaps it’s any port in the storm that shelters your bias.
Gene and Mike resorting to ad hominem, i.e. Poisoning the Well, as a means of resolving their cognitive dissonance is perhaps the greatest compliment they could pay to the truth of the matters asserted in the excerpt of the article I posted.
No, Bob, it’s called considering the source of the opinion. I don’t value what World News Daily or the National Enquirer say either.
No Gene, it’s called cognitive dissonance. The author set forth an eloquent analysis employing the same principles you relied upon in your analysis of the Loughner shootings. Dismissing the truth of the matters asserted by ignoring the arguments and attacking the institution that happened to publish it is the tactic of a child in the midst of a tantrum.
Prove me wrong Gene.
Assume I wrote these words myself or they were printed by an institution you tend to trust.
Show me how it’s nonsense — paragraph by paragraph.
“The “Hands up, don’t shoot!” slogan is a fraudulent rendition of the Michael Brown shooting, but it is clearly political speech presumably intended, however wrongheadedly, to advance policy arguments about institutional racism and police brutality. It may not be forbidden. The state does, however, have the power to forbid it from being yelled outside my bedroom window at 2 o’clock in the morning. And it has a duty to forbid it from morphing into calls for killing police and a license to shut down major thoroughfares — such that police, fire-fighters, and ambulances cannot respond to emergencies, people cannot get to their jobs and homes, and merchants cannot operate their businesses.
People who organize mobs knowing full well that eruptions of violence are foreseeable are culpable when violence erupts. You want to say they are not guilty of murder? Fine, but that should not absolve their contributory responsibility for the loss of life that predictably occurs. The same goes for others who incite the mob: those who call for the killing of cops. They are not equally as culpable as the murderer. That’s why our law punishes murder more harshly than it does incitement. But those who incite are proportionately responsible — and when what they are inciting is atrocious, they should be regarded as atrocious, too.
Public officials also bear responsibility because they have special duties. They are keepers of the order that must be assured if liberty is to thrive. They are not like the average 21-year-old anthropology major bemoaning the police because “black lives matter” — notwithstanding that the cops protect millions of black lives while the nitwit student protects none. When public officials signal to the mob that its anger is so justified that its criminal behavior, even if not exactly condoned, will be rationalized, minimized, or ignored, they are facilitating criminality. So of course they should be deemed contributorily culpable when the criminality happens.
To say that the mayor, the attorney general, and the president are not guilty of last weekend’s murders of two police officers is not to say they are blameless. To distinguish them from the murderer is not to pronounce them suitable for the weighty public trusts they hold. There is guilt here to be apportioned. Apportioning it is not collectivizing it — it is not engaging in the same convoluted demagoguery that blamed Sarah Palin’s electioneering for a mass-murder in Tucson by a man with a history of mental illness, or that blamed bourgeois America for the killing of John F. Kennedy by a Communist.
A radical movement has openly called for the killing of cops. The officials responsible for keeping order abdicated their duties, and cops predictably started being assaulted and killed. We should not tar all the culpable actors with the same brush, but we should absolutely hold them accountable for what they have done.”
Also, as a technical matter, The National Review isn’t a person but rather an institution. One can fault an institution for inherent shortcomings outside the permissible use of character arguments found with hearsay. One cannot use fallacious ad hominem against an institution, only individuals.
The only cognitive dissonance I see going on here is your blind raging bias.
That you wish to see that in others is simple projection.
“Also, as a technical matter, The National Review isn’t a person but rather an institution. One can fault an institution for inherent shortcomings outside the permissible use of character arguments found with hearsay. One cannot use fallacious ad hominem against an institution, only individuals.”
You poisoned the well Gene; attacking the author via the publisher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Repetition is a key to comedy, Bob.
It is not, however, a way to make an argument about apples apply to an argument about oranges.
The primary difference is that Palin called for violence with a greater degree of specificity and (unusually for her) using whole sentences. She also has the fact that her social position grants her a certain cachet of authority whereas Jason Valentine is just some random jackass that has no real authority at all. With that mantle of authority comes far greater access to media outlets than simply raging at Twitter. She was on TV and all over the Web spewing her “electioneering” for weeks leading up to the Giffords shooting. You are comparing a media gnat to a media grizzly. Scale matters, especially when dealing with the propagation of a meme.
And just so you know, I’m going to laugh at you every single time you rely on the NR as a source.
They’re as biased and unreliable as Pravda.
Again, you nor the NR have addressed imminence and likelihood. As a matter of scale in mass communication? Palin was far more of a danger of creating an imminent and likely lawless action than some dude from the hood.
Sorry, Bob. You brought an unreliable biased source to bear. That there was naturally a repercussion is just par for the course. Only some consider poisoning the well an informal fallacy. Others view it as recognizing a crap source when they see one. The National Review is a crap source in my book. I suggest you learn to deal with it.
Gene,
Was I comparing Palin to Valentine? No, you changed the subject.
One last chance:
The author set forth an eloquent analysis employing the same principles you relied upon in your analysis of the Loughner shootings. Dismissing the truth of the matters asserted by ignoring the arguments and attacking the institution that happened to publish it is the tactic of a child in the midst of a tantrum.
Prove me wrong Gene.
Assume I wrote these words myself or they were printed by an institution you tend to trust.
Show me how it’s nonsense — paragraph by paragraph.
“The “Hands up, don’t shoot!” slogan is a fraudulent rendition of the Michael Brown shooting, but it is clearly political speech presumably intended, however wrongheadedly, to advance policy arguments about institutional racism and police brutality. It may not be forbidden. The state does, however, have the power to forbid it from being yelled outside my bedroom window at 2 o’clock in the morning. And it has a duty to forbid it from morphing into calls for killing police and a license to shut down major thoroughfares — such that police, fire-fighters, and ambulances cannot respond to emergencies, people cannot get to their jobs and homes, and merchants cannot operate their businesses.
People who organize mobs knowing full well that eruptions of violence are foreseeable are culpable when violence erupts. You want to say they are not guilty of murder? Fine, but that should not absolve their contributory responsibility for the loss of life that predictably occurs. The same goes for others who incite the mob: those who call for the killing of cops. They are not equally as culpable as the murderer. That’s why our law punishes murder more harshly than it does incitement. But those who incite are proportionately responsible — and when what they are inciting is atrocious, they should be regarded as atrocious, too.
Public officials also bear responsibility because they have special duties. They are keepers of the order that must be assured if liberty is to thrive. They are not like the average 21-year-old anthropology major bemoaning the police because “black lives matter” — notwithstanding that the cops protect millions of black lives while the nitwit student protects none. When public officials signal to the mob that its anger is so justified that its criminal behavior, even if not exactly condoned, will be rationalized, minimized, or ignored, they are facilitating criminality. So of course they should be deemed contributorily culpable when the criminality happens.
To say that the mayor, the attorney general, and the president are not guilty of last weekend’s murders of two police officers is not to say they are blameless. To distinguish them from the murderer is not to pronounce them suitable for the weighty public trusts they hold. There is guilt here to be apportioned. Apportioning it is not collectivizing it — it is not engaging in the same convoluted demagoguery that blamed Sarah Palin’s electioneering for a mass-murder in Tucson by a man with a history of mental illness, or that blamed bourgeois America for the killing of John F. Kennedy by a Communist.
A radical movement has openly called for the killing of cops. The officials responsible for keeping order abdicated their duties, and cops predictably started being assaulted and killed. We should not tar all the culpable actors with the same brush, but we should absolutely hold them accountable for what they have done.”
@Po: “I, and others, are saying that most killing of black men by cops are due to racism, whether that racism is unconscious, systematic or personal.”
A quick google did not lead me to articles or studies specifically about white LE.
But Jamelle Bouie writing in the daily beast in ‘Will America’s fear of black men ever go away’ tells us that “white Americans are more afraid of black men than any other group in the country.” and backs up that claim up with a reference to an academic article “An Inkblot for Attitudes: Affect Misattribution as Implicit Measurement”.
The conclusion that many whites suffer from unconscious racism and an irrational fear of black men is generally supported by the General Social Survey. John Wihbey writing at journalistsresource.org in his article “White racial attitudes over time” draws data from the General Social Survey to tell us that many whites have racist attitudes on many subjects that have not changed since the early 1990’s.
It is easy to find data that support the conclusion that many whites suffer from unconscious racism.
I think it would be surprising to find that white LE are different from the rest of the white population. To me it seems far more reasonable to guess that white LE are very much like their white counterparts in the general population.
The proportion and intensity of unconscious racism held by white LE is directly on point for concerns about the treatment and shooting of black men. Unconscious racism has to raise questions regarding claims of ‘reasonable belief of imminent threat’.
None of this give us an answer about any particular case. But it ought to guide us to questions about rules of engagement, training, and specific actions of LE when they deal with black men.
No, actually it was you comparing Valentine to Palin so I think you know what you can do with your lil’ ultimatum.
Again: the issue here is malicious prosecution, not your race war or whatever else you think it should be.
“No, actually it was you comparing Valentine to Palin”
No, I demanded that you defend your assertion that what I posted was crap by virtue of its publication in National Review.
I won’t ask you to address the argument, paragraph by paragraph, again since your desperate attempts to change the subject are all the proof I need that you can’t.
BFM,
You don’t suppose something like a man punching you in the face and wrestling for your gun, presumably to kill you, would constitute a non-racist reason for fearing for one’s life; do you?
“You don’t suppose the fact that a man punching you in the face and wrestling for your gun, presumably to kill you would constitute a non-racist reason for fearing for one’s life; do you?”
I don’t think I would have to presume anything. As a hypothetical, if someone did punch me in the face and grab for my hypothetical gun, I believe that could be the basis for reasonable belief of imminent threat to life or body.
But if I did shoot the man, I also think it would be necessary for the community to investigate and determine that the man actually punched me and grabbed for the gun and not that I grabbed the man and shot him.
The actual details in such a case might be hard to determine. But the principles seem clear to me. If a person shoots someone and claims imminent threat, we ought to investigate rigorously and see if that claim makes sense.
Bob,
If you can’t understand how scale figures into that comparison, that would be your error to make.
Over at Vox there is a really interesting article “Understanding the racial bias you didn’t know you had”. In it they discuss ‘implicit racial bias’. In broad terms I think ‘implicit racial bias’ is the same concept we have been discussing under the name ‘unconscious racism’. The article discusses many areas where implicit racial bias affects all of us but I found these sentences particularly interesting:
“Implicit biases are pervasive. Researchers say everyone possesses them, even people like judges, who have avowed commitments to impartiality…..Studies have shown that a person’s level of implicit racial bias predicts the amount of shooter bias — meaning, how much easier it is to shoot African Americans compared with white people in a video-game situation. And when researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder and California State University at Northridge reviewed a decade of empirical evidence about cops and implicit bias in 2012, they found police officers seem to possess implicit bias that might make them more likely to shoot black suspects than white ones.”
BFM:
But if I did shoot the man, I also think it would be necessary for the community to investigate and determine that the man actually punched me and grabbed for the gun and not that I grabbed the man and shot him.
The actual details in such a case might be hard to determine. But the principles seem clear to me. If a person shoots someone and claims imminent threat, we ought to investigate rigorously and see if that claim makes sense.
————————————
That is the principle at play, which is the principle behind every single ideal we have in this country. Whether a mob with pitchforks or a mob with keyboards matters little …
And Bob, your focus on the mob and on Johnson makes you miss the forest for the Brown tree.
You are actually just …let me rephrase that…your insistence that the whole popular reaction is racist makes your continuous and relentless attack on Brown, Johnson and the faceless mob also racist.
The fact that you do not even give people the right to be offended by the killing of one of theirs…is rather fascinating to me. You seem to be engaged in a crusade to clear up your dog no matter what, across threads and blogs and topics. And like a bull, you see red whenever any word is uttered that seems to relate even remotely to Wilson.
The bottom line is that everything may have happened, what you say and what your opponents say. Johnson may be truthful, so may be Wilson, or both may have lied a bit, and very likely, each may have lied a bit in order to smooth up the roughness of each’s story.
Unless you were there, you don’t know. Nor do we.
The more insistent you are, the more you enable the other side to be just as insistent. Which is fair.
Po,
When you’re able to recite the facts of the Brown shooting as supported by the forensic evidence I’ll take your criticisms more seriously.
For now, you’re still drifting along a narrative created out of whole cloth by a pathological liar– which has since been proven false by the forensic evidence.
“Unless you were there, you don’t know.”
I don’t need to be present during a late night rain storm to conclude it rained the night before; I need only look out my window and see that it’s wet outside.
But keep firing off those half-distance arrows Zeno; it’s so convincing.
Johnson: And at that time he never attempted to open the door again like to try to get back out but his arm came out the window and that’s the first initial contact that they had. The officer grabbed, he grabbed a hold of Big Mike’s shirt around the neck area. (pg. 49)
Po,
Johnson is lying about Wilson grabbing Big Mike’s shirt.
Had you read any of the evidence, you’d know why.
Bob
you mustn’t be referring to that evidence that included the testimony of witness 40, right?
You don’t know why he’s lying; do you Po?
I thought you were a man of science.
And didn’t McCullough say these exact words?
“…I wanted to put everything on there. I thought it was much more important to present everything and everybody, and some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it.”
By evidence do you mean evidence that includes outright lies?
Where is your outrage at the lies supporting Wilson?
Ferguson Witness Exposed by Smoking Gun Was Also Discredited in Front of Grand Jury by Prosecutors
A Smoking Gun piece posted Monday reveals the identity and checkered past of “Witness 40,” who likely lied while testifying to the Darren Wilson grand jury that Michael Brown charged Wilson “like a football player” just before he died. The Smoking Gun writes that Sandra McElroy’s testimony is “baked into the narrative of the Ferguson grand jury”; Gawker covered the Smoking Gun story by describing McElroy as “Darren Wilson’s key witness.” But while McElroy’s “like a football player” line has been repeated a number of times on Fox News, testimony transcripts themselves indicate that it’s unlikely that McElroy’s account was taken seriously by grand jurors.
The Smoking Gun has collected information about McElroy’s past, including social media posts and court records, indicating that she has a history of dishonesty (including check fraud and a dubious 2007 claim to have witnessed an incident in another high-profile criminal case) and racial bias (including repeated use of racial slurs). All of it certainly casts serious doubt on whether McElroy was actually anywhere near Ferguson, Missouri on the day Michael Brown died. But as the Smoking Gun alludes to only glancingly, McElroy’s testimony was also extensively undercut by prosecutors themselves—in fact, a Washington Post writeup of grand jury evidence shortly after the decision not to indict Wilson referred to McElroy’s testimony as “discredited,” while a similar CNN recap made clear that prosecutors doubted the logistics of her story and questioned her about racist material she’d written online.
Indeed, a review of the grand jury documents released by St. Louis County shows that McElroy’s account was questioned openly and extensively by authorities. Grand Jury Volume 15 includes her Oct. 23 testimony in front of the grand jury, as well as a transcript of a recording of an Oct. 22 interview between McElroy and a federal prosecutor that was played for jurors. The federal prosecutor tells McElroy that her account of driving through Ferguson is physically impossible, informs her that her car can’t be found in any images from the scene, solicits an admission that she “used the N-word” online a half-dozen times in relation to Brown’s death, and asks her explicitly if she used media accounts to fabricate parts of her testimony. McElroy speaks about having memory problems in both the recorded interview with the federal prosecutor and the in-person interview in front of the grand jury, and tells both the federal prosecutor and the jury that she suffers from largely untreated bipolar disorder. In McElroy’s Oct. 23 testimony, the grand jury prosecution picks skeptically at her claim to have come across the Wilson-Brown encounter—which did not take place on a main road—after getting lost while trying to find a friend’s apartment. (And, to repeat, the federal prosecutor’s skeptical interview with McElroy was played for grand jurors that day as well.)
As the Smoking Gun does mention, McElroy returned to the grand jury on Nov. 3 with a new story about why she was in Ferguson. In testimony in Grand Jury Volume 18, McElroy reads from a journal and attests that she was in fact travelling to the area to conduct personal research to help her understand black people (!). But the Smoking Gun doesn’t mention that, in those same grand jury records, a prosecutor says (in front of jurors) that McElroy had admitted she may have gotten details of her earlier testimony off the Internet, points out that her journal entry from the morning before Brown’s death is suspiciously detailed, and asks McElroy directly whether she may have made up or “dreamed” the events that she’s testifying about. Another prosecutor tells McElroy she believes McElroy is “confused” about her own account and grills her about her animosity towards blacks and her use of racial slurs.
Given all this warranted skepticism expressed toward Sandra McElroy in front of grand jurors by prosecutors—and the incredibly obvious flaws in her testimony itself—it’s hard to believe that any sane juror, no matter how inclined to believe Darren Wilson, would have taken her testimony seriously. While the Smoking Gun’s investigation is useful in undermining those in the media who would take McElroy’s words out of context, it’s doubtful—given the evidence currently at hand—that the grand jury’s ultimate decision would have been any different had she never testified.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/16/witness_40_michael_brown_football_player_witness_unreliability_history_of.html
Po,
Regarding Dorian Johnson…
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=112
“You must not spread a false report. Do not join the wicked to be a malicious witness.”
… if you’re looking to get Biblical.
We keep hearing about that evidence presented to the Ferguson grand jury. Lest we forget:
Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html
Excerpt:
Soon after Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, law enforcement’s handling of the case was already being criticized as callous and sloppy. Residents of Ferguson, Missouri, looked on in horror as police officials failed to cover and later to remove Brown’s body from the street for hours.
Now that the grand jury evidence, including forensic records and testimony from Wilson and those investigating the fatal shooting, has been released, it’s clear that other mistakes were made in attempting to figure out what happened on that August afternoon. The best physical evidence and testimony might not have been as ironclad in Wilson’s favor as prosecutor Robert McCulloch characterized it on Monday night.
From the reams of grand jury testimony and police evidence, here are some key points 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.
2. The first officer to interview Wilson failed to take any notes.
The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, didn’t take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory. He explained that he hadn’t been equipped with a recorder and hadn’t tried to take any written notes due to the chaotic nature of the situation. He also didn’t write up any notes soon after the fact. “I didn’t take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me,” the officer stated.
The same officer admitted during his grand jury testimony that Wilson had called him personally after they both had been interviewed by investigators. Wilson then went over his account again with the officer. The officer told the grand jury that there were no discrepancies between Wilson’s first account in person and his second account on the phone. But the call raises questions about whether Wilson may have influenced witness testimony.
3. Investigators failed to measure the likely distance between Brown and Wilson.
An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared “self-explanatory.”
“Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there,” the examiner told the jury.
The examiner also noted that he or she hadn’t been able to take pictures at the scene — as is standard — because the camera’s batteries were dead. The examiner later testified that he or she accompanied investigators from the St. Louis County Police Department as they photographed Brown’s body.
Elaine,
Would you care to tell us how any of that evidence was crucial to determining the course of events?
For example, the author states that the blood evidence Wilson washed away from his hands “could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson’s testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. ”
Which part of Wilson’s testimony was not provable with blood evidence available; i.e. inside the car and on Wilson’s gun? Does Wilson washing off the blood make Dorian Johnson’s claims that Brown never reached inside the car or went for the weapon more believable?
And speaking of Johnson,
Johnson: And at that time he never attempted to open the door again like to try to get back out but his arm came out the window and that’s the first initial contact that they had. The officer grabbed, he grabbed a hold of Big Mike’s shirt around the neck area. (pg. 49)
Care to tell us why Johnson is lying about Wilson grabbing Big Mike’s shirt; thereby making his entire story about Wilson being the aggressor and in control, etc., a lie?
Hint: three letters.
Why is JOhnson’s claim about Wilson grabbing Mike’s around the neck a lie?
Bettykath,
Because Bob said so.
“He (Wilson) told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. “I think it was his blood,” Wilson said referring to Brown. ”
Bob Stone: “Would you care to tell us how any of that evidence was crucial to determining the course of events?”
Bob Stone: “Care to tell us why Johnson is lying about Wilson grabbing Big Mike’s shirt; thereby making his entire story about Wilson being the aggressor and in control, etc., a lie?”
BK: “Why is JOhnson’s claim about Wilson grabbing Mike’s around the neck a lie?”
EM: “Because Bob said so.”
And even if Johnson’s claim that Wilson grabbed Brown first is a lie why does that prove everything else Johnson said is also a lie.
Apparently if Wilson had lied about blood on his hands it would not have made any difference regarding the rest of his story.
As I understand the rules of evidence used in this case, anything remotely related to negative about Brown proves Wilson was attacked and acted in self defense, while anything negative about Wilson is irrelevant to the fact that Wilson was attacked and acted in self defense.
And while we are at it: how, exactly, do we know who grabbed or punched who first. I get it that we have evidence that Brown had his hands inside the SUV. But the fact that Brown had his hand inside the SUV does not tell us who initiated the altercation – who grabbed or punched the other one first.
Wilson claims Brown punched Wilson first. Wilson’s story is supported by evidence of Browns hand inside the SUV.
Johnson claims Wilson grabbed Brown first. Johnson’s story is supported by the aggressive behavior of Wilson (recklessly backing, nearly hitting pedestrians, striking pedestrians while opening the SUV door).
So where is the physical evidence that allows us to determine which of these two witnesses is telling the complete truth, which one is mistaken, which is shading his story a little and which one is an outright, complete liar?
oh.
Bob,
Are you talking about evidence or lack of evidence?
Bob,
You want me to tell you how missing evidence would have been crucial to the case? Maybe you’d like to take stab at how the missing evidence would have proved that Wilson was innocent and Mike Brown was a violent thug.
“And even if Johnson’s claim that Wilson grabbed Brown first is a lie why does that prove everything else Johnson said is also a lie.”
BFM,
You’re misrepresenting Johnson’s story.
Q Okay. And so please tell us what happened?
Johnson: While the officer is grabbing ahold of Big Mike, he kind loses grip around his neck, that’s how I knew he had a good grip. He never fully let Big Mike go, now he has a good grasp on his shirt. So now Big Mike’s able to turn different angles while he is trying to pull away.
The whole story about the altercation is a lie.
Q: So on Q1-1, the report talks about possible Police Officer Wilson grabbed the shirt of Michael Brown, from what you seen from the area that was tested, you didn’t get enough markers to verify that that’s true. From what you’ve seen you didn’t get any police officer’s DNA off of that shirt?
DNA Expert: Correct
(Vol 19, pg 191)
Bob, how/why is that ” Johnson: While the officer is grabbing ahold of Big Mike, he kind loses grip around his neck, that’s how I knew he had a good grip. He never fully let Big Mike go, now he has a good grasp on his shirt. So now Big Mike’s able to turn different angles while he is trying to pull away” a lie?
WHo can prove that it did not happen exactly as Dorian says?
If indeed Wilson grabbed Mike and pulled him, it is obvious to anyone familiar with body mechanics that when pulled, one’s natural reaction is to brace oneself, very likely on the car window/door/frame. Physics also tell us that when the pulling force is greatly than the resisting force, the object/body will move forward.
Mike Brown’s hands being in the car does not say anything with any amount of clarity.
Also, the verse you quoted actually applies to Wilson, for he lied under oath and blamed someone else.
Po,
You didn’t even read Johnson’s testimony or his statements to the press; did you?
“the verse you quoted actually applies to Wilson, for he lied under oath and blamed someone else.”
You’re being so reckless with the truth right now it’s embarrassing in a George Castanza kind of way.
Elaine: “You want me to tell you how missing evidence would have been crucial to the case? Maybe you’d like to take stab at how the missing evidence would have proved that Wilson was innocent and Mike Brown was a violent thug.”
Elaine,
You cited an article attempting to bring the conclusions of the grand jury into doubt. I asked you to show how any of the evidence mentioned in that article was crucial to determining the course of events between Wilson and Brown.
You not only answered my question with a question, but also imported the “thug” word as a back-handed accusation of racism on my part.
Thank you for proving my point that the article was as meaningless as your response.
I don’t see anything that proves that Mike’s hands were inside the car. The blood is most likely from the wound on his thumb which could have been on the sill and bled into the car and on Wilson who then touched other things that would account for Mike’s blood being elsewhere. Is this proof? No, but it is as likely as any other scenario and supports Darian. What the h… was Wilson thinking in pulling out his gun when he didn’t have control? Or did he think he had control of Mike as Dorian stated? Now pull his gun, oops, shot himself, now shoot the big Black man so he can get out of his car. This scenario of Wilson getting out his gun with intent to kill is more believable than Mike reaching across someone to unholster the gun.
Wilson had blood on his hands. How much blood? Where exactly on his hands? Spatter or smudges? Missing evidence.
Bob Stone says:
January 3, 2015 at 4:04 pm
Po,
When you’re able to recite the facts of the Brown shooting as supported by the forensic evidence I’ll take your criticisms more seriously.
*****
There we go with facts supported by the forensic evidence again. I wonder what facts the missing forensic evidence might have supported. I wonder how my sour cream chocolate cake would turn out if I left out the baking powder…or the salt…or the eggs…or the sour cream?
F.R.E. 401
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Elaine: “I wonder what facts the missing forensic evidence might have supported.”
If it was relevant, you’d know.
Bob said:
Elaine: “I wonder what facts the missing forensic evidence might have supported.”
If it was relevant, you’d know.
*****
Please explain.
Bettykath,
Baby steps.
Dorian Johnson claims Wilson held Brown by his shirt during the altercation. In fact, according to Johnson, the whole reason Brown couldn’t “get away” was because of that “good grasp” Wilson had on Brown’s shirt.
And yet, Wilson’s DNA was not found on Brown’s shirt.
Care to re-define the term “truth” to preserve your precious narrative?
“Care to re-define the term “truth” to preserve your precious narrative?”
We don’t need to redefine any truth. We need to acknowledge the obvious – evidence is missing and it is impossible to access it importance.
Missing or unreadable DNA is not unusual. Was Wilson wearing gloves? Did he have a pair of gloves in the SUV.
In DC plenty of officers have sap gloves that they wear frequently or put on when they are dealing with that certain element – I am sure you know what I mean. I am sure an intro class on statistics or evidence with 20 students could think of about 25 or 30 other reasons why DNA might be missing.
The point is we don’t know. We don’t know about missing evidence. We know know about the absence of evidence. And we don’t know whether Johnson or Wilson is giving us a more complete and accurate story.
The simple, obvious fact is that we have two stories and no conclusive way to determine which is a closer approximation to the truth – regardless of all the cockamamie evasions, obfuscations, and wild claims based on nothing more than thin air.
bettykath,
Josie is Bob’s unimpeachable source for what happened between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson at the officer’s cruiser.
Elaine: “Please explain.”
I’m sure you’ve seen enough legal dramas to figure it out on your own.
But here’s a hint:
“If we only had that [name the missing/spoiled evidence] we’d be able to prove _________ , because we have no other evidence capable of doing so, etc., etc.”
Josie’s account was a pretty good rendition of Wilson’s account; which was supported by the forensic evidence.
In fact, given the choice between Josie’s account and Johnson’s account, the FEDS would say that Josie’s version is supported by the evidence and Johnson’s is not.
“Was Wilson wearing gloves? Did he have a pair of gloves in the SUV. In DC plenty of officers have sap gloves that they wear frequently or put on when they are dealing with that certain element – I am sure you know what I mean.”
BFM,
Now I’m supposed to believe that not only was Wilson wearing Gloves while pulling off this incredible feat of strength that even the FBI didn’t believe, but Johnson missed that glaring detail?
Q Was he pulling him with both his hands?
Johnson: No.
Q The officer is only using the left hand?
Johnson: The officer is only using his left arm and trying to pull Big Mike in and I could tell Big Mike was, he was getting the best of the officer because here was in a better position to pull away. He was outstanding and he was pulling off of something. The officer was using one hand, although he had a nice size, I really couldn’t get the full body, but from his arm and when I seen his arm, he had nice size so where he was kind of strong, he looked strong enough to pull, but not strong enough to fully pull hum all the way in the car.
================
As to the rest of your points, if we accept your argument as universal law, the court system would shut down immediately.
You do understand that the more you assume facts that aren’t in evidence the more desperate you sound.
“You do understand that the more you assume facts that aren’t in evidence the more desperate you sound.”
Let’s be clear about this. I did not assume or assert any facts what so ever.
I pointed out that your claim about the lack of DNA is not conclusive of anything.
There are many reasons why DNA cannot be processed from a crime scene. And when we consider the gross procedural errors in evidence collection in this case – why would we have confidence that there was no DNA evidence?
The fact is that we just do not know.
To put a finer point on you gross misconception: there is a logical difference between making a claim of fact and pointing out one of may possible alternatives.
Read that very carefully – I am sure you can understand the difference if you really, really try.
Are you aware that the more you defend slipshod process and biased and destroyed evidence the more ridiculous you sound?
Now we’re into fictional legal dramas.
We can’t know what the missing forensic evidence would have helped to prove, can we? It might have backed up Darren Wilson’s version of events. I can always tune into Law and Order…or CSI…or NCIS and get vicarious thrills watching those shows. OY!
And what about that serious orbital eye fracture that Officer Wilson supposedly sustained? He certainly healed quickly, didn’t he? Did he take a trip to Lourdes?
But don’t get me wrong. I am glad you got your bike back, Bob.
Gene,
You mean the process necessitated by a bunch of race-hustlers joining in the chorus of a false accusation?
The same slip-shod process you comment about without ever having read?
Do tell Gene.
Tell me I didn’t read it again, motherfucker.
I’m truly tired of that crap, Bob.
Elaine,
You’ll never lose an argument because you have no convictions to defend.
Okay Gene,
Which part of Johnson’s testimony did you find believable?
Which part of the transcript made you stand up and say “hey, this is a slip-shod process.”
The part where an affirmative defense was proffered at a grand jury, Bob.
See, more empty claims without any citations to back it up.
If you’re too stupid to recognize an affirmative defense, Bob, I can’t help you with that.
“I pointed out that your claim about the lack of DNA is not conclusive of anything.”
On what planet is that true?
Find me one DNA expert that has gone on record making anything close to the claim you’re making now.
“On what planet is that true?….Find me one DNA expert that has gone on record making anything close to the claim you’re making now.”
It is a point of logic – which might be strange to you.
The presence of evidence might prove something.
The lack of DNA, gunshot residue, fingerprints, fibers, blood stains and any other type of evidence does not prove anything because there are many reasons why the evidence might be lacking.
The strongest statement we can make when evidence is lacking is that a particular version of a story is not supported. The lack of evidence does not prove anything for or against the story – despite your wild claims.
Read it over several times. I am pretty sure you will get the gist if you put forth some effort.
Gene,
The Warren Commission report says that martians were partly responsible for JFK’s assassination.
If you’re too stupid to recognize the martian allegations, I can’t help you with that.
Bob, “And yet, Wilson’s DNA was not found on Brown’s shirt. ”
And that doesn’t prove a thing, one way or the other. But it would have been more unusual if they HAD found DNA on the shirt. Did they find Mike’s DNA on Wilson’s face? No? So maybe Wilson’s face, the side away from Mike, was hit by the door jam when he had to sit back down when Mike pushed back on the door.
1) Is or is not self-defense an affirmative defense?
A: It is an affirmative defense.
2) Where in the process is it proper to assert an affirmative defense?
A: At trial.
It’s really pretty basic, Bob. Of course, it interferes with your gyrations in support of outcome determinism, but an affirmative defense is for the trier of fact to rule on, not a grand jury. No amount of spinning about and repeating yourself is going to change that.
Bettykath,
When you find a DNA expert on this planet that has the same theory about Brown’s shirt as you and BFM do, I’ll be all ears.
Until then, happy martian hunting.
Bob,
What are the convictions that I don’t have? Are they comparable to the missing evidence that the grand jury didn’t have in the Michael Brown case?
*****
Gene,
Now Bob wants citations. He didn’t like the data that I cited yesterday regarding the percentage of minority and white officers in the NYPD. And why didn’t he like that data? Don’t bother answering. That was a rhetorical question.
“outcome determinism”?
Seriously?
You’re so blinded by your own conclusion you don’t even bother with the evidence.
Elaine,
I conceded the point about my error regarding percentages.
But thank you once again for showing us how good you are at changing a subject.
Yeah, Bob. Outcome determinism. That is the tear you’ve been on since day one. You’re the one ignoring the holes in the evidence and the flawed procedure because you got the answer that you wanted, not what was merited by evidence that isn’t prime facie conclusory as to the events. You are so blinded by your bias you cannot even admit that there might be other perfectly rational ways to interpret what evidence there is.
It’s about like talking to Bron about climate change.
Bob Stone says:
January 3, 2015 at 10:09 pm
You do understand that the more you assume facts that aren’t in evidence the more desperate you sound.
———————————
You do understand that the more you assign definite meaning to ambivalent evidence the more desperate you sound?
And no, I did not read all the report, but have read parts of it and have read other people’s take on it. What I felt before the report came out is still what I feel now, the evidence is ambivalent, the testimonies are either similarly convincing or similarly tainted, BUT, there is enough issues with Wilson’s narrative and enough areas of obvious tempering in the process of presenting the evidence to the grand jury that I am left feeling that the fix is in.
If it may make you feel better though, I felt that OJ got away with one.
Bob,
I didn’t change the subject. You brought up the subject of using citations to back up claims. Remember?
*****
Bob Stone says:
January 3, 2015 at 10:23 pm
See, more empty claims without any citations to back it up.
Bob said:
Seriously Bob? Find a DNA expert that is willing to say that you can’t come to a conclusion based on lack of DNA? Since I can’t imagine that there is any DNA expert anywhere ever that would be willing to say that you CAN come to a conclusion based on a lack of DNA (which is an absurd and extraordinary claim), I’d say the burden of proof is on you if you wish to assert something that dumb.
Which leads to another point, bfm.
Both McElroy and Johnson are suspect witnesses. Had the matter gone to trial (as it should have), there would have been more time for discovery and the chance to have higher quality witnesses that could have been subject to adverse cross-examination to get a better picture of what might have actually happened instead of the biased chicanery that went on in front of the grand jury. That being said, even under optimal circumstance, eye witness testimony has its issues.
“If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one’s failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist. [For example] in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed..”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Absence_of_evidence
“An expert in DNA from the St. Louis County Police Department Crime Law testified that Michael Brown’s DNA was later found on Wilson’s firearm. (Vol. 19, 182:16). It was not possible to determine whether this was due to contact with Brown’s skin, blood, or some other bodily fluid. The interior left front door panel of Wilson’s car also had DNA from Michael Brown on it (185:9). On the other hand, the DNA expert did not find Wilson’s DNA on Michael Brown’s shirt (191:15).”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/
When a one handed grasp of a 300 pound man by the shirt in the struggle described by Johnson leaves no DNA on the shirt then the elephant on the quad is truly invisible.
Which has no conclusory probative value as to whether or not Brown was shot while surrendering, Bob.
“Which has no conclusory probative value as to whether or not Brown was shot while surrendering, Bob.”
That’s right Gene,
The blood trail evidence, the bullet casings, the glide recording of the gunfire, and the six African American witnesses that said Brown was coming at Wilson while his gun was drawn — is just some of the evidence addressing that issue.
None of which was subject to adverse cross, Bob, and that still ignores that huge gaping procedural problem of an improperly proffered affirmative defense.
“None of which was subject to adverse cross,”
Gene,
Cross by who Gene?
Hopefully a competent prosecutor without a known pro-police bias interested in serving justice rather than their own political aspirations and Wilson’s defense, Bob. That, of course, rules out McCulloch (or those under his control) taking part.
Ah, so if you can’t prove incompetence or bias, e.g. by citing a portion of the transcript you take exception to, you’ll just assume it.
Gotcha.
And let’s not forget that your mandatory indictment theme denies the existence of any prosecutorial discretion whatsoever.
Because God forbid you actually analyzed Johnson’s testimony and figured out how much he’s been lying all along.
Bob,
If you’re too dense and/or blinded by your own now well-known bias to see the realpolitik McCulloch was playing here, not only can I not help you, but apparently reading Machiavelli and Cicero was a waste of time if you read them at all.
I’m not so dense as to check the evidence for myself before making statements like yours.
Okay, Bob. You better check your email.
Bob,
Do you know what a flea is? Absolutely fucking ginormous when compared with DNA. You say that you glanced at the mountain outside the window and didn’t see a flea on it therefore there aren’t any fleas on the mountain at all. Then you explain the fallacy you just used and claim it doesn’t apply because your micro-flea is really an elephant.
Sure, that rates an 11 for chutzpah, but it is below negative infinity for rationality.
That’s not what I said Kevin.
Not finding Mr. Wilson’s DNA on Mr. Brown’s shirt (which, I will point out, Mr. Brown was wearing while he died of gunshot wounds) is analogous to not finding a flea on a mountain, Bob. No responsible expert would ever claim that the absence of DNA was in any way credible evidence of the absence of Mr. Wilson grabbing the shirt. Which is, if you look at your comments, exactly what you implied.
Bob Stone says:
January 3, 2015 at 11:43 pm
I’m not so dense as to check the evidence for myself before making statements like yours.
————————————
The problem Bob, is that you have made the same claim before the evidence was in. Then, you were saying: how dare you comment on this before the evidence is in? Mob rule! Lynching!
Now you are saying: the report proves this is what happened!
The report is just allowing you to brandish something as you make the same claim you made at the start.
Bob, I think you’ve dug a big ditch from which you cannot extricate yourself by taking the position taken by some of the expert whores who are able to interpret the evidence as only supporting their client. Stop digging! We’ll drop a ladder in the form of a new thread so you can climb out. There is a promise of a thread on OJ and his innocence. We can have another go.
OT: followup on John Crawford; girlfriend was aggressively questioned by police after he was killed but before she knew he was dead.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/02/girlfriend-john-crawford-dies-car-crash-tasha-thomas
There’s eyewitness testimony that Brown was shot while surrendering. That’s probable cause to charge and try. The credibility of all could have been tested at trial but McCulloch et underlings made sure that didn’t happen with the quasi-unethical evidence dump before the grand jury. Isn’t that about the best you can say about this pathetic case of hide the ball.
Of course, Gene, a reference to Machiavelli is always on point when examining any aspect of realpolitik:
“When a prince wins victories and upholds the state, his methods will always be considered honourable, and he will be praised by everybody. The common people are always impressed by what a thing seems to be and by results. In a world full of common people who applaud the prince’s achievements, only a few can see past appearances.”
So very few.
Let’s think a minute about the idea of trying a police officer. That our jury trial system is imperfect is a known fact, especially to prosecutors and police. Most rational people wouldn’t question that innocent people are adjudged guilty with a uncomfortable frequency. Therefore, as we see in Ferguson, Staten Island and elsewhere the tendency is to try to have police officers avoid trial and the pitfall of possibly being found guilty. Upper court rulings too have dismissed police liability for the consequences of their actions. This is destructive to the very social fiber of the system because in and of itself it establishes at least two classes of people with respect to criminal law. The average citizen that risks their life at the whimsy of the criminal justice system and the police officers which the system protects from the vagaries of going to trial. Even if the officers do go to trial, such as in the Rodney King case, the system is rigged by changing the venue to a town where the police tend to live. How anyone is unable to see that this is destructive to the notion of the “rule of law” is amazing to me.
Mike S:
If you don’t try them the only alternative is to let them go relying on their good graces to protect us from them. The jury system is not perfect but it the best estimation of justice we have. To paraphrase Churchill, it’s the worst system, except for all the others.
For those that may opine that most citizens that are tried by the system are actually guilty, even if I concede that idea is 98% true, that 2% of those found guilty are innocent from a legal standpoint is unacceptable to the notion of the Rule of Law.
n of a just legal system. Our legal system is corrupt as it is, to exempt the “enforcers”
My “smart phone” isn’t so smart. That last comment should have ended: “of our laws from the consequences of their actions, only corrupts the system further and emboldens those “bad apples” within to continue their lawless behavior”.
Mespo,
I agree that for right now it’s the best we’ve got, which is why the further corruption of it by absolving LEO’S of accountability only makes it more unjust.
Bettykath,
The DNA expert was a whore.
Okay then.
Mark: “There’s eyewitness testimony that Brown was shot while surrendering. That’s probable cause to charge and try. ”
Really Mark?
The altercation at the car doesn’t come into play at all?
” No responsible expert would ever claim that the absence of DNA was in any way credible evidence of the absence of Mr. Wilson grabbing the shirt.”
I think I have to agree that is what Bob Stone argued.
As I understand his position, he claims that the absence of evidence can be used to prove a proposition. And further that even if the lack to evidence does not prove a proposition, we require the services of an expert to reach the conclusion that the absence of evidence proves nothing.
Consider finger prints. The presence of finger prints might prove something. But finger prints might be absent of not found for many reasons. Not finding finger prints tells us little. Do we need a finger print expert to tell us that the absence of finger prints proves nothing? I think not. We can reach the conclusion that the absence of finger prints proves nothing all by our selves.
What about shell casings? The presence of shell casings at a crime scene might prove something. But there are many reasons why shell casings might be absent from the crime scene. The absence of shell casings proves nothing. Do we need a fire arms expert to tell us that the absence of shell casings proves nothing? Or can we reach that obvious conclusion all by our selves?
What about the presence or absence of blood? The presence of blood might prove or lend support to a particular version of a story. But there are many reasons why blood might not be found at a crime scene. The absence of blood proves nothing. Do we need an expert in blood analysis to tell us that the absence of blood proves nothing? Or can we reach that obvious conclusion all by our selves?
We are told that none of Wilson’s DNA was found on Brown’s shirt. The presence of DNA might have proven or supported a particular story. But there are many reasons why Wilson’s DNA might not have been found on Brown’s shirt.
I can think of at least 4 reasons why the DNA might not have been found. Note: I am not claiming a particular reason as a fact in this case. I am only pointing out several of many possible reasons. First, we know those who investigated the scene were unprofessional and did not document many facts that are standard in the investigation of any crime scene. That lack of professional procedure might have lead to failure to collect a valid sample from the shirt. Second the DNA technician may have simply been incompetent or made a mistake in the analysis of the sample. Third the sample may have been degraded and not suitable for testing. Fourth, the DNA may have never been deposited on the shirt for some reason, for example: a barrier such as gloves. I am sure that interested readers can think of other reasons why DNA might have not been deposited on the shirt or not found by the technician.
In any case the absence of DNA proves nothing because there are many reasons why the tests might have failed to reveal the presence of DNA. That seems so clear, so obvious that it is a wonder to me that we are even having a debate on this point.
What do you think. Do you really want to argue that the absence of evidence can be used to prove a point? Do you really want to argue that we require an expert to tell us that the absence of evidence proves nothing? Or can we reasonably conclude that the absence of DNA proves nothing all by ourselves.
We have been talking about the absence of DNA. For those who still think that the absence of DNA proves something it might be interesting to see what DNA experts think about the challenges of collecting touch DNA.
From these remarks below I think it is clear there may be many reasons why a technician might not find DNA on a touched object – especially fabric. In my opinion the only reasonable believe is that the absence of DNA tells us little about the commission of the crime. The absence of DNA might indicate the subject never touched the object, or it might tell us that not enough cells were deposited, or it might tells us that the cells were degraded, or it might tell us that the technician encountered other challenges that prevented detecting or analyzing the evidence.
“The amount of DNA deposited varies depending on parameters that include; the individual, the area of contact, the history of previous touches, the material being touched, moisture levels and the presence of fingerprint powder. Much of what is deposited is not retrieved from an object by a single swabbing. ”
“… It has been stated in publications that forensic scientists can obtain a DNA profile from as few as five to six cells. However, just because a surface is touched and a few skin cells are left behind does not guarantee a meaningful DNA profile can be obtained. Detecting and obtaining an interpretable DNA profile are two different concepts.”
“Touch DNA evidence is increasingly being collected and analyzed during criminal investigations. The purpose of this study was to determine if a significant amount of male (suspect) touch DNA can be collected from the clothes of assaulted victims after varying time intervals. A “grab and struggle” model was used to transfer touch DNA materials from human volunteers onto three types of fabrics (cotton, polyester, and a cotton/polyester blend)….This study did not find useful amounts of touch DNA on clothes after this assault model. Results are limited by a relatively small sample size and the assault model parameters; however, these results do not support the routine use of touch DNA evidence from clothes in similar assault cases.”
“Early on, it became apparent that swabs of trace samples found on clothing did not provide high-quality results as could be expected. The swabs frequently contained inhibitory factors and/or provided profiles that were difficult to interpret. Tape is now used regularly to retrieve DNA containing material from worn clothing [57,112,114]. ….However, taping of larger surfaces can be tedious and the multiple strips of tape that are required can pose downstream processing difficulties.”
” Touch DNA refers to the DNA that is left behind from skin cells when a person touches or comes into contact with an item. However, since Touch DNA (also referred to as wearer or contact DNA) is invisible to the naked eye, and is usually deposited in smaller amounts than the DNA found in bloodstains or other body fluids, it is more difficult to identify areas where skin cells may be present. As such, it can be quite challenging to obtain DNA profiles from these samples. Obtaining successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis, proper collection/storage of these items, and the subsequent use of the optimal sampling technique that will recover the highest number of skin cells. ”
“Despite the revolutionary ways that DNA testing has changed forensic analysis, there are still some limitations to be aware of: …Casual contact does not generally transfer enough DNA for analysis….Certain environmental factors such as mold, heat, humidity, bacteria and sunlight can destroy DNA very quickly…”
“If clothing was left at the crime scene by the perpetrator, pressure points on the clothing such as the interior neck of a shirt or the inside headband area of a hat are excellent candidates for these sampling methods. In a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.”
Click to access Williamson.pdf
Johnson: Now, from the beginning of the grab, it is a tug of war.
Johnson: It was more a tug of war and it was very intense, very intense.
Q: Okay. And so please tell us what happened?
Johnson: While the officer is grabbing ahold of Big Mike, he kind loses grip around his neck, that’s how I knew he had a good grip. He never fully let Big Mike go, now he has a good grasp on his shirt. So now Big Mike’s able to turn different angles while he is trying to pull away.
Jeebus Chris, Bob!
“If clothing was left at the crime scene by the perpetrator, pressure points on the clothing SUCH AS THE INTERIOR NECK OF A SHIRT OF THE INSIDE HEADBAND AREA OF A HAT are excellent candidates for these sampling methods. In a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.”
Do you have any fucking clue what the author is talking about here? Because it is completely irrelevant to the point you are failing to make.
The absence of his killer’s DNA on Mr. Brown’s shirt PROVES NOTHING and anyone who says differently has a profound misunderstanding of evidence in general and DNA evidence in particular.
Kevin,
It’s simply one more facet in the mosaic of lies created by Dorian Johnson.
Touch DNA: From the Crime Scene to the Crime Laboratory
04/12/2013
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/touch-dna-crime-scene-crime-laboratory
Excerpt:
Touch DNA
Epithelial or touch DNA evidence can be defined as evidence with no visible staining that would likely contain DNA resulting from the transfer of epithelial cells from the skin to an object. Can simply touching an object leave skin cells? It has been stated in publications that forensic scientists can obtain a DNA profile from as few as five to six cells. However, just because a surface is touched and a few skin cells are left behind does not guarantee a meaningful DNA profile can be obtained. Detecting and obtaining an interpretable DNA profile are two different concepts.
The touch DNA testing performed by most public crime laboratories utilizes the same STR typing method performed by DNA analysts for the last 10–15 years. It is not a new technology. There are alternate methods of detecting DNA from a smaller number of cells ranging from 15–30 diploid cells. This is known as Low Copy Number (LCN) testing and utilizes “enhanced” techniques for obtaining DNA profiles. The experts and courts have had disagreements on its validation, interpretation, use, and acceptance. Typically, STR typing is known to require approximately 70–150 cells to produce a DNA profile…
Processing the Touch DNA Crime Scene
Is the crime scene technician wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE)? I sometimes refer to the image of a television crime scene investigator and ask my students, “What is wrong with this picture?” The image shows the investigator wearing latex gloves, but no hat, no mask, a short sleeved shirt, and dusting an item for prints. Epithelial cells from the head, arms, mouth, and nose may be left on crime scene evidence by the investigator. As far as dusting for prints is concerned, are the brush and powder disposable so as not to transfer cells from other items or even a previous crime scene?
Contamination is the unintentional introduction of outside DNA into a crime scene or laboratory sample. Contaminant DNA may appear as background DNA, the major or minor profile within a mixture, a single source DNA profile, or all of the above. When can this occur? Before the commission of the crime, after the crime and before the crime scene is discovered/secured, during the crime scene investigation, and within the crime laboratory or DNA laboratory. (Figure 1) In today’s world of touch DNA, a crime scene has to be approached in a way to minimize contamination since one cannot see or test for touch DNA…
Common rules to help minimize contamination at the crime scene:
Limit access to the crime scene or evidence
Do not talk over the evidence
PPE, including masks
Change gloves frequently after handling evidence
Do not touch areas on evidence that may be sampled for DNA
Collect elimination samples from those who have been in contact with the evidence or scene
Use disposable fingerprint brushes and powder
Clean each crime scene tool coming into contact with evidence
Bob,
Mr. Johnson’s testimony is completely irrelevant to the DNA evidence (or lack thereof). It is possible, but highly unlikely (for all the reasons Elaine mentioned) that DNA evidence could have CONFIRMED Mr. Johnson’s story, but the lack of DNA in no way IMPEACHES that testimony. You are far too smart to pretend not to understand the logical fallacy you are employing here.
What Bob conveniently forgets is that he had his mind made up about Wilson before the Grand Jury ever met. It is all there in his earliest posts and the comments he made before the decision was reached. This was so even as he blamed the protesters for irresponsibility in condemning Wilson. Somehow to him Bob’s thoughts are clear and logical. Those who disagree with him, however, are liars, liberal zombies and illogical.
Or minions of mob mentality, reduced to nothing but mass hysteria, a.k.a. puppets on a string.
Journalism Ethics Reality Check: What The Entire News Media Did To Darren Wilson With Dorian Johnson’s “Hands Up” Story Is EXACTLY Like What Rolling Stone Did To UVA With “Jackie’s” Rape Account, Just Worse.
Excerpt:
We are told the the news media is furious with Rolling Stone over its discredited and anonymously sourced gang rape accusation against the University of Virginia’s chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Why is it not similarly critical of itself for publicly and far more widely accusing a single, named Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, of a race-motivated, cold-blooded execution of an unarmed man based on the allegations of Dorian Johnson? They are, from a journalism ethics perspective, equally irresponsible and unprofessional, and predictably more harmful. It is, we can stipulate, worse for a police officer to be accused of first degree murder than for unnamed members of a fraternity to be accused of rape.
1. Both Rolling Stone and the mainstream media in covering the Brown shooting were eager to accept the stories of “Jackie” and Dorian Johnson being told as fact because of their own ideological biases.
2. Neither the media that reported Johnson’s accusation nor Rolling Stone confirmed any aspect of the accusation before making it public.
3. Both Johnson and “Jackie” were inherently unreliable. The accounts of both were presented as facts, and not as unchecked allegations by a witness/participant of unknown veracity.
4. Both, predictably, caused damaging and undeserved consequences to those accused.
The fraternity and all others on campus were suspended by the University based on the publication of “Jackie’s” story alone. Johnson’s narrative caused far more damage. Other “witnesses” adopted it as their own, and were also interviewed as supposed substantiation. The “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” scenario launched by Johnson made a normal investigation and prosecution of the case impossible, sparked protests, anger and riots, and was so engaged confirmation bias of civil rights leaders, anti-police activists and journalists that they haven’t let their grip go of it yet. It triggered riots, looting, and millions of dollars in property damage. It did immeasurable damage to U.S. race relations and society.
5. Both instances of irresponsible journalism guarantee long-term distortions of public perception of a genuine problem.
“What The Entire News Media Did To Darren Wilson ”
I think we can see the quality of this piece from that part of the title of the article.
“the entire news media”??? Really, all of them, every one?
What about Fox News? Was their reporting on Wilson and Ferguson like the Rolling Stone report?
What about National Review. Was their reporting on Wilson and Ferguson like the Rolling Stone report?
We could go further into the delusional nonsense of the article, but why bother.
If I want to burn hours refuting delusional nonsense I don’t need to search the internet. There is plenty of delusional nonsense right here to keep me busy.
Trust Bob to heave boulders from his glass mansion…
So I take it you are repudiating pretty much everything FOX News has said about President Obama since he took office? After all, every single position they took was based on ideological bias rather than facts or evidence.
I would also note that you are trying to deflect attention from your ignorant and false statements regarding DNA evidence.
Smear Merchants and Bias in News Reporting: Regarding Michael Brown, Darren Wilson, Race, Right-Wing Blogs, and the Mainstream Media
Excerpt:
Anatomy of a Fox News Smear
Although Wing didn’t accuse the news media of having a “standard protocol” for deliberately depicting white crime suspects in a better light than black crime victims, there are some members of the media who appear to intentionally call into question the character of black crime victims or who attempt to portray them as being responsible for their own deaths.
On August 26th, John Avignone posted an article at Salon titled Anatomy of a Fox News smear: Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge and the “dumbest person on the Internet.” In his article, Avignone explained how Fox News ran with a “totally bogus” story about what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, on the day that police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. Avignone said six days after the shooting, Thomas Jackson, the police chief of Ferguson, “bowed to pressure from the community and media and identified Wilson as the cop who shot Brown.” He noted, too, that Jackson also released two other bits of information at the same time. The police chief informed the public that officer Wilson “had been taken to a hospital after the shooting with swelling to his face.” He also released a surveillance video from a store that purportedly “showed Brown reaching over a counter and grabbing a handful of cigars, then pushing a store clerk on his way out.”
Avignone said that this release of information by police “was a turning point in the story…” He said that “Ferguson police seemingly wanted to transform Michael Brown from an innocent victim to a criminal.” He added that it was not long “before Fox News was pushing a new narrative: Michael Brown wasn’t just the latest in a depressingly long line of unarmed young black men to be gunned down by a white cop. He was a thug, they suggested, a criminal who deserved what he got, because he posed a deadly threat to Officer Wilson.”
Avignone:
This was proven, Fox News reported with an unnamed source, because “the officer had sustained a fractured eye socket in the incident.” Ann Coulter even suggested, incorrectly, that we’d seen X-rays of the fracture. Fox went on to claim “solid proof” of a battle between Wilson and Brown for the officer’s handgun.
So…where did the story about Darren Wilson having sustained an orbital eye fracture come from?
Avignone explained how it happened:
Perhaps the first shot in the right-wing news campaign to smear Michael Brown came in the form of a call to a conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch on Aug. 15. A caller who claimed to be a friend of Wilson’s — who would only identify herself as Josie — told Loesch that Brown had “bum rushed” officer Wilson, punched him in the face and tried to go for Wilson’s gun. Brown and his friend then walked away. Wilson pulled his gun and ordered Brown to stop. Brown turned around, taunted Wilson, then again “bum rushed” him. Wilson fired six shots, the last shot to Brown’s forehead. “Josie” claimed that she had gotten this information from a Facebook discussion. She did not claim that Wilson had been seriously injured in the encounter.
Avignone said that after a call was made to Loesch a lot of “discussion and rampant speculation followed in the right-wing blogosphere, even though the only source was an anonymous caller to a radio show and a supposed Facebook discussion.” Then, Jim Hoft announced on his site Gateway Pundit on August 19th that Darren Wilson had suffered a severe eye injury in his post titled BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack.
Charles Johnson (little green footballs) said Hoft claimed that he got the story about the orbital eye fracture from anonymous sources.
Johnson:
It’s possible that someone did leak this information to Hoft, but I’ll remind my readers that Jim Hoft is probably the single most dishonest right wing blogger on the Internet as well as the dumbest, with a very long history of distorting facts and completely making stuff up to push his far right, often overtly racist agenda.
Johnson reported that “no ambulance was called for Wilson, and no first aid was administered by other officers…” He said that seemed odd if Wilson “had indeed suffered this type of serious injury — or any injury at all.” Johnson continued to provide evidence that Hoft may have been attempting “to pull a fast one…” Johnson said that Hoft had posted a CT scan of a blowout fracture. Johnson compared to it to an image of a scan that had been “posted at the AAPOS site, showing a CT scan of a blowout fracture…” He noticed that in the version that Jim Hoft posted on the Internet the text at bottom right reading “UNIV OF IOWA” had been “crudely erased.”…
Johnson:
Was Hoft trying to mislead his readers into thinking this was the actual X-ray (or CT scan) of Darren Wilson? His text does not make it clear it wasn’t Wilson’s CT scan — and the words “UNIV OF IOWA” have been blacked out, quite deliberately.
If Hoft’s intent was to mislead, it worked. All over Twitter and right wing blogs, the wingnuts are raving about “Darren Wilson’s X-ray” that shows a fractured eye socket — but this is just a generic example image of an unknown person’s CT scan.
In addition, Avignone said that Hoft had cited “a tweet from Christine Byers, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Byers wrote: “Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting.” The Post-Dispatch, however, “published a story making clear that they never published Byers’ information, that she was not working on this story, and that she had been on leave since March. Following that Post-Dispatch story, Byers tweeted the following: “On FMLA from paper. Earlier tweets did not meet standards for publication.”
Avignone said that despite the “problems” with Hoft’s story about Wilson’s major injury, it seemed to be “too juicy for the right-wing blogosphere to ignore.” He said that the right-wing blogosphere “finally” had a narrative that portrayed Michael Brown “as a violent thug and Wilson as a man who was badly beaten and justified in fearing for his life.” Hoft’s story spread like a virulent disease. It was quickly picked up and spread at Mark Dice’s Before It’s News, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller. Avignone said that Hoft’s story was soon “picked up by pretty much all of the right-wing noise machine, including Matt Drudge, Breitbart, Right Wing News, the Washington Times and the New York Post.”
Once Hoft’s story “had broken into the wild and had been reported by numerous sources,” Avignone said that “Fox News decided it had enough cover to report” on the “bogus story.” He said that Fox ran “the story every half-hour with a flashing ‘ALERT ALERT’ image at the bottom of the screen and cited , yep, Jim Hoft’s report.” He added that Fox eventually found and cited its own “anonymous’ and “well-placed” source that was supposedly “close to the [Ferguson police] department’s top brass” who claimed that there was “solid proof” that “He [Wilson] was beaten very severely.”
Touch DNA
http://www.bodetech.com/forensic-solutions/dna-technologies/touch-dna/
Excerpt:
Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface our skin contacts. When a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, touch DNA analysis may be able to link the perpetrator to the crime scene. Touch DNA has been successfully sampled from countless items including gun grips, steering wheels, eating utensils, and luggage handles, just to name a few.
However, since Touch DNA is usually deposited in smaller amounts than the DNA found in bloodstains or other body fluids, it is more difficult to obtain DNA profiles from touch DNA samples. The key to obtaining successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis and using the sampling technique that will recover the highest number of skin cells.
Many labs test for Touch DNA using either the swabbing or cutting method. In the “swabbing method”, the surface of the item is rubbed with a cotton swab to collect possible cells. This method is preferred for hard items such as glass or plastic. The “cutting method” may be used for soft items, such as clothing, in which fabric from areas of interest is cut to collect possible cells. These two approaches can be successful on many items of evidence and both are used by Bode Technology; however they both have the limitation of placing unnecessary substrate (the cotton swab itself or the fabric cuttings) into the small DNA processing tube. There is a limited amount of substrate that can be placed in a tube, and the substrate itself may “trap” some cells during processing, which would decrease the likelihood of obtaining results.
In addition to the commonly used swabbing and cutting methods, Bode has recently started using the “Scraping” and “Tape Lift” methods, in which the surface of soft items (such as clothing) are either scraped with a blade, or sampled with a small piece of tape, to collect possible cells. Due to the lack of unnecessary substrate generated by these methods (scraping produces a small “pile” of fiber, cells, and debris that can easily be placed in the DNA processing tube), a larger surface area can be sampled. An increase in surface area increases the number of possible cells recovered; therefore, increasing the chances of obtaining a DNA profile.
Kevin,
You used the word “impeach” in your post; opening up an entire area of evidence law applicable at trial.
We’re talking about grand jury proceedings; a topic of which you are plainly ignorant:
Kevin: “[P]robable cause” does not mean that it was likely that a crime occurred (as you seem to think), it means that it was possible for a crime to have occurred—at which point it is an issue for a trier of fact, not a grand jury.”
Regardless, here’s what a law professor and former federal judge had to say about the relevancy of said missing DNA evidence:
“Johnson’s testimony is inconsistent with the physical evidence. As I discussed Friday, the medical examiner found that the first wound Brown suffered was not a chest wound, but a wound to his right thumb from a close range shot. Moreover, Brown’s DNA was found on Officer Wilson’s gun (Vol. 19, 182:16) and on the interior left front door panel of Wilson’s car (185:9). Johnson’s story also fails to account for a bullet hole in the driver’s side door from a shot fired inside the car. On the other hand, the DNA expert did not find Wilson’s DNA on Michael Brown’s shirt (191:15).”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/
If a tug of war happened like Johnson said, there would be a horn of plenty of Wilson’s sweat and skin cells on Brown’s shirt.
Forgive me if I’m not in the mood today to track all the half way points of your arrow Zeno.
Bob said:
“If a tug of war happened like Johnson said, there would be a horn of plenty of Wilson’s sweat and skin cells on Brown’s shirt.”
This statement is idiotic. Read the above post by Eliane if you wish to know why.
I don’t give a crap about whether or not any piece of evidence is consistent with, contradicts or supports Mr. Johnson’s story, with the exception of the fact that none of Mr. Wilson’s DNA was found on Mr. Brown’s shirt. That is what is in question and that is what you have made extraordinarily stupid comments about.
It is completely illogical to believe that the lack of DNA evidence in any way effects the credibility of Mr. Johnson’s testimony. Please note, I am not saying a goddamn thing about how any other piece of evidence impacts the credibility of Mr. Johnson. That would be completely irrelevant to my point: that you have made completely ridiculous statements regarding the lack of Mr. Wilson’s DNA on Mr. Brown’s shirt.
If you are known to have made such elementary mistakes, your entire argument has no credibility whatsoever.
Whatever you say Kevin.
It isn’t what I say, Bob. It’s about you owning what you say, however stupid it is. Consider the following question:
In the absence of all other information, does the lack of Mr. Wilson’s DNA on Mr. Brown’s shirt make it any less likely that Mr. Johnson’s account is true?
The only honest and intelligent answer to this question is “No”. You have done your utmost to imply otherwise. Why is that?
Gene,
That’s one of my favorite Far Side cartoons!
Bob:
I think the altercation at the car is irrelevant to the actions of the officer once that event ended and Brown ran. If Brown stopped as witnesses claimed and verbally or by way of gesture indicated his willingness to surrender using lethal force to subdue him was unlawful. Once the threatening behavior ends the concept of imminent serious injury or death evaporates and any further use of deadly force becomes punishment.
“I think the altercation at the car is irrelevant to the actions of the officer once that event ended and Brown ran.”
Mark,
Really? The altercation is where Brown assaulted Wilson and wrestled him for his gun; presumably to shoot him.
Wilson: “He grabs my gun, says, “you are too much of a pussy to shoot me.” The gun goes down into my hip and at that point I thought I was getting shot. I can feel his fingers try to get inside the trigger guard with my finger and I distinctly remember envisioning a bullet going into my leg. I thought that was the next step.” (Volume V, pg 223)
Here’s an approximation of what Brown had Wilson feeling by assaulting him and wrestling him for his gun:
The entire event took place in less than two minutes. The adrenal gland hadn’t even finished dumping cortisol and adrenaline into the blood stream when Brown advanced on Wilson again while his gun was drawn.
Officer Wilson had a powerful case for self-defense under Missouri law [updated with thoughts on assessing a suspect’s testimony before the grand jury]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/26/officer-wilson-had-a-powerful-case-for-self-defense-under-missouri-law/
Bob,
If Mr. Wilson was still in fear for his life, he should never have pursued Mr. Brown. In fact, the decision to do so means that he was no longer in fear for his life and, if he reacted impulsively due to adrenaline then he should be culpable both professionally and legally for those actions.
Wrong Kevin.
It’s his job to pursue and keep tabs on him until backup arrives. There was plenty of distance between he and Brown before Brown started coming at him again.
But feel free to blame Wilson for the peril that Brown created.
Perhaps write a new manual for police departments everywhere. I’m sure they’d find your take on the subject quite amusing.
So, in “BobWorld”, an officer in fear of his life has a duty to pursue a wounded teenager, even if that would put him in greater danger and is completely absolved of the responsibility to verify that backup is on the way. At the very best, Mr. Wilson was guilty of gross incompetence and should have been fired (not to mention exposed the Ferguson PD to a massive civil liability) and, at worst, he was a cowboy cop who ran down and killed a teenager to cover up the initial, unjustified, shooting (something that the evidence may suggest is unlikely, but doesn’t preclude). Where on that continuum Mr. Wilson fell was a question of fact that should have been decided by a trial jury (at least this seems to be the consensus amongst those that didn’t select their position on the basis of their ideology like Bob did)).
Bob,
It is simply ridiculous to suggest that Mr. Wilson was a scared child during the initial incident and remained so throughout except when it is convenient for you to believe he acted as a trained police officer and put his duty above his life (which, I suspect, isn’t how a trained police officer is supposed to behave anyway).
This is in the wrong thread. Maybe we need some kind of comprehensive index to assist those who might want to continue a conversation.
But I think there are at least a few here who will find this interesting.
Without any rancor that I can see, Charles Blow raises the question how is it that an armed woman who is know to have fired at cars and people can be arrested without anyone being hurt. yet a 12 y/o boy with a toy is shot dead within 2 seconds of being confronted by LE. He also compares the treatment of this white woman with the treatment of black men in several recent incidents.
I think the conclusion is inescapable that citizens must take a hand in examining and setting standards for the tactics, rules of engagement and training of law enforcement.
In addition I think we need more study of unconscious racism with the hope that we can develop training to help individuals, especially LE, understand inclinations of which they may not be aware and how that influences choices they make.
BFM,
As everyone who reads the article can see, this took place in Chattanooga, TN.
This is not one of the departments I work with; however, I do the mandatory psychological screenings for many of the law enforcement agencies in east Tennessee. Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) Commission mandates that all law enforcement officers in the state of Tennessee be screened for mental health issues.
Under labor and disability laws, the screening must take place after the job offer, but before they can be put on the payroll.
It is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy an officer going rogue, but it is possible to weed out most of the potentially problematical officers. I do not hesitate to flunk a candidate if they are not mentally stable and mature enough to do the job.
The officers making this arrest have been through a thorough mental health screening that meets the requirements of the POST Commission. I know this, because they cannot be put to work without at least two psychological screenings. The first time will be when the are first hired, or they couldn’t be hired. When they go to the police academy, they take the POST exam again, which is part of the admission requirements.
The officers were professionals, psychologically screened, and appear to be well trained. I can’t speak for the other two thirds of the state, but I know that in our end of the state, most department heads and Sheriffs take training and screening seriously.
Everyone should also remember that it was Nashville police chief Steve Anderson who spoke out so eloquently a few days ago. That is the same Chief Anderson who refused to cooperate with Secret Service agents last October when the Secret Service asked the Nashville Police Department to falsify a warrant so that they could search the home of an Obama critic
Several area agencies already have body cams and their utility is being studied by many more agencies. The main question is not whether they are needed, but just how reliable the equipment is. My own city police department has tested video equipment from two different manufacturers, but has not made a decision on which brand to buy.
in many ways Tennessee is ahead of the curve.
@Chuck Stanley: “The officers making this arrest have been through a thorough mental health screening that meets the requirements of the POST Commission. I know this, because they cannot be put to work without at least two psychological screenings. ”
Thank you for your response. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but you seem to indicate that good selection procedures and good training can lead to good outcomes.
That seems more than plausible to me. And it sounds like Tennessee has some good policies in place.
First I want to acknowledge both that LE has a very difficult job and that some protestors have made remarks and chants that are far beyond what I consider reasonable or helpful.
Yet I think there are aspects that ought to concern reasonable people and where improvements might be made.
First it seems that some departments do not have the same high standards of Chattanooga and Tennessee.
Second it seems that some departments have rules of engagement that tend to lead to escalation in situations that could be handled without violence.
Third I think the statistics of LE encounters with citizens have to raise the question of unconscious racism and what might be done to reduce it.
Finally, it seems to me that some officers have been given a pass for actions that are abusive. We need to consider how we investigate officers who might have abused their authority. We need to assure a fair review of officer performance, especially in cases where lethal force is used. Simply ignoring excesses by officers is not reasonable.
Here is Metro Nashville Police Chief Anderson’s press conference regarding how he handled the protests about the Ferguson police. It is a lesson in how to deal with protests, and stark contrast to places like Oakland.
Bob:
The legality aside, there is something decidely unmanly about an armed officer shooting down an unarmed man because he is angry at him. That’s law of the jungle stuff.
Bob, I read the article by Judge Cassell and found it instructive and in accord with my understanding of the law. Cassell qualifies his thoughts with the proviso, “if Wilson is to be believed, ” to which I heartily agree. The salient fact inquiry is whether or not Brown was in the act of surrendering when he was shot. That should have been decided by a petit jury in a trial not a grand jury inundated with all manner of reliable and unreliable evidence. You needed a judge and a jury not just the latter.
“Wilson: “He grabs my gun, says, “you are too much of a pussy to shoot me.”
Bob,
Part of the evidence of your bias is that you have used this quote so much to characterize Michael Brown as a combative thug, without once admitting that the only “factualness” of this quote comes from Officer Wilson. The reason this shows your bias is that the only source for this “evidence” comes from Wilson’s own statement, which is part of his justification for his later actions in shooting Michael Brown. Wilson’s words might be true, or they might be self-serving. This is the type of “factual” evidence that should be determined by a jury, in a jury trial, as the trier of fact. No matter how much you twist and turn to try to justify your position, a Grand Jury exists to determine if there is probable cause to indict someone, not as a trier of fact.
However, putting that aside, your bias from the beginning (prior to the GJ) was that Michael Brown was a “criminal type” and that Wilson was a “faithful dog” wrongly accused, by frauds and PC Liberals. As you have continued, you have literally twisted logic to justify your initial position. Since we have been familiar with each others writing over the years, I’ve got to honestly tell you that I have never seen you respond with less coherent logic, than in this instance. You will note that for the most part my responses to you have been brief. This is because most others have demolished your arguments point by point and yet you slog on constantly trying to shape the discussion on your terms, which ignore the significant issues pointed out to you, which you gloss over because you can’t offer any significant refutation.
I felt I had to write this because I respect your intelligence too much to see you in this state of denial. My issue, as I’ve stated repeatedly is not about Wilson per se, but about the larger issue of police harassment of and doing harm to, people of color. Not once have you addressed the larger issue, which was always the real basis for the protests and given your usual candor on all political topics, I find that both surprising and telling.
Since this thread is now tainted and has become another Mike Brown related one…here goes:
from http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-juror-sues-mcculloch-says-he-mischaracterized-wilson-case
“A grand juror is suing St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch in an effort to speak out on what happened in the Darren Wilson case. Under typical circumstances, grand jurors are prohibited by law from discussing cases they were involved in.
The grand juror, referred to only as “Grand Juror Doe” in the lawsuit, takes issue with how McCulloch characterized the case. McCulloch released evidence presented to the grand jury and publicly discussed the case after the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson, then a Ferguson police officer, in the shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African American.
“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”
“From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states. Doe also believes the legal standards were conveyed in a “muddled” and “untimely” manner to the grand jury.
In the lawsuit filed Monday in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues that this case is unique and that the usual reasons for requiring the jurors to maintain secrecy should not apply.
In this specific case, “any interests furthered by maintaining grand jury secrecy are outweighed by the interests secured by the First Amendment,” the lawsuit says, adding that allowing the juror to speak would contribute to a discussion on race in America.
As the grand juror points out in the lawsuit, the Wilson case was handled in a very different manner than other grand juries. Instead of recommending a charge, McCulloch’s office presented thousands of pages worth of evidence and testimony before the grand jury. At one point, McCulloch’s spokesman characterized the grand jury as co-investigators.
“From [Doe]’s perspective, although the release of a large number of records provides an appearance of transparency, with heavy redactions and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit says.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ferguson-grand-juror-sues-prosecutor “The St. Louis County grand juror, who is remaining anonymous, alleges that prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s “public characterization” of the grand jury does not reflect the juror’s own views.
“In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges,” the lawsuit says, per the news outlet. “Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with [Doe]’s own.”
The lawsuit asks for an injunction that would allow the juror to speak publicly about the Brown case. The juror is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri.
The legal standards in the investigation of Officer Darren Wilson’s August shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown were also “muddled” and presented in an “untimely” manner, according to the lawsuit.
“From [the grand juror]’s perspective, the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim than in other cases presented to the grand jury,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit argues that First Amendment rights outweigh the typical rules of secrecy that regulate grand juries. The plaintiff also takes a shot at McCulloch’s vow for transparency and his releasing huge amounts of grand jury documents.”
Mike: “you have used this quote so much to characterize Michael Brown as a combative thug”
Mike,
Your sole tactic in any of these discussions of the Brown shooting has been to attack me personally by projecting your own shadow. The words and thoughts you fear ever harboring or uttering are projected onto me as if I actually said them.
December 4, 2014 at 12:27 am
Me: “I know a unicorn when I see one. But, uh, I didn’t see any unicorns in the transcript either.”
Mike Spindell: Ah Bob, But it seems that you do know a thug when you see one, they usually have darker skin and are called demons in the transcript.
Mike Spindell says:
November 30, 2014 at 12:33 pm
In response to my listing of “Palestinian killings by Israeli security forces in the West Bank”
Mike Spindell: “Bob, Applying the same logic you used in your series here, all of these killings were justified and those killed were thugs. Seriously? You seem more and more desperate as you go on.”
And it’s not just you Mike. It’s Blouise, Elaine, Kevin, and the list goes on.
Please show me where I’ve referred to Mike Brown as a “thug.”
If memory serves, you won’t find it because I’m aware of its dog-whistle effect and I wouldn’t want someone like you clinging on to the whistle rather than listening to my argument.
But, as this post suggests, you’ve never let things like facts or the truth get in your way of attacking me personally rather than addressing my arguments.
I forgot to mention, unlike the Brown shooting, I consider each and every one of those killings of Palestinians an act of murder.
BFM:
I am not sure the screening and training always leads to good outcomes, but it certainly increases the likelihood. Much, if not most, of the responsibility can be laid at the feet of leadership. That goes up the chain of command from the watch supervisor, up through the Sheriff or Police Chief, and finally the city or county commissioners.
I know for a fact that our local county does not tolerate bad behavior on the part of officers. Recently, a male corrections officer took exception to something an inmate said to a female officer. The male CO body-slammed the inmate. Inmate was taken to the local emergency room for a checkup. The officer was fired and has since been indicted on felony assault charges. This was an officer I had passed not long before, but there was nothing in his personality profile that predicted his actions that night. As i have said before, and is confirmed in the research literature, predictive power of pre-screening is not foolproof.
What must happen when a rogue officer does slip through the screening, is for department leadership and local prosecutors to do their job and take appropriate action.
Proof that psychological screening is not foolproof can be seen in the case of NASA astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak. Astronauts get the most thorough mental and physical evaluations available to modern science before being admitted to the program. Nowak later proved to be a danger to herself and others when she became obsessed with another astronaut, stalking a woman she perceived as a romantic rival.
Mark: “The legality aside, there is something decidely unmanly about an armed officer shooting down an unarmed man because he is angry at him. That’s law of the jungle stuff.”
Mark,
I’m curious how you came to the conclusion that Wilson shot Brown because he was angry at him.
What convinced you? The fact that he was back pedaling and shooting as Brown was advancing?
Or was it something else?
“Your sole tactic in any of these discussions of the Brown shooting has been to attack me personally by projecting your own shadow.”
Bob,
You are correct that at a certain point all I basically did was use snark and irony, but that came later on in your first thread after you basically deflected all criticism. Sine I’m without my laptop and am doing this on my smart phone I can’t provide a direct quote for you. However, check out my first comment on the thread of your first “dog” post and tell me I started out by attacking you personally. This is interesting, since your first “dog” was a complete attack on those protesting and their supporters. As that thread developed you continually mis-characterized any argument raised against you and made accusations against those making the argument. So at this point, with so much evidence via your own writing, to protest that you are an innocent victim of unfair attacks, is ridiculous.
As for whether or not you specifically called Michael Brown a thug that is irrelevant, because EVERY characterization you’ve made of him connotes thuggery and little else.
“I consider each and every one of those killings of Palestinians an act of murder.”
Oh right it was Jews doing the shooting.
“Oh right it was Jews doing the shooting.”
No, the Palestinians I listed were throwing rocks.
They also didn’t previously wrestle those cops for their weapons either.
“As for whether or not you specifically called Michael Brown a thug that is irrelevant, because EVERY characterization you’ve made of him connotes thuggery and little else.”
Mike,
So even though I was right about you making false accusations about me, you are still the moral victor here because you say so.
Gotcha.
Yes Bob a rock can kill, don’t you know? A rock can be a lethal
Sorry Bob, but the only false accusations here are yours. Mike is the moral victor because his integrity outshines your own by a wide margin. If you would care to disagree, maybe you could explain the intent behind your repeated use of the term “honey badger” if it was not to portray Mr. Brown as a thug or worse.
“, maybe you could explain the intent behind your repeated use of the term “honey badger” if it was not to portray Mr. Brown as a thug or worse.”
Perhaps Bob would care to explain the use of the word mob to describe anyone who questioned the situation at Ferguson. Maybe I misunderstood, but Bob seemed to divide the world in two: those who support Wilson and the unruly mob. Not to put too fine a point on it but the mob was invariably describe as being led by people like Al Sharpton. Do I need to dig out Bob’s descriptions of the purported leaders of the mob?
Bob:
I base it on his attitude to a similar cop-citizen confrontation captured here:
Chuck:
Thanks for the video. Protesters as valuable citizens, too. What a concept? What a country?
Bob,
Assuming the officer in Mespo’s video was Mr. Wilson (which I think we both know it almost certainly was), do you approve of his actions to censor a record of his own actions? Would this incident not support the supposition that Mr. Wilson, after an attempt to bully a couple of boys walking down the street went awry, chased down and executed his wounded, barefoot teenaged victim in an attempt to cover up the incident and prevent Mr. Brown from being able to testify against him? Furthermore, would it have been within the prosecutor’s discretion to present this narrative (and only the evidence which supports it) to the grand jury? If that had happened, do you think that it is possible that they would have returned a true bill?
That’s the problem with building your argument like a house of cards… once one piece is removed, the whole tower collapses.
Kevin,
Without getting into the Abagail Williams angle you and Mike share in common, let me just say that in my earliest drafts I was describing Mike Brown’s actions by comparing them to Men Without Hats playing a concert and refusing to play “Safety Dance.” PURE BALLS.
David Spade: Aw, thank you! Thanks. People, there’s an epidemic going around the music industry that needs to be stopped. No, I’m not talking about chlamydia. But, good guess. No, I’m talking about spending hard-earned money to go see your favorite band in concert, and they have the nerve to not sing their biggest hits. It happens more often than you’d think, and I feel I must speak up.
For instance, six months ago I went to see Bob Segar. Now, after two-and-a-half hours, Mr. Segar walked off the stage without singing “Night Moves”. That was pure balls, ladies and gentlemen. It made me want to throw, like, a rock at, like, his head.
But it gets worse. I saw Men Without Hats. No “Safety Dance”. Pure balls. 100% nuts.”
The more apt description was Honey Badger. —- “Honey Badger just takes what it wants; it doesn’t give a shit.”
“While the mob has adopted a fanatical policy of aniconism toward anyone that dare depict Big Mike as anything but an angel, the video of the strong arm robbery clearly shows Brown acting like Honey Badger™. That belligerent attitude apparently continued in his altercation with Officer Wilson not ten minutes later. Having just robbed a store and coming upon a police car, does Brown run? No. After punching Officer Wilson in the face while he was struggling for his sidearm, Brown flees and Wilson pursues with his gun drawn and orders him to stop. And what did Brown do? Just like Honey Badger™, Brown didn’t give a shit. He turned back around and rushed toward Wilson at which time Wilson fired, and apparently kept firing, because he was missing center mass, until Brown stopped coming at him.”
Accusing me of being racist ala six degrees of separation from anything synonymous with a dog whistle word of your choice is just pathetic.
BFM,
From an earlier draft:
It’s been said that law is not a search for truth but a search for process. For example, while a coerced confession from a suspect may reveal the whereabouts of a kidnapped child, the law will disallow the confession in proving the defendant’s guilt, no matter how truthful it may be. The reason the legal process disallows coerced confessions is that they will generally turn out to be false much more than true. Thus the law’s search for process serves to protect the people. Accordingly, when a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.
” Accordingly, when a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.”
Undoubtedly there are some people that are like that.
But the vast majority of people and reports that I have seen and read are nothing like that. On the contrary they have been asking for a rigorous and fair investigation.
So what could possible lead you to use ‘mob’ to characterize all those people that have differing points of view but a common interest in seeing justice done.
What could possibly motivate you to smear all those different points of view with the slander of ‘mob’.
You think you are clever. But we see through you, your evasions, your illogical arguments, your ad hominem attacks and your cites to paranoid nutty articles.
Bob,
I never accused you of being a racist. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Mark: “The salient fact inquiry is whether or not Brown was in the act of surrendering when he was shot. That should have been decided by a petit jury in a trial not a grand jury inundated with all manner of reliable and unreliable evidence. You needed a judge and a jury not just the latter.”
From Justice Harlan’s discussion of the purpose of a Grand Jury in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
“That this defender of popular rights against official oppression was not in error when saying that no person could be arraigned for a capital offence except upon the presentment or indictment of a grand jury is shown upon almost every page of the common law.
Blackstone says:
But to find a bill, there must be at least twelve of the jury agree, for, so tender is the law of England of the lives of the subjects that no man can be convicted at the suit of the King of any capital offence unless by an unanimous voice of twenty-four of his equals and neighbors, that is, by twelve at least of the grand jury, in the first place, assenting to the accusation, and afterwards by the whole petit jury, of twelve more, finding him guilty upon his trial.
4 Bl.Com. 306. The same author, after referring to prosecutions by information, describing their different kinds, and stating that the mode of prosecution by information (or suggestion) filed on record by the King’s attorney general, or by his coroner or master of the crown office in the Court of King’s Bench, was as ancient as the common law itself, proceeds:
But these informations (of every kind) are confined by the constitutional law to mere misdemeanors only, for, wherever any capital offence is charged, the same law requires that the accusation be warranted by the oath of twelve men before the party shall be put to answer it.
4 Bl.Com. 309-10. Again, in his discussion of the trial by jury, Blackstone, after observing that the English law has wisely placed this strong and two-fold barrier of a presentment and a trial by jury, between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown,
says:
The founders of the English law have, with excellent forecast, contrived that no man shall be called to answer the King for any capital crime unless upon the peremptory accusation of twelve or more of his fellow subjects, the grand jury, and that the truth of any accusation, whether preferred in the shape of an indictment, information, or appeal, should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors, indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion. So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladan remains sacred and inviolate not only from all [p545] open attacks (which none will be so hardy as to make), but also from all secret machinations which may sap and undermine it by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial by justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience. And however convenient these may appear at first (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient), yet let it be again remembered that delays and little inconveniences in the forms of justice are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon the sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution, and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread to the utter disuse of jurors in questions of the most momentous concern.
4 Bl.Com. 349-350.”
Painting me as racist is just as foul as actually calling me a racist.
Mark: “I base it on his attitude to a similar cop-citizen confrontation captured here”
LOL
Bob,
I’ve painted you in the light of your own actions and their logical consequences. If that make you appear racist, then I’m sorry, but it’s not my fault.
Please feel free to bring up any accusation or supposition I’ve made against you and I will be happy to either defend it or apologize for it, but, to the best of my recollection, I haven’t made a single allegation that wasn’t clearly supported by your own words.
You said them, so you own them until you admit they were wrong.
Sorry Bob, but it’s more like you went to a David Bowie concert and you are ranting that he only played one song that you recognized. That’s just what the man does these days—if you don’t like it, you shouldn’t have bought a ticket.
Slartibartfast: “Please feel free to bring up any accusation or supposition I’ve made against you and I will be happy to either defend it or apologize for it, but, to the best of my recollection, I haven’t made a single allegation that wasn’t clearly supported by your own words.
You said them, so you own them until you admit they were wrong.”
Slartibartfast says:
November 28, 2014 at 2:29 pm (Edit)
That’s a very insightful study Elaine, thanks. Bob has been providing us with a great example of how one can employ that psychological distinction to defend systemic racism because it isn’t overt like the KKK. Doing it while the KKK is overtly on his side is a nice flourish, though.
Slartibartfast says:
November 28, 2014 at 10:17 pm (Edit)
He shouldn’t have been getting out of the car in that situation. By doing so, he gave the magical negro the chance to attack and possibly kill him and neutralized his best weapon—his vehicle.
Slartibartfast says:
November 29, 2014 at 10:48 pm (Edit)
Bob,
The term “magical negro” was used on one of these threads to indicate the seemingly supernatural powers that apologists like yourself tend to impart to African Americans. Think of it as a shorthand for your big bad Michael Brown vs. poor little Officer Wilson meme.
Slartibartfast says:
November 22, 2014 at 5:39 am (Edit)
Bob,
Well, Officer Wilson’s apologists have set the bar pretty high. After all, the Klan adds that touch of sophistication to any endeavor and the obvious bias of the police chief and prosecutor puts the integrity of the process beyond reproach.
Slartibartfast says:
November 30, 2014 at 5:57 pm
(Having never even glanced at the Grand Jury Transcript)
“First of all, the phrase “Big Mike” is yet another reference to Mr. Brown’s “magical negro” status (i.e. it is effectively propaganda). ”
NBC says:
December 3, 2014 at 2:43 pm (Edit)
Slarti: Bob, are you willing to admit that your bull-rushing magical negro was just walking towards Mr. Wilson?
Such a distasteful description which does not do justice to the facts. Some say walking, some say rushing, some say stumbling.
Kevin,
Your last post is simply incomprehensible.
Bob,
It was a response to your Men Without Hats sophistry. Rather than (as you suggested) the situation being like that of a one-hit wonder refusing to play their claim to fame, I am suggesting that your whining is similar to someone who went to a David Bowie concert expecting to hear his old classics rather than his new material despite the fact that he was quite clear about no longer playing his old stuff (while he was still touring, that is).
Kevin,
The Men Without Hats joke wasn’t sophistry; it was an old SNL joke referencing the concept of “pure balls.”
My whining?
WTF are you talking about?
On second thought; I don’t care.
Bob,
I’m saying that the SNL analogy isn’t apt in this instance (and gave a similar analogy which I believe to be apt). Besides, I can’t see that it matters if you understand what I’m saying—the evidence is pretty clear that you will never even acknowledge my real positions. On the other hand, pretty much everyone else seems to understand me just fine.
I wonder why that is…
BFM,
Wilson was convicted of being a racist murderer before anyone knew any of the facts.
Just a small sampling:
Benjamin Crump at the Brown Funeral:
“Over One Hundred and Sixty years ago, about ten miles away from where we gather in this great Church to pay our Final Respects to young Michael Brown, The Missouri Supreme Court decided, in “what is still affectingly referred to as “the Old Courthouse,” the Dred Scott Decision.
And the substance of that decision was adopted by the US Supreme Court some five years later, holding that “Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution.”
Now one could logically conclude that this manner of thinking followed the precedence of the 1787 Three Fifths Compromise, which said African Americans were to be considered only three-fifths of a man.
But as we pay our final respects to Michael Brown, Jr., we declare today that he was not 3/5’s of a Citizen, he was an American Citizen, because we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. And because of these truths, we will not accept 3/5’s justice for Michael Brown, Jr, we demand Equal Justice for Michael Brown, Jr.”
Care to argue those are the words of an attorney that’s sworn by his own State Bar to never undermine faith in the judicial system?
Care to argue that using the public spotlight to paint Wilson in such a manner was “asking for a rigorous and fair investigation.”
And let’s not forget how many times Crump accused Wilson of “executing” Brown.
Kevin,
Unless you’re defining “pure balls” as something you’ve seen in one of your Avenger movies, then I have no idea what your disagreement is.
Darren Wilson Grand Juror Sues, Accusing Ferguson Prosecutor Of Mischaracterizing Case
“Minaj on Tuesday lamented that the grand jury did not to indict the New York City police officer who used a chokehold on a black man.
“It’s sickening, and I’ve been reading so many people saying, ‘Why are we surprised?’ That’s what’s really sad: that we should somehow be used to being treated like animals,” Minaj told Rolling Stone. “It’s gotten to the point where people feel like there’s no accountability: If you are law enforcement and you do something to a black person, you can get away with it.”
On his radio show last week, Duke launched into a rant responding to Nicki Minaj.
“Why do people blame blacks like Minaj?” he asked, according to Time. “Because Minaj wouldn’t be a pimple on somebody’s rear end except for the fact that she is promoted by the Jewish record producers and the media, the mass media, the powerful media, that promotes absolute degenerates like her.”http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-duke-kkk-nicki-minaj
Posthumous Hit On Michael Brown Is A Viral Smash
Video purports to show Missouri teen brutally beating, robbing man
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/posthumous-smear-of-michael-brown-897652
Excerpt:
JANUARY 5–In the latest attempt to posthumously demonize Michael Brown, a video purporting to show the teenager brutally beating and robbing a “senior black male” has gone viral on Facebook, piling up a staggering 17.5 million views in the past two weeks.
In a note accompanying the video–which has recently been distributed by a Facebook user in Canada–the late Missouri teenager is referred to as “the fellow that all of the riots are about.” The note adds that, “Videos don’t lie. You will not see this in the media. Pass this around so the truth can be known. It needs to be seen!”
This online call to action has been remarkably successful based on the 2:05 clip’s increasing Facebook view and share numbers. In a tip sent to TSG, a reader included a Facebook link and the claim that Brown’s victim was a homeless man. “Traditional media won’t touch this because it destroys the ‘gentle giant’ myth that his parents and other Lefties have put out there,” the reader declared…
According to those who have been circulating the video, the clip shows Brown’s propensity for violence, a character flaw that resulted in him getting shot to death last August when he attacked a Ferguson, Missouri police officer. In the Facebook note accompanying the video, the Canadian poster sarcastically observed, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the Grand Jury got it ALL WRONG.”
Except, of course, Brown is not the attacker seen in the viral video.
Re: Darren Wilson Grand Juror Sues, Accusing Ferguson Prosecutor Of Mischaracterizing Case – Gene
I wondered how long it was going to take for that to happen. I doubt McCulloch and the rest of the boys and girls in the band had any real idea how far outside their grasp this thing was going to go.
And I believe this to be just the first salvo…i believe more will come to confirm our insight in McCullough plan.
Any juror who went against his/her better instinct and with what they were told was the “right” process, will be pissed off to realize that they were played for fools.
po,
Whatever will prosecutors do when grand juries start asking real questions and demand honest answers from the prosecutors standing in front of them. Perhaps more and more of the jurors will start turning to the Court judges under whose authority they serve. McCulloch and crew opened Pandora’s Box when they published the transcripts. We see all the bad … and then, there’s hope.
There is hope, indeed!
The OJ trial shed light into both the investigative and the trial processes, and this mess will educate any potential grand juror out there and the public at large.
Ultimately, the more educated we all are, the better we can force a fix on the system…especially when words mean less and less what they once meant.
The OJ trial shed light into both the investigative and the trial processe … – po
In the OJ trial they cancelled the grand jury and went to a probable cause hearing. Really good defense move.
Why let the facts get in the way of a great (and bias confirming) story, Elaine?
Bob:
I wonder what the grand jury presentation by McCulloch would have looked like had Brown killed Wilson instead of the reverse? All the evidence presented even the conflicting parts that the prosecution deemed unreliable in an effort to provide the sheen of objectivity? If you, believe that let me know how you’re fixed for “waterfront property” in Florida.
“Paul Callan, former deputy chief of homicide in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, says grand jury practices vary across the country.
Some prosecutors “use grand juries to provide political cover for the dismissal of difficult and controversial cases which the prosecutor knows will be lost at trial due to weaknesses in the available evidence,” Callan says. These cases may involve police or civilians, such as “a store owner who shoots a robber under somewhat questionable circumstances or a father who kills the rapist of his daughter when he should’ve relied on the police.
“McCulloch’s approach in presenting virtually every shred of existing evidence to the grand jury is unusual but not unprecedented,” Callan said.
Some prosecutors in New York, for example, present virtually all evidence to grand juries in cases of police shootings, Callan said, citing a former high-ranking fellow prosecutor from another office.
“Cop shooting cases are always highly controversial and there is an awareness that the omission of any evidence may subject the prosecutor to future public criticism by either the family of the victim or by the police officers involved,” Callan said.
Also, “virtually all of these cases now result in subsequent civil litigation where the record of the prior investigation will be closely examined and possibly publicized.”
Local prosecutors know that federal authorities might open an independent investigation — as they have in Ferguson, Callan says. Federal investigators will obtain copies of the grand jury presentation and “an unfair or incomplete presentation may subject the prosecutor to criticism.”
Sorry to take so long to get back to you Bob—meatspace issues pretty much ate the whole week.
Looking at what you quoted, it seems like you are the one having a problem owning what you say, not me.
I don’t specifically remember the study Elaine linked, but I’m sure you used the “psychological distinction” to which I referred and pretty much everything you’ve said here has been a defense of systemic racism, albeit not an overt one. In addition, the KKK is unquestionably on “your side” (or that of your dog) and your efforts to uphold the right of Mr. Wilson and those like him to kill Mr. Brown and those like him with impunity would certainly meet with their approval. Which makes your hypocrisy in smearing all of your opponents with the behavior of a small minority of supporters of Mr. Brown (who really aren’t supporting Mr. Brown at all) all the more blatant. Even worse, while pretty much all of your opponents here have repudiated the bad actors amongst their own ranks, you have never felt the need to so much as suggest that you don’t fully and heartily agree with the words and actions of the Klan.
Why is that?
All of the uses of “magical negro” and other inflammatory terms were done as counter-propaganda to illustrate your own use of loaded rhetoric (such as “honey badger”). I would note that you have never answered the perfectly reasonable implied question:
Was trying to exit the vehicle at that time a smart move on the part of Mr. Wilson?
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me. I meant exactly what I said.
Since you have so much trouble, I should probably help you interpret this. First off, the whole thing is sarcastic—that means that I don’t really mean what I am saying but instead the exact opposite. Thus, I am implying that those vocally supporting Mr. Wilson have low standards for integrity, that the KKK associating itself with a group does not make that group appear to have more class and people putting their fingers on the scale in Mr. Wilson’s favor means that his “exoneration” is highly suspect. I certainly still agree with all of these sentiments.
In this case, you were just quoting Mr. Johnson, as opposed to all the other times you used phrases like “honey badger” in a effort to propagandize the discussion (see Gene’s articles on the subject if you don’t understand what I mean). My bad.
As for not having looked at the transcript, so what? We are all (that includes you, by the way) giving our opinion based on incomplete information. Your implication that my opinion is invalid because I haven’t read a particular source myself (although I have been exposed to many second and third hand reports) given the array of information which you don’t have or fail to consider is just another in a long line of hypocrisies.
That’s a nice finesse—take a response that was made by someone who was unaware of the prior context of the discussion (i.e. that the term “magic negro” was a description of memes that you’ve been pushing heavily since you started trying to defend your “dog”) to once again try to make your point by studiously ignoring the point that I was making.
Do my ideas really terrify you so much that you can’t even try to understand them?