“Any time I’m involved in an officer-involved shooting, be it a fatal one or non-fatal, it is always during my initial investigation listed as an assault on law enforcement,” explained the St. Louis County Police Detective who inaugurated the investigation of the Michael Brown shooting. “Officer Wilson … was the victim of the assault we were investigating.”
Once it had been established that the living, armed individual was the “victim” and the dead, bullet-ridden body had belonged to the “assailant,” continued the detective in his September 3 grand jury testimony, “One of the sergeants with Ferguson [gave] me a brief walk-through to start my investigation so I [could] have a logical starting point from where I would start my video, photographs, and looking for evidence.”
That unnamed sergeant, most likely, was the supervisor who had told Darren Wilson to leave the scene after the shooter told him that Brown had tried to take his gun.
From its inception, the shooting of Michael Brown was not investigated as a potential criminal homicide, and the inquiry was an exercise in validating the killer’s story, rather than testing it against the available evidence. The assumption was that killing was part of his job description – or, as Wilson has subsequently told George Stephanopoulos, “I did what I was paid to do.”
If Wilson had been a member of the productive class, rather than a state employee licensed to dispense aggressive violence, he would have been presumed legally innocent, but required to justify his actions. Because of his occupation, however, Wilson was considered both legally innocent and presumptively correct, and the investigation became an exercise in justifying the shooter’s actions, rather than an inquiry into their propriety.
If Officer Wilson had been “merely” Darren Wilson, the deceased Michael Brown would have been identified as the presumptive “victim.” The shooter would not have been allowed to leave the scene without making a statement to the police, and his associates would not have been allowed to frame the crime scene for the benefit of the investigating detective.
Most importantly, if Wilson had been treated as a homicide suspect, rather than the “victim” of an “assault on law enforcement,” he would not have had the luxury of composing his story at leisure, in consultation with his attorney, to fit the facts as they emerged from the investigation.
“When you got back to the police department, after you washed off and everything, did you ever think at what time that I needed to write a report while it is fresh in my mind?” asked assistant St. Louis County prosecutor Kathi Alizadeh.
“No,” Wilson replied. “The protocol is whenever you are involved in a significant use of force, that you contact your FOP [Fraternal Order of Police] representative and then he will advise you of what to do step by step because they are the clear head in that situation. They have not been through a traumatic experience.” (See the transcript of Darren Wilson’s grand jury testimony, pages 77-78.)
When the shooter is a Mundane – that is, a common citizen, rather than a police officer – he may be similarly traumatized, but he can’t count on the “step-by-step” guidance of clear-headed police officers who have identified him as the victim. One of the first priorities for investigators in non-“officer involved” shootings is to get the original story from the shooter, and compare it against the evidence. As a police officer, however, Wilson wasn’t required to make an initial statement of any kind – either in an incident report, or to any of the investigating officers
Asked by Alizadeh if he had committed his recollections to paper in a diary or journal, Wilson replied: “My statement has been written for my attorney.”
“And that’s between you and your attorney, then?” asked the unusually helpful prosecutor, who received an affirmative reply.
“So no one has asked you to write out a statement?” the assistant DA persisted.
“No, they haven’t,” Wilson acknowledged. He made one brief reference to speaking with a detective while in the hospital, but that communication was protected by Wilson’s “Garrity” privileges, which means that it could be used only for the purposes of an internal investigation, not in a criminal or civil proceeding.
In his November 24 press conference, St. Louis County DA Robert McCulloch made conspicuous mention of the fact that some witnesses had changed their testimony once their original story was found to be in conflict with subsequently discovered evidence. This is something that happens frequently to homicide suspects, as well. Wilson was never in danger of being caught in that contradiction because he was not treated as a suspect, nor was he required to make a statement to criminal investigators.
During Wilson’s examination before the grand jury, McCulloch’s deputy prosecutors were gentle and deferential, rather than being adversarial. This is to be expected, given that this was a conversation among colleagues.
At several points in his testimony, Wilson made statements that a motivated prosecutor would have aggressively pursued. For example: Wilson – who at 6’4” and roughly 225 pounds is no small man – said that when he grappled with Brown, he felt like a “five-year-old” who was trying to restrain “Hulk Hogan.” He likewise claimed that he had been struck twice by Brown with such force that he was concerned a third blow would be “fatal” – yet the medical examination displayed no evidence of corresponding trauma to his face.
Wilson didn’t explain how the right-handed Michael Brown could have punched the right side of his face while the officer was sitting in the driver’s side of his vehicle. Although Wilson claimed that the initial blows were inflicted while Brown was holding stolen cigarillos in his right hand, no broken cigars were ever recovered, either in the SUV or the surrounding area. The stolen cigars were not found by the medical examiner who arrived on the scene after the shooting. (Interestingly, that examiner never took photos of the deceased, because “My battery in my camera died,” nor did he take any measurements at the crime scene.)
A well-known and highly respected forensic analyst and expert witness on biomechanics and accident reconstruction takes note of several points the prosecution either ignored or minimized to the point of invisibility.
“The big issue as I see it, is how do the cops justify provoking a lethal confrontation with a kid over some damned cigarillos?” the analyst pointed out in an email to me. “Why not wait for ample backup and use non-lethal methods to subdue and arrest for shoplifting? This of course assumes grounds for an arrest. Why were the alleged cigarillos not found? And what did the DA mean when he stated on TV that Brown’s body was on the road 150 feet from the police car? How does an unarmed kid that far away with no weapons constitute an immediate threat to life?”
He also underscores the fact that the unarmed pedestrian Brown, rather than Wilson, may have had the stronger case for self-defense:
“As for what supposedly went on in the passenger compartment with the alleged grabbing of the cop’s arm – this is “consistent with” a kid whose life was threatened by an overly aggressive cop with a gun aimed at him and where the kid was so terrified of an immediate shooting that he felt compelled to take preemptive action to protect himself by disarming the cop.”
If Darren Wilson had been part of the wealth-producing class, as opposed to an armed emissary of the tax-consuming elite, those questions most likely would have been examined in a criminal trial. But, once again, owing to his occupation, this was never going to happen.
Robert McCulloch has a well-earned reputation for deference to the police, and a well-established habit of justifying every use of lethal force, no matter how questionable. Rather than simply seeking an indictment, McCulloch presented the case for the “defense” as well – a characterization that is an odd fit here, given that Wilson – it bears repeating – had been treated as the “victim” in this incident from the beginning.
“Had the prosecution desired an indictment against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, the presentment would have taken an hour, maybe two, and there would have been a true bill by close of business the next day, well before Michael Brown had been laid to rest,” points out attorney and civil rights advocate Scott Greenfield. “The grand jury isn’t the venue to present `all the evidence.’ That’s what trials are for. The grand jury serves a very limited function, to determine whether sufficient evidence exists so that there is probable cause to proceed to trial.”
A great deal of the media coverage has referred to the Grand Jury’s decision as a “verdict,” which is both technically incorrect and substantively true: Rather than seeking probable cause to indict Wilson, McCulloch and St. Louis County law enforcement built a case to convict Michael Brown of “an assault on law enforcement.”
Given the ambiguity of the evidence, Darren Wilson as a private citizen likely would not have been convicted of murder if the case had gone to trial, but a conviction on a lesser count would be a possibility. Under Missouri’s constitutionally perverse statute dealing with police homicide – which has been criticized by former federal judge Paul Cassell, who is broadly indulgent of killer cops – Officer Wilson was never in danger of being convicted of a crime.
It is not necessary to believe that Michael Brown was the embodiment of winsome innocence (it’s pretty clear that he was not) to take issue with the architecture of official privilege that protects Darren Wilson – and the other armed representatives of the political class – from accountability. The problem, in a single phrase, isn’t “white privilege,” but rather “blue privilege.”
Edmund Burke could have had this case in mind when he wrote these lines from his neglected essay “A Vindication of Natural Society”: “In a State of Nature, it is true, that a Man of superior Force may beat or rob me; but then it is true, that I am at full Liberty to defend myself, or make Reprisal by Surprise or by Cunning, or by any other way in which I may be superior to him. But in Political Society ... if I attempt to avenge myself, the whole Force of that Society is ready to complete my Ruin.”
If you can, please donate to help keep Pro Libertate online. Thank you, and God bless!
Dum spiro, pugno!
Dum spiro, pugno!
Again Mr. Griggs, your writing is on target. At first in this article I was dubious of your of your intent, thinking you were being an apologist for the Micheal Browns of this world. That came crashing down.
You gave me pause to think, to reexamine what has been said and shown during this debacle. I did have a sneaky thought there was more to this then what was being spun. You brought out some good points, I wonder if those same reporter that leaked the officer's address have the same temerity to chase and report factually those questions you have asked. I look forward to any updates you post. Keep the faith brother!
This is why "Police reform" is largely a myth that the states minions throw out to appease the masses. Coproaches become coproaches because of the unchecked power that they have and know that unlike private sector workers wont be held accountable for misconduct. As Castle Rock VS Gonzales showed, the coproaches dont have a duty to protect you at all. Unfortunately most stop at that point and don't go further and ask "What are they there for?" Of course when someone does ask, a standard "law and order" badge licker will say that they "Hold society together" which is more of a lie than an Obama speech.
Real reform is to get rid of coproaches and let the free market take over. Dale Brown's Threat Management Center in Detriot is a great example of what Lew Rockwell calls "Anarcho-Police". I would also argue that coproaches should be viewed in the same light as welfare recipients if not the same light but worse. At the very least one can defend one's self against a welfare thug, a mobster, or any other private aggressor who wishes to harm you, try defending yourself against a member of the states enforcement class and see what happens.
Typically well considered and written post, Mr. Grigg.
Perhaps uniquely, I have two corrections.
First, as regards the cigarillos, Brown's friend, Johnson testified that Brown gave him the cigarillos during the altercation at the SUV. Wilson did testify that the first punch Brown threw was with his right hand, and he had already testified that Brown was holding them in that same hand, so that is problematic for his "defense."
More importantly, the 1985 Supreme Court ruling in TN v. Garner made police shooting fleeing suspected felons unconstitutional.
"Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so," White said.
"Blue Privilege" is a meme that needs wide dissemination!
The fact that no pics or measurements were taken at a firearm homicide is reprehensible and bizarre!
The attorney for the convenience store and the clerk both said that they did NOT call in a robbery from the store. The clerk is not sure it is the same person. No cigars at the scene!? The pic of Mike Brown you show is different from the one in the jacket with headphones. Your Mike Brown has 2 prominent moles on either cheek and a square head and is much darker. The Mike Brown in the jacket pic and grad pic is lighter more coffee or cinnamon colored and a much fatter face with no moles on the cheeks.
This is either the worst coverup I have ever seen or the whole thing is a hoax!
Jeez, one look at that Cro Magnon mug of praetorian Wilson says a lot. I know the national average IQ of enforcement jarheads is 102, just a tick above the average Joe Blow, just enuf to be able read and write well enuf to fill out revenue-extraction paperwork at roadside waylays and to complete police fiction, er, police reports, and to be able to learn their self-exculpatory mantras like "I feared for my life from that ferocious 9-lb. Chihuahua" . . . but I would be surprised if this meathead gets close to 102! Courts have actually ruled against unhired high-IQ applicants based on the fact that one dept. excluding high IQ isn't "discriminatory", cuz they ALL do it, admitting that sociopathic dumbshits stick around longer to help the local political class victimize their neighbors in the name of "protect & serve", "public health & safety", ad nauseum, where applicants who have an actual discernible IQ and not as much sociopathy tend to quit earlier when they recognize the insidious blight they truly represent. That's probably part of the reason Wilson needed all that "coaching".
Careful. However well said, the greater issue may be immunity granted prosecutors and officers.
Because the officer is literally an organ of the state, we see in the Michael Brown example why Blue Privilege exists. Should it?
I argue it should. And because Blue Privilege is operating, any affordance of immunity now enjoyed by prosecutors and officers must be removed.
We can't make the government "not the government" but we can protect and strengthen due process and equal protection under the law.
Because Blue Privilege by procedural fiat must exist, the immunity afforded prosecutors and officers must be removed and otherwise denied so that equal protection under the law and due process are better protected and distributed among all citizens.
Your powerful insights comprise some of the most compelling evidence against the affordance of immunity to prosecutors and officers I have ever come across.
The cop is but an organ of the state. The state will always presume itself in the right and lawful when reacting to a physical assault upon its agents. The bias is structural and will never not be present. The place to balance the equation is the removal of immunity for those actors paid to serve in government.
When they are a protected class, the people are but prey; fodder for financial harvests.
This is an amazingly ignorant post.
If you are a member of the "productive class" and are involved in a shooting you can not be compelled to give any statement to the police. You are not forced to "justify your actions" to anyone including the police. When the cops get there they can't make you say anything. What are they going to do? Beat it out of you? If you are smart you will not make any spontaneous statements which can be used against you.
You will eventually be read your Miranda rights where you will be told you have the right to remain silent and to have an attorney. Even with an attorney you are not legally compelled to provide a statement. You can go all of the way through a trial without saying a word to anyone.
If a cop gets involved in a shooting he is legally compelled to provide a statement which can and will be used against him at a later date. He has given up his right to remain silent the day he signed up.
Do you now wish to take away his right to consult with an attorney as well as his right to remain silent?
Perhaps if it were to go to trial you would also like to force him to give up his right not to testify against himself but compel him to do so.
I also see you are posting this safely and securely from your home in Idaho. Perhaps you should give up your "white privilege" and go get some "blue privilege" and police the good folks of Ferguson. Oh wait. You are black. Why aren't you down there helping out your people out instead of whitey having to do it?
Thank you Mr. Griggs for yet another of your superb examinations of what you rightly call "blue privilege". Your critique of prosecutorial chicanery and police connivance is an important addition to the body of honest reporting on this unfortunate event.
After making the mistake of listening to the phalanx of nattering neoconservative nabobs on AM radio I was under the mistaken impression that Officer Wilson was pure and clean as new fallen snow. How foolish of me.
Your perceptive criticism has disabused me of any naïve misapprehensions I may have entertained. You are a one man antidote to the craven jackboot lickers of the conservative media (for whom the police are always and everywhere sacrosanct).
PS - Even if I vehemently disagreed with your viewpoint I would still enjoy your Blog posts if only for the clarity, honesty and superb writing style. You are rapidly becoming a national treasure, albeit an undeservedly obscure and destitute one. Such is the fate of those who courageously speak truth to the awful power of our contemptible overlords.
This is an amazingly ignorant post.... Perhaps you should give up your "white privilege" and go get some "blue privilege" and police the good folks of Ferguson. Oh wait. You are black. Why aren't you down there helping out your people out instead of whitey having to do it?
It's worth pointing out that the police have done nothing to protect the residents and business owners of Ferguson from mob violence; "officer safety" is always the highest priority, followed immediately by the security of government facilities.
To protect themselves and their property, the good people in Ferguson -- like their counterparts everywhere else -- have to arm themselves, organize privately, and, where possible, hire private peace officers. Police are worse than useless in such situations.
"My people" consist of anybody with human DNA, irrespective of melanin content. I am brown, but I'm not black and never will be. My ethnic ancestry, as I learned from meeting my birth mother a year ago, is Irish/Cherokee on her side, and Hawaiian/Basque on the side of my immediate male progenitor. This is a small matter, but large enough to fill some minds to overflowing. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
In order to protect the property and people of the good people of Ferguson the police would have had to use force. They have just seen what has happened to a cop who did just that.
What incentive do they have to do anything? The cops career and any semblance of a normal life is over. He has had his and his family's lives threatened. The Black Panthers have a $5000 bounty on his head.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they do they have their lives ruined. If they don't they don't have their lives ruined. Seems like they took the prudent choice to me.
After the LA riots the police decided it was better to do drive and wave police work than it was to get involved. The same will happen in Ferguson.
My apologies on mistaking your ancestry.
The term "White privilege" strikes a nerve with me when it is being used in a country founded by Whites and which was 90% White until the 1965 immigration act.
There is no such thing as "Black privilege" in black countries or "Asian privilege" in Asian countries.
Formerly White countries are the only ones who are having multiculturalism forced on them.
Between "White privilege" and affirmative action my children are second class citizens in a country their forefathers founded.
As a Christian I believe Satan is fomenting wars to bring about his one world government. I can see him stoking a race war in this country. I fear my children will be targeted because of the color of their skin.
I apologize if I have offended you. I should not have allowed my emotional reaction to a term that I dislike to affect me as it did.
I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless.
My apologies on mistaking your ancestry....I apologize if I have offended you. I should not have allowed my emotional reaction to a term that I dislike to affect me as it did.
I appreciate that gracious gesture -- but I'm hardly offended by strenuous disagreement, and would hardly have cause for offense over a very common misunderstanding about my ethnic background. As Christians we understand that we share the same ancestry (Acts 17:26).
My entire purpose in bringing up the obnoxious expression "white privilege" was to show how irrelevant it is to the events in Ferguson. You might be interested in my most recent podcast, which examines some of the outrages being committed in the name of fighting "racism."
William, what's your take on this?
I would think that the NBA would include District Attorney McCullough in their efforts for "justice", but I have no idea how difficult "censuring" a prosecutor would be.
EB, I won't shed a tear because a government employee has his career and life turned upside down. How many innocents have had their lives ruined by government employees? Face it, the cops do not protect any one but other government employees.
You say they have their lives ruined. But their lives are based upon theft and force, so they deserve to have their lives ruined. I would not voluntarily pay one dime for the services of a cop. But I am forced at gun point to pay their bloated salaries, platinum benefits and to provide them with early retirement. They take food out of my child's mouth to provide for theirs. They are more of a threat to me than any "gang banger". I can shoot the "banger", but to shoot a thug in blue would mean my death.
Another case of "his only 'crime' was committing a criminal offence." I can think of no sure way of committing suicide by cop then hitting him and going for his gun. Libertarians need to watch Chris Rock's "how not to get your ass kicked by the police" video. Seriously. Find out how the real world works rather than live by how you think it should work.
The police have certain privileges the average person doesn't have? When was this not of a case of "no kidding Sherlock?" Yes they do the same way the soldier has different standards on the battlefield than the average person at home. Why suddenly so surprised?
What is it about Libertarians that think "I have the right to commits crimes but the police has to treat me with kids gloves and the judge has to give me a proverbial slap on the wrist type of sentence? Is it because their ideal society assumes PDAs can only engage in seeking to return the stolen goods from the thief? The PDA officer can only ask nicely if the crook would like to turn up to private arbitration? The private arbitrator can only issue his viewpoint on what should be done and if the crook doesn't abide it then he only risks social shaming?
Doesn't that DA resemble Jeb Bush?
Doesn't that DA resemble Jeb Bush?
I actually thought he was J.R. Ewing's doppleganger.
The police have certain privileges the average person doesn't have? When was this not of a case of "no kidding Sherlock?"
If police were servants of the public, they would have duties, rather than privileges. That was actually one element of Robert Peel's original concept: Police officers were essentially common citizens who did, as a vocation, what any citizen can and should do as occasion requires-- protect others from the threat of criminal violence. Peel was being somewhat disingenuous, but that principle is sound nonetheless.
Yes they do the same way the soldier has different standards on the battlefield than the average person at home.
Police are supposed to be peace officers, rather than members of an occupying military force -- which, as it turns out, is their actual function.
As I understand it, under the laws of warfare, it is civilians who are privileged, not combatants. In domestic law enforcement, police were long taught that criminal suspects are not combatants, but fellow citizens whose rights are to be protected. That ethic -- always honored more in the breach than in observance -- was disposed of entirely when Nixon declared "war" on crime, if not earlier.
What is it about Libertarians that think "I have the right to commits crimes but the police has to treat me with kids gloves and the judge has to give me a proverbial slap on the wrist type of sentence?
No libertarian of whom I am aware believes that anybody has the right to commit a crime of any kind.
Is it because their ideal society assumes PDAs can only engage in seeking to return the stolen goods from the thief?
In an ideal society the store owner who was robbed would have the means and the ability to recover his property at the point of the violation. Government police agencies are flawlessly incompetent at recovering stolen property -- as was the case here. Wilson wasn't investigating a theft at the time of this encounter, and the stolen property was never found, let alone returned.
Blue privilige,like white privilege,is like black entitilement....a crock of you know what. So PLEASE take a more positive stance and actions to accomplish what you need to w/o the bull.....
As said Libertarians are patching their view of what should be and ignoring what actually is. It reminds of a fellow who wrote that speed limits are generally slower than most people would like to be however if you go faster than the posted limit you're committing a offence regardless if whether you think it should be an offence.
Yes, police officer have certain privileges but Libertarians romance to the time when the police didn't exist and local militias dealt with crime. Since local militias were made up of local volunteers they had no special rights in dealing with criminals. It's akin to currency: for the longest time most societies didn't have monopoly on currency and let the people decide until the last century or so. But that's not how modern society currently works.
Yes, police officer have certain privileges but Libertarians romance to the time when the police didn't exist and local militias dealt with crime. Since local militias were made up of local volunteers they had no special rights in dealing with criminals
Police don't "deal" with crime today, in terms of protecting property from aggression; this is why there are 3-4 times as many private peace officers (security guards, armored car drivers, "mall cops," and private detectives)than sworn government police officers in this country.
Here's the really interesting fact: None of those private peace officers -- people who actually risk their lives to protect private property -- enjoys any of the privileges of law enforcement officers, including "qualified immunity."
It's akin to currency: for the longest time most societies didn't have monopoly on currency and let the people decide until the last century or so. But that's not how modern society currently works.
I grant that the legitimacy of government police is akin to the value of government-issued fiat scrip, which has depreciated by more than 95 percent since the Fed was created a century ago. It isn't clear to the unprejudiced mind how this helps the case you're trying to make.
Law enforcement is a manifest failure as a means of protecting property from criminal violence; if this weren't the case, Americans wouldn't have spend as much as we do in order to hire people who render the service that the police supposedly provide.
That is a description of what actually is, rather than what government purports to be. Libertarians like myself reside within the reality-based community, rather than cocooning ourselves in state-centered fantasies.
The Governor betrayed the community of Ferguson. He withheld the Guard presence and refused to provide the honest and lawful citizens of that community due process and equal protection under the law.
Their rights and property of the Ferguson citizens were trampled as the Governor held back, as bad actors were allowed to destroy the property of innocents and wreak havoc on the peace and tranquility of the commons. Let any other "party" or ruckus take place and see then what the law enforcement response would be.
Did not those bad actors deserve the same application of law and order that was applied to Michael Brown? Were not the victims of the bad actors those nights entitled to the same application of governmental intervention as the victims of Michael Brown that fateful day?
Duplicity in due process reasonably includes prosecuting the peace and forcefully intervening to stop violative raging in the commons. Such duplicity is the opposite of ensuring due process in providing for equal protection under the law.
If the Democrat Governor and his cronies were right in withholding intervening government force to control and preserve the safety of the commons and protect the citizen interests and their property, then that refusal to enforce the law in the face of such apparent public wrongdoing would ironically become the strongest basis yet for claiming Officer Wilson was in the wrong and committed a crime against Michael Brown, as the Governor and state policy has been shown to withhold, not intervene and postpone enforcing the law until a politically more expedient moment.
The duplicity of this Governor and his Democrat Party cronies maybe the greater threat to civil society than the hooliganism and deranged distemper of the mobs that swelled the Ferguson streets in protest. Perhaps the raging mobs are right about that; ironically right about the apparent double standard between how they were treated and how Michael Brown was treated.
Is not such official duplicity and resulting lawlessness among the worst, most seditious form of governmental corruption?
They make a lie of all of it. More proof of this view in found in the recorded testimony that were blatant and apparent lies sworn to be truth before the grand jury. The enablers of this lawlessness would not prosecute those lies as perjury either.
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT ANALYSIS!!! While I know that the establishment is using Ferguson to divide us with a race wedge and to de-legimitize opposition to the real problem of police brutality, ignoring the cut-and-dried cases and giving attention to this "uncertain" one, I now feel quite certain that the officer was the troublemaker even in this case. After all, as you said, he had the luxury of telling a story to fit whatever facts came out (and when he knew no video existed). AND it seems clear that he WAS tailoring his story since it doesn't add up. I feel sure that Brown "had the stronger case for self-defense".
It takes time to unravel all the facts of a homicide or killing.
I find thought provoking observations of fact between Mr Griggs & EB. The fact that they were able to reconcile their differences on this post is extremely satisfying to me, and of the truest Christian spirit.
It was Martin Luther King Jr who eventually required an attitude of nonviolent enemy love from anyone wishing to participate with him in protests, for the greater purpose of winning over these enemies to the truth.
His Mentor was Jesus.
The rioters & looters in Ferguson are helping no one with their arson and larceny; in their folly, they hurt even themselves.
Their mindless rage and fear only opens the gates of hell.
Jesus - in life and death - healed even those who wanted to kill and destroy Him. Mr King understood, and was courageous to follow.
I hope we will be as well. Will we reach out to both the corrupt and the ignorant?
Will we learn the healing power of restorative - instead of retributive - justice? The power of enemy love?
If the Police come down on Blacks and protect property they will be condemned. If they back down - and both they and the National Guard were ordered to - they will be condemned. They can't win with Blacks. Neither can Whites. Blacks obviously don't accept White authority - thus they need their own country. This is in line with the vision of the Founders who wanted them sent out of the United States.
MLK was a Communist and a master manipulator. His Christianity was about as sincere as Obama's.
Horse crap. When all is said and done, the oinkers "hide
behind the badge" and get away with damn near anything.
So the hide-behind-the-badge oinker's life has been ruined? I hope so.
"Most importantly, if Wilson had been treated as a homicide suspect, rather than the “victim” of an “assault on law enforcement,” he would not have had the luxury of composing his story at leisure, in consultation with his attorney, to fit the facts as they emerged from the investigation."
If you read the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution you would know that any suspect has the absolute right to remain silent. The sixth amendment guarantees thee right to counsel.
LGW, if you don't think that Wilson got special treatment during this "investigation", then you are very naive.
I do agree, never talk to cops and always lawyer up. But be prepared to spend some time in jail before your trial and be ready to "not beat the ride".
One very simple change needs to be made to government employee contracts. If any government employee commits an act for which he needs 5th Amendment protection, then he should no longer be employed by the government. Keeping your mouth shut is a right. Living off the tax payers isn't.
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, nobody should ever volunteer potentially incriminating information to the police. The first -- and preferably only -- word that should be spoken in such circumstances is "lawyer," and any competent lawyer is going to tell you to shut up.
Either as a police officer or as a private citizen, Wilson would be within his rights to say nothing at all during the investigation -- and, if it came to that, during a criminal trial.
The privileges Wilson enjoyed in this respect are two-fold. First of all, since the fatal shooting was committed by a police officer it was presumed to be justified. This wouldn't be the case if he had been a "common" citizen.
Secondly, as he admitted in his grand jury testimony, he worked through his story with the FOP -- an organization that includes everybody involved in the investigation. During the inquiry the public was fed a steady stream of leaks from the prosecutor's office, as well; many of the most important came before Wilson told his story to the grand jury.
From time to time I quote excerpts from your written work, with the source(you)cited, and a link to your original piece (when the site allows links to be posted).
The admins at one of the sites where I've posted, get more than a little worried about becoming the target for copyright trolls.
IIRC, you are not a believer in intellectual property.
Could you please clarify (one line would be fine) whether you are ok with being quoted, or whether you intend to pursue sites that contain quotes from your work.
Anything published at Pro Libertate can be quoted, in whole or in part, as long as proper is credit given. A link is much appreciated, but not strictly necessary.
This could be considered my (in)version of the notorious Major League Baseball legal disclaimer. :-)
Anything published at Pro Libertate can be quoted, in whole or in part, as long as proper is credit given. A link is much appreciated, but not strictly necessary.
This could be considered my (in)version of the notorious Major League Baseball legal disclaimer. :-)
People seem mixed up on this Brown-Wilson thing. “Let’s see, who to support? The state thug, or the street punk?” In reality this was a case of stupid meeting stupid. No wonder the results are stupid. No wonder the whole damn circus is stupid. Maybe neither of them deserves any support.
I do wish the rioters would confine their burning to cop cars though.
Post a Comment