.

#Same.

There have been, for centuries, arguments about why the word 'justice' is repeated twice in the biblical admonition.

And there's a joke about the Israeli court system based on the above that says: "Justice, justice will not be served."

Probably not. There is more going on up in Ferguson than we will ever know.

I don't understand why twelve buildings had to be burned, why a police car had to be smashed up, or a reporter hit by rocks following the grand jury decision.

Apparently the store where Brown stole the cigars and roughed up an employee was targeted. I'm hearing community "leaders" blaming the fire department for not being ready for that. Firefighters are never allowed into an area where they will be subject to violence. Everybody knows that.
I'm about over excusing this kind of behavior. What are shopkeepers supposed to do, just allow themselves to be strong-armed and do nothing?

"A Knoxville pawn shop owner says he will ship guns to Ferguson, Missouri to help arm people there. "

when I saw local law enforcement encouraging locals to arm themselves, 'Buy a gun, buy one soon,' well, I wondered if there were enough guns locally in the local shops to meet the demands,

On the other hand, this attorney general is a damn bonehead.

His timing set the stage for what happened: telegraphing the result after a long, slow buildup, waiting until after dark to make the announcement; it's so stupid you have to wonder if he did it this way on purpose, knowing that the violence would become the topic, rather than the decision.

#final 10 shots - enough said.

Judge, jury, executioner, all in one cop.

No, this is not justice. Maybe the feds can find it.

Mess. It's like the perfect storm of bad decisions with the media slobbering all over it.

if not thousands, of legitimate examples of law enforcement overreach and abuse in this country.

If the officer was punched, if Brown's blood was on the gun as a result of him grabbing it, if the accounts of Brown coming back at Wilson was the correct account - this example stands to delegitimize the more egregious examples.

If one wants to engage in civil outrage, better it be for Eric Garner (choked to death for selling singles) or Kelly Thomas (beat to death for being mentally ill).

Dorian Johnson grand jury testimony...

(link...)

When he stopped, he turned, looked at me, made like a grunting noise and had the most intense, aggressive face I’ve ever seen on a person. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon. That’s how angry he looked.

This docdump is disturbing for a variety of reasons. Perhaps someday you too can have a private journal which will be used as evidence. Can someone explain the rules for admitting evidence for consideration by a grand jury?
h/t Balloon Juice

(link...)

(link...)

"A riot is the language of the unheard."

Martin Luther King Jr., from “The Other America,” Grosse Pointe, Michigan, 1968

This is pretty cool, as long as it stays peaceful: (link...)

I-24 shut down as protesters block roadway
Julie Brock at WSMV

Police kept I-24 blocked as the protesters made their way off the roadway. The interstate was reopened after 9 p.m. However, protesters returned to I-24 near Shelby Avenue just before 10 p.m., causing police to once again shut down the roadway in both directions. Protesters then stood up and chanted, "We are Mike Brown."

Saw this last night on Twitter:

View of #Fergsuon protestors from atop bridge over I-24 pic.twitter.com/0XMkOPCQ8X

— Dave Boucher (@Dave_Boucher1) November 26, 2014

Knoxville protesters also apparently blocked Gay St. and KPD got involved.

I was wondering how this got organized nationwide so fast. How can that be harnessed for political action in the future? Also wondering how many of these folks vote?

Volume projections were off by about 25% at a major shipping company yesterday. The interstate closure timings were curiously close to what it would have taken to disrupt them. This could be a model for a national strike tool.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor... As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

Anton Scalia

For the benefit of anyone else who may need to look up the definition of that last term (as I did):

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.

Question: Why do we need to entertain this "conflicting testimony" as to whether or not Brown was shot from behind as he was running away from Wilson?

There were three autopsies performed.

Do they or do they not report entrance wounds to Brown's body indicative of his having been shot from behind?

And if yes, how many times?

(Disclaimer: I have read on this subject for many hours over the last 24, but I haven't yet come across any of the autopsy reports.)

Why, I thought I was one?!

Just kidding. I humbly concede moments like this morning, when I posted to "announce" that the audit of KCS PPU accounts was now complete (when it was complete two months ago) and also the margin of error in one's research when it is being conducted between intermittent peeks into the oven to check on the status of one's casseroles...like today!

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

Now that this "investigative journalist" is no longer trying to read some pretty dense legal documents while cooking, I believe I note a couple of corrections I should make to my earlier posts:

First, the letter from the Medical Examiner protesting that he had not received quite a volume of evidence he had requested had been sent to the Assistant Prosecutor, not to the Ferguson Police Department like I'd recalled.

Also, it appears that the letter referenced not some third autopsy but just the earlier Medical Examiner's Report that we've all read now. Because I was unable to match the name of the person signing the letter of protest to the name of the Medical Examiner on his report (both names had been redacted from docs released to the public), I had mistakenly thought the letter referred to some third autopsy, but apparently just the two were conducted.

Mea culpa for having tried to multi-task but do hope you feel you can depend on me to correct errors like this when I catch them.

'Anonymous' has hacked the Twitter account of the local KKK and allegedly exposed the identities of a few members. They claim to have evidence that several members of the Ferguson police force, including Wilson, have KKK ties.

Also, concerning the church attended by Michael Brown Sr., which was burned to the ground following the grand jury decision, its pastor believes "white supremacists" were the culprits:

While a majority of the disorder occurred in Ferguson, where Brown was shot by Wilson on 9 August, the Flood Christian Church was also attacked, despite being located three miles away in a remote location of County Club Hills.

The Church's pastor, Reverend Carlton Lee, believes white supremacists were responsible for the arson attack and not the people protesting against the grand jury's ruling.

Other buildings around the church were left unscathed.

...

Lee also claims to have received 71 death threats because of his vocal support for Brown and his family.

If you haven't seen it, I finally found and viewed this morning the surveillance video of Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson in Ferguson Market on August 9. Sigh...

I started following Shaun King on Twitter shortly after the shooting took place. He's done a lot of work attempting to figure out what really happened. He also writes at Daily Kos and has put together a blog with a number of links to interviews of seven eyewitnesses to the shooting.
(link...)

The end result of all this was probably as Karma intended.

Michael Brown appeared to be a petty thug with judgement issues. His end was likely inevitable.

Darrell Wilson appears to be an overaggressive cop with judgement issues.

When these two circumstances meet, bad things happen.

It is not a stretch to believe that the path Brown was taking had to change or this would be a likely outcome. It is not a stretch to believe that Wilson's job ethic would lead to this outcome.

What bothers me is that this entire process has been void of any regard for rule of law and common sense. From the initial encounter, to the Grand Jury joke, both the constitution and case rulings have been ignored. We have a legal system in place to protect and serve both Brown and Wilson, yet that same system was abandoned to the whim of people seeking to direct an outcome. The system would likely have worked in this case and ultimately the fates of these two people may well have been the same, so why have we been so willing to sacrifice our system in order to rig the result? This bothers me. This is martial law .

I haven't had the time to burrow into this info and am confused.

Miller sees two young black guys walking in the street and stops to command them to walk in the sidewalk.

They ignore him. Brown, maybe, sasses him? Miller backs up his truck/cruiser, whatever, and says it was at this point he hears about the strong-arm cigar theft and notices Brown has two fistfuls of cigars.

The initial physical contact between MB and Miller, which is murky to me, consists of Miller hitting brown with his car door while opening it? Is that correct?

When did Miller pull Brown through the window/Brown reach in and go for Miller's throat? Gun?

At that point there were two "inadvertent" shots?

Miller says Brown went for Miller's gun.

At some point the two young guys took off running.

Did Miller pursue MB at that point, shooting at him, or did Miller not fire again until MB turned around and "charged" Miller (who had a gun pointed at him and had already shot him)?

MB either tried to say something like "I don't have a gun" or something but was cut short when Brown administered the kill shot(s).

Was there any reason to think that Brown was armed with anything but Swisher Sweets?

(Aside) Only time I can remember a perp being allowed to address a grand jury here was a UT football player who was charged with sexually abusing a mentally challenged, underaged girl. The grand jury decided that it would be "bad: for the girl for the case to go forward. Not saying this didn't happen in other cases, but this one sticks in my memory. Miller was extended a rare privilege.

I am not a lawyer or legislator. However, my understanding of the letter and spirit of the laws concerning murder is that they do not explicitly differentiate between angelic citizens, minor scofflaws, straight up thugs, or out and out murderous gangsters. If you found and shot Sammy "the bull" Graviano, even though he was a known Mafia hit man, if he was not attacking you or another citizen at the time of the shooting you would be charged with murder or attempted murder. So did Mike Brown graciously act in such a manner as to insure that Wilson's response would be legal? Or is history written by the survivors?

I have no problem believing that Mike Brown idolized some thuggish behaviours. I would also have no problem believing that the shopkeeper had an adversarial relationship with the community. But none of that justifies two kill shots with a downward trajectory in an unarmed 18 year old citizen. Again, if those shots had killed Sammy "the bull" it would still be murder. The rest of the story is just the details.

To the best of my knowledge all officers and agents with local, state, and federal agencies who carry firearms are trained to shoot for center mass. Winging a suspect is a Hollywood thing. IRL shooting is to kill. OTOH, if killing is not required to stop an attack on the officer or to protect another citizen who is in immediate and dire danger, it is as illegal for the police as it is for me.

Cafkia and Jamie: Point taken. That would explain two chest shots,then, if Brown had been charging.

However, according to this chart summarizing what witnesses said in that question, only five of 21 witnesses said he was charging.

And notice, too, that only two of 21 witnesses said he did not have his hands up.

(Although this wasn't the chart I was looking for. Another I came across recapped the responses of every single witness on these two questions. I'll keep looking...)

The salient point here is pretty much exclusively the trajectory of the kill rounds. MAYBE in an area as hilly as Knoxville someone charging from 20-30 feet away could be significantly higher or lower than the chargee but certainly not in the open in the St Louis area. No real threat charges while on their knees, especially from that distance. Everything else is given lie by the trajectory of the rounds. That fact alone makes it murder. Well, that and the general agreement that Brown was unarmed.

Yes, right now it appears as though Wilson will get away with it. Yes, the GJ is declining to pursue charges. That does not in any way, shape, form, or fashion change the fact that the Officer committed an overt and public act of murder. The rioting and looting after the fact do nothing to ameliorate the illegality of the officer's actions.

Okay, it's this more inclusive chart, from PBS, that I recalled viewing earlier.

On this one, seven witnesses said Brown was "charging."

However, 16 witnesses said Brown put his hands up when hit.

Officer Groubert: I approached the subject and he quickly jumped out of his car. Our training tells us this can be a sign a subject has something to hide in their car. 

I asked the subject for his license and he immediately jumped back into his car, attempting to grab something. 

I repeatedly shouted instruction for the subject to "get out the car!". I repeated the instruction several times. 

The subject turned so quickly I could not see what he had in his hands, I only knew he wasn't compliant and not following orders. 

It was at that point I discharged my service weapon. I instructed the subject "to get on the ground!".  The subject was still not following orders, still not compliant. I continued to fire my service weapon. 

Eventually, the subject went to the ground. Still unaware of what the subject had in his hand, I shouted demands for the subject to "show me his hands!". 

It was at this time I was able to ascertain the subject didn't have a weapon on his person. But due to his erratic, irrational behavior along with a blatant disregard to a sworn officer's commands, I feel the subject left me no recourse but to fire my service weapon. 

Subject Jones: I have no idea why that man shot me. 

How do you think a white jury would handle that testimony of a white cop and a black subject? 

Now, watch the video of what I've described; LINK

See how easy it is to skew the truth absent the video? 

Nobody is going to know what happened in Ferguson. I don't believe Wilson asked those guys to do anything in a respectful way. I do believe Brown put his hands in the car. I do believe Brown doubled back on Wilson after first fleeing. And at that point, Wilson saw a guy he thought was like "Hulk Hogan before he'd been shot, now coming to do him some serious harm and he shit his pants - and unloaded his gun. 

And unfortunately, a cop "feeling" like their life is in danger is the only reason he/she needs to justify killing somebody.

But alas, that's my guess. And absent video, it's as good as anybody's. 

If communities and/or the Feds want to do something to reign in the abuse of LEO's, mandate body cameras. And advise the public to make their own recordings if they have the means. 

Anything less isn't changing anything. If Officer Groubert wasn't caught on camera, nothing would have happened to him. If a community really wants to end the abuse, it's first going to have to see it. And even then, you're going to have to fight the element of the community who believes that anybody who crosses a cop was "asking for it".

Cafkia said above (at 7:17 pm): "... if killing is not required to stop an attack on the officer or to protect another citizen who is in immediate and dire danger, it is as illegal for the police as it is for me."

Jamie Satterfield said above (at 7:21 pm): "An officer can only employ deadly force when either his life or the life of another is in eminent danger. He or she cannot shot at someone simply to stop them."

I meant to comment to you two earlier (if you hadn't come across this yourselves already) why I'm thinking maybe Wilson did shoot Brown as he was fleeing, "simply to stop him."

In the Private Autopsy Report (page 3), the examiner cites an entrance wound though the back of Brown's right forearm, exiting the front of the forearm.

My understanding is that the "back" of my forearm is the side closest to my torso (where little or no hair grows) and the "front" of my forearm is the side farthest from my torso (the hairier, exposed side) when my arms are hanging naturally by my side?

When I allow my arms to hang naturally at my side, though, someone facing me can't see (or shoot) the "back" or inside part of my forearm. It isn't exposed.

Doesn't an entrance wound to the "back" of Brown's right forearm therefore mean that either 1) he was shot in the forearm from behind, or 2) he was shot in the forearm by someone facing him, while his arms were raised over his head?

On that same right arm, the Private Autopsy Report also cites (still on page 3) a "tangential superficial laceration" to the upper arm, which the examiner says "produces insufficient characteristics to determine whether it came from the front or the back."

You folks may need to tell me that I don't know my "front" from my "back," but I was trying to scrutinize this given that, per the recap of witness responses compiled by PBS, 15 of 20 people asked the question said Brown was "running away from Darren Wilson when fired upon."

WRT those two questions--was Brown fired upon while fleeing and did Brown raise his hands in surrender upon being hit--note that in footnotes to the PBS recap of witness responses PBS explains that a response of "NA" on their chart "indicates that there was no response or no question for that fact."

So we can't tell from the chart in what instances a witness couldn't answer a given question and in what instances the prosecution didn't even ask the question.

We need to be asking why the hell the prosecution wasn't asking the exact same questions of every witness.

"Wilson fired eleven shots at a fleeing Brown there in the street so, knowing that Brown was unarmed""

It occurs to me that Wilson put innocent lives in danger by firing 11 shots at an unarmed, running suspect, who stole some cigars. Wouldn't he be the focus of disciplinary action for that?

He says Brown grabbed him while still in his car, forcing him to use force. What would have been wrong with putting the vehicle in drive and pulling away from Brown to gain enough distance to get back in control of the situation? Why didn't he keep enough distance from Brown to keep him from reaching in the car?

The kind of misjudgements Wilson made along with his attitude might better be attributed to someone drunk or otherwise under the influence.

What would have been wrong with putting the vehicle in drive and pulling away from Brown to gain enough distance to get back in control of the situation? Why didn't he keep enough distance from Brown to keep him from reaching in the car?

I've wondered if we should "rewind" to a point earlier than even that in their confrontation:

With the repeat disclaimer that I don't know beans about police work, is it customary for a lone officer to try to arrest two suspects by himself?

Let's assume it's true that Wilson asked Brown and Johnson politely to move to the sidewalk but they didn't. Let's assume it's true that Brown answered Wilson's request with a surly expletive. Let's assume it's true that Wilson then noticed the stolen cigars in Brown's hands.

If all that's true, then Wilson knew that early in their contact that he could arrest Brown and Johnson both for failing to obey an officer's first request, that he could arrest Brown for "assaulting" an officer (verbally), and that he should arrest the both of them for petty theft.

But since from the get-go he was outnumbered two-to-one by Brown (whom he immediately knew to be big, surly, and defiant) and Johnson, wouldn't it have been more reasonable for Wilson to just radio for back-up right then, to enable the arrests?

Why didn't he?

I think the answer lies in that video we found of Wilson inexplicably arresting a man on the man's own property for videotaping him (legally).

A more prudent officer would have quickly calculated his odds in making the dual arrests by himself and declined, but Darren "I'm gonna lock your ass up" Wilson wasn't fazed by the odds.

There are a number of points that will be argued from now on. Until we get a trial with every witness questioned by both defense and prosecution, we have little chance of arriving at a definitive sequence of events. What we do know is this...

1, There was little justification for this to have ended in Mike Brown's death. Officers are duty bound to serve and protect even those they are arresting.

2, We need a very public examination of police training and procedure and definitive knowledge of what they should do to protect the public, people being encountered in the course of duty, and themselves.

3, Incidents of this nature should trigger an open process of fact finding in which law enforcement and non law enforcement parties are involved. I tend to like the idea of a special prosecutor rather than the D A who is just an extension of law enforcement in reality. We have seen incidences of officer involved shootings in Roane County which cleared the officer after a secret internal investigation. One officer has since gone to a different LE agency and has killed again.

Our system is not working for us and needs to be changed.

This was in Monday's news, but I didn't catch it until today...

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that on Sunday evening five St. Louis Rams players entered the field with their Hands Up. Their silent protest was nationally televised.

Concerning the actions of players Kenny Britt, Jared Cook, Chris Givens, Stedman Bailey and Tavon Austin, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy issued a one-sentence statement:

We respect and understand the concerns of all individuals who have expressed views on this tragic situation

Personally, I found columnist Bernie Miklasz's comments on the incident to provide food for thought--and to suggest a path going forward:

In this instance, the five Rams clearly made some people uncomfortable. But that isn't a bad thing. For too long in our great city we've all gone to our respective corners, living in our own zones with real and imaginary boundaries, unwilling to meet in the middle and confront the insidious problems that hold us back. We've been so comfortably settled into the polarized way of life for so long, it's caused us to block out our differences instead of bridging them.

Letting things continue as the way they are -- the reason we reached this Ferguson flashpoint -- is irresponsible. It's more beneficial to challenge each other to open our respective minds and to understand that there is more than one world view in a metropolitan area of 2.5 million citizens.

With that in mind, I'll challenge Rams players to do more. While I support the Rams players' right to go with the "Hands Up" symbolism, I'd like to see them do something more meaningful by getting involved on the ground in Ferguson.

There was a protest at UT today. On the phone, so won't go through th gyrations to get the pics. Police detoured traffic. Rausch (sp) hugged protesters at the end. A cadet was hit by a car, but is OK.

News in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning is quite confusing...

This article explains that on Tuesday morning the St. Louis Police informed armed vigilantes part of the mysterious right-wing group Oath Keepers, who have been standing guard on the rooftops of Ferguson businesses for days now, that its group is in violation of the local ordinance providing for qualification and background checks of private security forces.

But Oath Keepers forces continue walking Ferguson streets this morning openly armed with assault rifles and handguns.

Local Oath Keepers leader Sam Andrews counters in the article that the local ordinance applies to "employees," not volunteers like those in Oath Keepers' ranks, and he offers that the volunteers are largely ex-military and off-duty police officers.

Andrews predicts:

“Now that they know who some of our guys are, I suspect they are a lot less likely to challenge us,” said Andrews, a weapons engineer and former government contractor.

But given that the reason for the unrest in Ferguson is steeped in residents' deep suspicion of police, I can't imagine that residents are resting any easier for having more of them, off-duty, lurking on every street corner with assault weapons?

And do these ex-military vigilantes have any more right to actually fire on residents, no matter the residents' possible actions to destroy property, than you or I have? I thought not?

Meanwhile, this second article also appearing on the home page of the Dispatch says Missouri Governor Jay Nixon announced Tuesday that "improving conditions" in Ferguson have allowed him to scale back the National Guard presence in St. Louis. The article says there were 1268 Guardsmen in in the city at 1:00 p.m. Tuesday, down from 2200 just prior to the announcement of the grand jury's decision.

This second article also says Nixon has been "widely criticized" for having apparently stationed Guardsmen in every area of St.Louis County except Ferguson over the days they've been there, the allegation being that the Guard was employed to protect just the business properties farthest away from the Ferguson-area ones most likely to have been affected in riots.

So unless St. Louis County Police promptly remove and/or arrest the Oath Keepers volunteers in Ferguson later today, the appearance of the thing is that state and local officials have elected to place the "peacekeeping" mission in the area into the hands of armed vigilantes, many of whose employers are themselves the cause of the unrest.

From the Oath Keepers' website:

In response to the Police Departments demands that Oath Keepers leave the rooftops of the buildings they are protecting, Oath Keepers and several property owners have retained legal counsel, Hearne & Bendick LLC.

In attorney Matthew Hearne's letter to Cheif Belmar, he quotes one Ferguson resident lauding Oath Keepers for their previous assistance with "fire extinguishers and buckets."

However, neither this resident nor Mr. Hearne explains in the letter how Oath Keepers volunteers intend to be of assistance with their assault rifles and handguns?

In the way of more background, here is an April 2013 article from Police magazine explaining the group's origins and its Ten Orders Oath Keepers Swear to Disobey.

Oh...and there's a mention in the article of an Oath Keeper involved in a Tennessee incident:

One Oath Keeper, a former naval officer, actually participated in a plot to take over a Tennessee courthouse to free a man who was arrested for trying to enforce a citizen's arrest on a judicial official who refused to investigate President Barack Obama's citizenship.

Per the article, the group's core supporters appear to be Tea Partiers and Libertarians.

Oath Keepers in our own back yard. Check out this video from the 2009 Knoxville Tea Party rally, start around 4:00 in for the best parts...

Knoxville "tea party" video

Tamara, I was reading this NYT column and thought of you and this thread.

The responses so far have only partly been specific to a particular case. Much of it is about something larger and more general: racial inequality and criminal justice. People want to be assured of equal application of justice and equal — and appropriate — use of police force, and to know that all lives are equally valued.

The data suggests that, in the nation as a whole, that isn’t so. Racial profiling is real. Disparate treatment of black and brown men by police officers is real. Grotesquely disproportionate numbers of killings of black men by the police are real.

No one denies that police officers have hard jobs, but they volunteer to enter that line of work. There is no draft. So these disparities cannot go unaddressed and uncorrected. To be held in high esteem you must also be held to a higher standard.

"Stop resisting" = you're about to get your ass beat or choked to death with a "compliance technique"

Even choked to death with a "compliance technique" that your city's police department banned decades ago, apparently.

I guess you know that the NY grand jury declined yesterday to indict the white cop who choked to death black Eric Garner? For selling singles on an NYC sidewalk? Which, in contrast to the video of the arrest, officers felt required five of them and this banned "chokehold?"

And, as happened in the Mike Brown case, the "prosecution" inexplicably allowed this suspect officer in NY to testify before the grand jury, too, so that jurists might examine exculpatory evidence in advance of his any trial.

I spotted it online yesterday, but it made me tired to even think about opening a thread on the topic (which specific mention it certainly deserves).

Two black Republicans took issue with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who took to the House floor Tuesday and used the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" sign to protest the Ferguson, Missouri, grand jury decision in the Michael Brown case.

Appearing Tuesday on Fox News Channel's "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," former Florida U.S. Rep. Allen West called the action "clearly inappropriate" and asked, "Why are members of the black caucus promoting a false narrative?"

(link...)

The narrative is that police should have the right to stop, detain and kill at whim so they can get to your house in time to catch the perpetrators that are robbing your house, stealing your belongings and raping your wife in the act of doing so. But wait, the cops are too busy to patrol your neighborhood because they're down in the hood shooting kids for jaywalking. Hope you've got good insurance.