Police weren't the problem in Ferguson

[Max Rockatansky]

An excellent article which both points out problems within our society, but those who continue to exacerbate those problems when they should be working to resolve the problems.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/08/ferguson-staten-island-protests-column/19918949/http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/08/ferguson-staten-island-protests-column/19918949/
Last week, a New York grand jury declined (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-eric-garner-grand-jury-20141203-story.html#page=1) ​​to indict a police officer who, in efforts to restrain a non-compliant suspect, held him in what many saw as a chokehold. Their announcement came in the wake of public uproar over controversial events nearly 1,000 miles away in Ferguson, Mo.

Americans were fixated on a St. Louis County, Missouri grand jury's decision not to indict (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-decision-grand-jury-decides-not-to-charge-police-officer-darren-wilson-in-michael-brown/) a police officer, Darren Wilson, for shooting at an 18-year-old aggressor following a convenience store robbery.

Although the facts of the cases are dramatically different, good people have raised legitimate questions about police tactics and a perceived divide between law enforcement and at-risk communities.



But it is time to take a step back and look at the long-term ramifications of the behavior of those surrounding the ordeals – the media, the Obama administration and radical activists.
In addition to exacerbating the problems in Ferguson, all three have contributed to an epidemic that will most adversely affect those for whom they claim to advocate. Their insistence that law enforcement is inherently biased against (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/) or willfully ignorant in their dealings with the African-American community is transparently political.

Their words and actions have insinuated – if not altogether declared – that America's police work actively in opposition to the people they are supposed to serve. In sowing these seeds of distrust and discontent in our inner cities, those seeking to undermine law enforcement are implying that police are simply untrustworthy, making it less likely those living in at-risk communities will cooperate with the very officers who seek to protect them. Without civilian cooperation, the police cannot keep communities safe.

The Obama administration set the tone by sending three representatives (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/obama-sent-three-representatives-michael-brown-fun/) to the funeral of Michael Brown. It is reasonable to assume that in doing so, the White House was demonstrating they believed Brown to be the victim and the police officer to be the aggressor.



The Obama administration knew what it was doing when they invited radical racial activists, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton – who owes a whopping $4.5 million in back taxes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/nyregion/questions-about-al-sharptons-finances-accompany-his-rise-in-influence.html?_r=0) – to participate in a "civil rights" discussion (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-spending-his-afternoon-focusing-on-ferguson-2014-12) at the White House. Of course, this discussion resulted not in a call for greater accountability in urban communities, but instead, in additional directives (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/obama-to-propose-million-in-federal-funds-for-police-body/article_19e3d6ad-57f0-56a2-871d-94c43398d38f.html) for police, yet again implying that law enforcement created the catastrophe we're experiencing, not criminals.

This false narrative, accepted by too many as true, imposes a chilling effect on the decision-making of good police officers across the country. Instead of maintaining the confidence necessary to adequately and competently perform their jobs, leaders in the law enforcement community worry that cops will second-guess their training for fear that their actions will be characterized as racist, malicious, unrestrained or irresponsible.
We witnessed a gut-wrenching example of this very form of contrived circumspection when police stood by (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/16/us/missouri-teen-shooting/?c=&page=0) as the town of Ferguson disintegrated into mob rule and a dozen local businesses were burned to the ground. Law enforcement, having in August been criticized (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/congressman-wants-curb-military-surplus-program-0) as hyper-militarized and heavy-handed, mutely looked on as the St. Louis suburb was ignited, crushing the spirit of countless residents who watched their American Dreams go up in smoke.

These false ideas ultimately served to denigrate due process protections and the rule of law in our nation. While Officer Wilson was exonerated by a grand jury for his split-second decision-making on that August afternoon, he was unjustly regarded (http://www.libertynews.com/2014/08/outrage-mo-governor-ignores-innocent-until-proven-guilty-calls-for-vigorous-prosecution-of-officer-darren-wilson-video/) as "guilty until proven innocent" in the court of public opinion. His life is forever threatened and his family will always be at risk.

Many yearned for a scalp so desperately that they quickly discounted inconvenient facts, while demanding their desired result. As the grand jury discovered after weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses, Michael Brown was the aggressor on August 9th. Brown controlled his own fate, Brown made his own flawed decisions.

The reason Officer Wilson intersected Brown had nothing to do with biased policing. The fateful meeting occurred because Brown had just committed a felony by stealing cigars and assaulting the store worker (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2014/08/15/ferguson-missouri-police-michael-brown-shooting/14098369/) who challenged him. Notably, Brown wasn't stealing food because he was hungry or drink because he was thirsty and had no money. He stole cigars. Why? Because he could. One need only observe his willingness to menace the store employee to get what he wanted to conclude that Officer Wilson received similar treatment.

The remarkably uncurious press seemed all too willing to make this about a white cop shooting an unarmed black teenager, instead of finishing that clause with "…who had just committed a felony." In efforts to sensationalize what was otherwise a local crime story, hundreds of members of the media descended upon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-media-circus-around-ferguson/2014/12/02/94b42482-7a64-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html) Ferguson, attempting to portray the events occurring as part of a larger injustice imposed on black citizens by a reckless justice system. Their presence and excessive coverage served only to fan the flames.
There are real and meaningful justice reforms that must be made to protect our communities and ensure the rights of all citizens. Those begin with an honest assessment of the threats to our communities as well as training and funding of the police rather than the cynical blame-shifting of Ferguson.

As we learn more about the case in New York, it also serves as an opportunity to get it right this time. Let's hope we all seize upon it.

[Redrose]

That is true, but there are those who would rather hang their hat on a lie that fits in with their biases.

[Max Rockatansky]

We witnessed a gut-wrenching example of this very form of contrived circumspection when police stood by (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/16/us/missouri-teen-shooting/?c=&page=0) as the town of Ferguson disintegrated into mob rule and a dozen local businesses were burned to the ground. Law enforcement, having in August been criticized (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/congressman-wants-curb-military-surplus-program-0) as hyper-militarized and heavy-handed, mutely looked on as the St. Louis suburb was ignited, crushing the spirit of countless residents who watched their American Dreams go up in smoke.This was discussed on the forum. Some members resented the National Guard being activated. While I agree there is concern about the militarization of our police, letting political agitators whip a mob into a frenzy so it burns down and loots innocent businesses is wrong.

[southwest88]

Long term, the federal & state & local governments need to reverse policy from 1945 or so. That policy has been the systematic emptying out of the cities. The Depression stalled purchasing power, & WWII & the buildup to it put the US economy back to work. In fact, we sold everything we could grow or manufacture - food, metal, finished goods.

Our entry into the war caused money/credit to pile up (& rationing @ home had the same effect) - there was a lot of pent-up buying power in 1945. As we demobilized & brought the troops home, & abandoned lots of material in place - we encouraged GIs to go to college or trade school. We freed up consumer credit - home mortgages, autos.

We allowed tract homes (the commercialized suburbs) to begin - & encouraged the bulk of the people with either money, credit or income to move out of tenements & walkups. Farmers near cities made scads of money, banks & local political entities made scads of money, real-estate speculators, developers, etc. Then there were roads, railroads & commuter lines, waterlines, power lines, etc. Local municipalities gained political clout, taxpayers, better infrastructure. It looked like a good deal - then jobs followed.

Except that the sunk costs of cities didn't go down - & cities delivered services more cheaply per capita - because of the population density. This includes schools, museums, hospitals, centralized transportation, water treatment, electrical distribution - it's a long list.

The gravy train is over - it was mostly symbolic anyway. Now we get to deal with crumbling former suburbs, plus 50 years' worth of neglected urban infrastructure. It calls for Herculean efforts to put the cities back on a sustainable basis.

[Peter1469]

Many urban centers have been revitalizing for years.

[southwest88]

Many urban centers have been revitalizing for years.

(My bold)

Follow the money. (From Woodward & Bernstein? from Soylent Green? Wow, I'm feeling old.)

[Peter1469]

Good movie.

(My bold)

Follow the money. (From Woodward & Bernstein? from Soylent Green? Wow, I'm feeling old.)

[pragmatic]

An excellent article which both points out problems within our society, but those who continue to exacerbate those problems when they should be working to resolve the problems.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/08/ferguson-staten-island-protests-column/19918949/http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/08/ferguson-staten-island-protests-column/19918949/
Last week, a New York grand jury declined (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-eric-garner-grand-jury-20141203-story.html#page=1) ​​to indict a police officer who, in efforts to restrain a non-compliant suspect, held him in what many saw as a chokehold. Their announcement came in the wake of public uproar over controversial events nearly 1,000 miles away in Ferguson, Mo.

Americans were fixated on a St. Louis County, Missouri grand jury's decision not to indict (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-decision-grand-jury-decides-not-to-charge-police-officer-darren-wilson-in-michael-brown/) a police officer, Darren Wilson, for shooting at an 18-year-old aggressor following a convenience store robbery.

Although the facts of the cases are dramatically different, good people have raised legitimate questions about police tactics and a perceived divide between law enforcement and at-risk communities.



But it is time to take a step back and look at the long-term ramifications of the behavior of those surrounding the ordeals – the media, the Obama administration and radical activists.
In addition to exacerbating the problems in Ferguson, all three have contributed to an epidemic that will most adversely affect those for whom they claim to advocate. Their insistence that law enforcement is inherently biased against (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/) or willfully ignorant in their dealings with the African-American community is transparently political.

Their words and actions have insinuated – if not altogether declared – that America's police work actively in opposition to the people they are supposed to serve. In sowing these seeds of distrust and discontent in our inner cities, those seeking to undermine law enforcement are implying that police are simply untrustworthy, making it less likely those living in at-risk communities will cooperate with the very officers who seek to protect them. Without civilian cooperation, the police cannot keep communities safe.

The Obama administration set the tone by sending three representatives (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/obama-sent-three-representatives-michael-brown-fun/) to the funeral of Michael Brown. It is reasonable to assume that in doing so, the White House was demonstrating they believed Brown to be the victim and the police officer to be the aggressor.



The Obama administration knew what it was doing when they invited radical racial activists, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton – who owes a whopping $4.5 million in back taxes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/nyregion/questions-about-al-sharptons-finances-accompany-his-rise-in-influence.html?_r=0) – to participate in a "civil rights" discussion (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-spending-his-afternoon-focusing-on-ferguson-2014-12) at the White House. Of course, this discussion resulted not in a call for greater accountability in urban communities, but instead, in additional directives (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/obama-to-propose-million-in-federal-funds-for-police-body/article_19e3d6ad-57f0-56a2-871d-94c43398d38f.html) for police, yet again implying that law enforcement created the catastrophe we're experiencing, not criminals.

This false narrative, accepted by too many as true, imposes a chilling effect on the decision-making of good police officers across the country. Instead of maintaining the confidence necessary to adequately and competently perform their jobs, leaders in the law enforcement community worry that cops will second-guess their training for fear that their actions will be characterized as racist, malicious, unrestrained or irresponsible.
We witnessed a gut-wrenching example of this very form of contrived circumspection when police stood by (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/16/us/missouri-teen-shooting/?c=&page=0) as the town of Ferguson disintegrated into mob rule and a dozen local businesses were burned to the ground. Law enforcement, having in August been criticized (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/congressman-wants-curb-military-surplus-program-0) as hyper-militarized and heavy-handed, mutely looked on as the St. Louis suburb was ignited, crushing the spirit of countless residents who watched their American Dreams go up in smoke.

These false ideas ultimately served to denigrate due process protections and the rule of law in our nation. While Officer Wilson was exonerated by a grand jury for his split-second decision-making on that August afternoon, he was unjustly regarded (http://www.libertynews.com/2014/08/outrage-mo-governor-ignores-innocent-until-proven-guilty-calls-for-vigorous-prosecution-of-officer-darren-wilson-video/) as "guilty until proven innocent" in the court of public opinion. His life is forever threatened and his family will always be at risk.

Many yearned for a scalp so desperately that they quickly discounted inconvenient facts, while demanding their desired result. As the grand jury discovered after weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses, Michael Brown was the aggressor on August 9th. Brown controlled his own fate, Brown made his own flawed decisions.

The reason Officer Wilson intersected Brown had nothing to do with biased policing. The fateful meeting occurred because Brown had just committed a felony by stealing cigars and assaulting the store worker (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2014/08/15/ferguson-missouri-police-michael-brown-shooting/14098369/) who challenged him. Notably, Brown wasn't stealing food because he was hungry or drink because he was thirsty and had no money. He stole cigars. Why? Because he could. One need only observe his willingness to menace the store employee to get what he wanted to conclude that Officer Wilson received similar treatment.

The remarkably uncurious press seemed all too willing to make this about a white cop shooting an unarmed black teenager, instead of finishing that clause with "…who had just committed a felony." In efforts to sensationalize what was otherwise a local crime story, hundreds of members of the media descended upon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-media-circus-around-ferguson/2014/12/02/94b42482-7a64-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html) Ferguson, attempting to portray the events occurring as part of a larger injustice imposed on black citizens by a reckless justice system. Their presence and excessive coverage served only to fan the flames.
There are real and meaningful justice reforms that must be made to protect our communities and ensure the rights of all citizens. Those begin with an honest assessment of the threats to our communities as well as training and funding of the police rather than the cynical blame-shifting of Ferguson.

As we learn more about the case in New York, it also serves as an opportunity to get it right this time. Let's hope we all seize upon it.

The White House and Democrats sensationalized the Ferguson event for purely political (rally the base) motivations. Has been sort of pathetic.

The saddest (most ridiculous) part is that there genuinely is an issue to be addressed regarding the Police/Citizen tensions in urban, intercity environments.

But the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson incident was a terrible example to use to explore the bigger problem. They tried to make Michael Brown a hero after the dumb fuck just attacked a cop and tried to steal is gun.




//

[Max Rockatansky]

The White House and Democrats sensationalized the Ferguson event for purely political (rally the base) motivations. Has been sort of pathetic.

The saddest (most ridiculous) part is that there genuinely is an issue to be addressed regarding the Police/Citizen tensions in urban, intercity environments.

But the Michael Brown/Darren Wilson incident was a terrible example to use to explore the bigger problem. They tried to make Michael Brown a hero after the dumb $#@! just attacked a cop and tried to steal is gun.

Agreed. Michael Brown is no hero, but like was done with OJ, some want to make this criminal a hero.

[Cigar]

:grin: Tick Tick Tick Tock :grin:

[Peter1469]

:grin: Tick Tick Tick Tock :grin:

The 18% are going to recreate the Charge of the Light Brigade. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade) Oops.

[Max Rockatansky]

:grin: Tick Tick Tick Tock :grin:
Bam! Bam! Bam-Bam-bam!

[Cigar]

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/14/dc-portrait-5.w529.h352.jpg

[Max Rockatansky]

http://oi60.tinypic.com/6hnekw.jpg

[Professor Peabody]

All Brown had to do was get in the sidewalk when told...................

[domer76]

All Brown had to do was get in the sidewalk when told...................

All Wilson had to do was evade Brown instead of chasing him down and emptying his magazine into him.

[Professor Peabody]

All Wilson had to do was evade Brown instead of chasing him down and emptying his magazine into him.

Brown was a citizen expected to abide by the law, Wilson was a Cop charged with enforcing the law. Please tell us how you would expect the cops to walk away after Brown stole from your home.

[domer76]

Brown was a citizen expected to abide by the law, Wilson was a Cop charged with enforcing the law. Please tell us how you would expect the cops to walk away after Brown stole from your home.

If Brown had just stolen from my home, I certainly wouldn't expect a cop to shoot him seven or eight times. However, I did not say walk away. I said evade Brown rather than chasing him down and emptying the magazine into him. That was the result of a lousy cop exhibiting lousy judgement, probably as a result of lousy training. Not unlike the Garner thing in New York. Unnecessary death.

[Max Rockatansky]

If Brown had just stolen from my home, I certainly wouldn't expect a cop to shoot him seven or eight times.

If Brown or any other person had broken into my home, strong armed me or my wife, I wouldn't be waiting for a cop to show up, I'd have emptied the magazine on him myself.

Michael Brown's fate was largely his own. Blame "whitey" all you like, but nobody forced him to rob that store, strong arm the clerk nor attack a police officer. He chose to do that all on his own and he paid the consequences for it.

[Professor Peabody]

If Brown had just stolen from my home, I certainly wouldn't expect a cop to shoot him seven or eight times.

How about if he had killed your child?


However, I did not say walk away. I said evade Brown rather than chasing him down and emptying the magazine into him.

The criminals evade the Police not the other way around.


That was the result of a lousy cop exhibiting lousy judgement, probably as a result of lousy training. Not unlike the Garner thing in New York. Unnecessary death.

Garner's Morbid Obesity did him in not the Cops

[domer76]

If Brown or any other person had broken into my home, strong armed me or my wife, I wouldn't be waiting for a cop to show up, I'd have emptied the magazine on him myself.

Michael Brown's fate was largely his own. Blame "whitey" all you like, but nobody forced him to rob that store, strong arm the clerk nor attack a police officer. He chose to do that all on his own and he paid the consequences for it.

This is why I try to avoid "if/could/would" conversations. They tend to go off track and lead to absurdities. This has started down that path, because Brown didn't "if" into your home at all. So, back on topic.

First, don't insert words into the argument that I never said or intended to say. You'll notice I never introduced race at all. That appears something you wish to toss in. I merely indicated lousy cop with lousy judgement. Robbing the store is also irrelevant to the issue at hand. The shooting was well after the fact.

From the diagrams of the crime scene provided to the grand jury, Wilson had to pursue Brown 45-50 yards or so, maybe a few more, before he shot somewhere around 12 rounds at Brown. After chasing Brown that distance, you'll not convince me that evasion was difficult at all. Brown was a 300 pound fat kid. Hell, I'm 60 and I'm pretty darn sure I could avoid a direct confrontation with him in that scenario. Lousy cop, lousy judgement.

[domer76]

How about if he had killed your child?

The criminals evade the Police not the other way around.

Garner's Morbid Obesity did him in not the Cops

Brown didn't kill my child. Refer back to my previous post on absurd "if/would/could/had" arguments.

Cops are not required to engage in a direct confrontation every time. Why do you assume they should? Is evasion not manly enough for you?

Garner's death was ruled a homicide. That is a death at the hands of another. It was not a suicide. We'll see if the massive civil lawsuit in NYC is dismissed because Garner was obese. I doubt it.

[Peter1469]

Wilson needs to go to the range. He missed Big Mike more than he hit him. Lucky a civilian didn't get hurt.

[Mac-7]

Wilson needs to go to the range. He missed Big Mike more than he hit him. Lucky a civilian didn't get hurt.

It may be hard to accept if you believe the hate mongering of Obama and Sharpton who tell us that white cops are racists, but maybe Wilson was not aiming at center of body mass because he did not want to kill Brown.

[Max Rockatansky]

This is why I try to avoid "if/could/would" conversations. They tend to go off track and lead to absurdities. This has started down that path, because Brown didn't "if" into your home at all. Then why did you start it with "If Brown had just stolen from my home, I certainly wouldn't expect a cop to shoot him seven or eight times"?

That's what you posted, isn't it? You make an "if" comment then have a conniption when others do it in response? WTF, fella?

[domer76]

"IF" you look back, I was responding to Peabody's home invasion "if". See what I mean about them getting people astray of the topic?

[domer76]

"IF" you look back, I was responding to Peabody's home invasion "would". See what I mean about them getting people astray of the topic?

[Professor Peabody]

Wilson needs to go to the range. He missed Big Mike more than he hit him. Lucky a civilian didn't get hurt.

He was pulling to the left real bad.

[Professor Peabody]

Brown didn't kill my child. Refer back to my previous post on absurd "if/would/could/had" arguments.

Cops are not required to engage in a direct confrontation every time. Why do you assume they should? Is evasion not manly enough for you?

Garner's death was ruled a homicide. That is a death at the hands of another. It was not a suicide. We'll see if the massive civil lawsuit in NYC is dismissed because Garner was obese. I doubt it.


The autopsy determined the victim’s asthma, obesity and high blood pressure were also contributing factors in his death.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/eric-garner-death-ruled-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

That's one coroner's opinion that it was Homicide. The Grand Jury found otherwise after examining ALL the facts. That's what will count in a civil suit. I'm thinking they'll settle out of court for $20,000.

[PolWatch]

uh, homicide is what killed him...as opposed to natural causes. You seem to be confusing homicide with murder...

[Common Sense]

That's one coroner's opinion that it was Homicide. The Grand Jury found otherwise after examining ALL the facts. That's what will count in a civil suit. I'm thinking they'll settle out of court for $20,000.

Add some more zeros.

[domer76]

That's one coroner's opinion that it was Homicide. The Grand Jury found otherwise after examining ALL the facts. That's what will count in a civil suit. I'm thinking they'll settle out of court for $20,000.

Homicide is merely death caused by another. The GJ decided no criminal charges were warranted. Different animals.

[Max Rockatansky]

Add some more zeros.

Agreed. While there were other factors involved, the fact remains Garner wouldn't have died if the police hadn't used a banned procedure on him to begin with and hadn't ignored his pleas of "I can't breathe".

[Peter1469]

You take your victim as you find him. If his physical condition contributed to his death, that is legally not relevant, unless the city can show that the guy would have dropped dead had the cops not even been in the area. We know that isn't the case.

[Max Rockatansky]

You take your victim as you find him. If his physical condition contributed to his death, that is legally not relevant, unless the city can show that the guy would have dropped dead had the cops not even been in the area. We know that isn't the case.

How does using a banned procedure to stop the victim factor into the equation?

[Peter1469]

How does using a banned procedure to stop the victim factor into the equation?

It should have caused the grand jury to indict.

[The Sage of Main Street]

An excellent article which both points out problems within our society, but those who continue to exacerbate those problems when they should be working to resolve the problems.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/08/ferguson-staten-island-protests-column/19918949/http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/08/ferguson-staten-island-protests-column/19918949/
Last week, a New York grand jury declined (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-eric-garner-grand-jury-20141203-story.html#page=1) ​​to indict a police officer who, in efforts to restrain a non-compliant suspect, held him in what many saw as a chokehold. Their announcement came in the wake of public uproar over controversial events nearly 1,000 miles away in Ferguson, Mo.

Americans were fixated on a St. Louis County, Missouri grand jury's decision not to indict (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-decision-grand-jury-decides-not-to-charge-police-officer-darren-wilson-in-michael-brown/) a police officer, Darren Wilson, for shooting at an 18-year-old aggressor following a convenience store robbery.

Although the facts of the cases are dramatically different, good people have raised legitimate questions about police tactics and a perceived divide between law enforcement and at-risk communities.



But it is time to take a step back and look at the long-term ramifications of the behavior of those surrounding the ordeals – the media, the Obama administration and radical activists.
In addition to exacerbating the problems in Ferguson, all three have contributed to an epidemic that will most adversely affect those for whom they claim to advocate. Their insistence that law enforcement is inherently biased against (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/) or willfully ignorant in their dealings with the African-American community is transparently political.

Their words and actions have insinuated – if not altogether declared – that America's police work actively in opposition to the people they are supposed to serve. In sowing these seeds of distrust and discontent in our inner cities, those seeking to undermine law enforcement are implying that police are simply untrustworthy, making it less likely those living in at-risk communities will cooperate with the very officers who seek to protect them. Without civilian cooperation, the police cannot keep communities safe.

The Obama administration set the tone by sending three representatives (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/26/obama-sent-three-representatives-michael-brown-fun/) to the funeral of Michael Brown. It is reasonable to assume that in doing so, the White House was demonstrating they believed Brown to be the victim and the police officer to be the aggressor.



The Obama administration knew what it was doing when they invited radical racial activists, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton – who owes a whopping $4.5 million in back taxes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/nyregion/questions-about-al-sharptons-finances-accompany-his-rise-in-influence.html?_r=0) – to participate in a "civil rights" discussion (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-spending-his-afternoon-focusing-on-ferguson-2014-12) at the White House. Of course, this discussion resulted not in a call for greater accountability in urban communities, but instead, in additional directives (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/obama-to-propose-million-in-federal-funds-for-police-body/article_19e3d6ad-57f0-56a2-871d-94c43398d38f.html) for police, yet again implying that law enforcement created the catastrophe we're experiencing, not criminals.

This false narrative, accepted by too many as true, imposes a chilling effect on the decision-making of good police officers across the country. Instead of maintaining the confidence necessary to adequately and competently perform their jobs, leaders in the law enforcement community worry that cops will second-guess their training for fear that their actions will be characterized as racist, malicious, unrestrained or irresponsible.
We witnessed a gut-wrenching example of this very form of contrived circumspection when police stood by (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/16/us/missouri-teen-shooting/?c=&page=0) as the town of Ferguson disintegrated into mob rule and a dozen local businesses were burned to the ground. Law enforcement, having in August been criticized (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/congressman-wants-curb-military-surplus-program-0) as hyper-militarized and heavy-handed, mutely looked on as the St. Louis suburb was ignited, crushing the spirit of countless residents who watched their American Dreams go up in smoke.

These false ideas ultimately served to denigrate due process protections and the rule of law in our nation. While Officer Wilson was exonerated by a grand jury for his split-second decision-making on that August afternoon, he was unjustly regarded (http://www.libertynews.com/2014/08/outrage-mo-governor-ignores-innocent-until-proven-guilty-calls-for-vigorous-prosecution-of-officer-darren-wilson-video/) as "guilty until proven innocent" in the court of public opinion. His life is forever threatened and his family will always be at risk.

Many yearned for a scalp so desperately that they quickly discounted inconvenient facts, while demanding their desired result. As the grand jury discovered after weeks of testimony from dozens of witnesses, Michael Brown was the aggressor on August 9th. Brown controlled his own fate, Brown made his own flawed decisions.

The reason Officer Wilson intersected Brown had nothing to do with biased policing. The fateful meeting occurred because Brown had just committed a felony by stealing cigars and assaulting the store worker (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2014/08/15/ferguson-missouri-police-michael-brown-shooting/14098369/) who challenged him. Notably, Brown wasn't stealing food because he was hungry or drink because he was thirsty and had no money. He stole cigars. Why? Because he could. One need only observe his willingness to menace the store employee to get what he wanted to conclude that Officer Wilson received similar treatment.

The remarkably uncurious press seemed all too willing to make this about a white cop shooting an unarmed black teenager, instead of finishing that clause with "…who had just committed a felony." In efforts to sensationalize what was otherwise a local crime story, hundreds of members of the media descended upon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-media-circus-around-ferguson/2014/12/02/94b42482-7a64-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html) Ferguson, attempting to portray the events occurring as part of a larger injustice imposed on black citizens by a reckless justice system. Their presence and excessive coverage served only to fan the flames.
There are real and meaningful justice reforms that must be made to protect our communities and ensure the rights of all citizens. Those begin with an honest assessment of the threats to our communities as well as training and funding of the police rather than the cynical blame-shifting of Ferguson.

As we learn more about the case in New York, it also serves as an opportunity to get it right this time. Let's hope we all seize upon it. The usual Chickenhawk Right Wing backing down in Ferguson. They had plenty of firepower, but it was all for show. Snipers, helicopters, automatic weapons, armored vehicles. Then when feral excrement hit the fan, the guardians of justice became the Vietnam National Guard--all show and no go. The wannabe cop-killer cult even trashed police cars!

This proved that the enemies of society are a lot braver than the disappearing-act deserters. I thought they'd get the message from the original display of firepower, but they seem to instinctively know the difference between someone who walks the walk and someone who meekly walks away with urine trickling down his police uniform pants. The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow.



And what about the tough-talking business owners in Ferguson? A preview of their gutlessness came when the gun shops tried to remove their merchandise instead of waiting for the savages to try something so the owners could riddle them with rifle bullets.

[The Sage of Main Street]

:grin: Tick Tick Tick Tock :grin: There's nothing wrong with turning back the clock if it is connected to a time bomb.

[Max Rockatansky]

It should have caused the grand jury to indict.Would Grand Juries or Prosecutors pursue cases they are unlikely to win? I know justice should be pursued, but there's an economic component here. How many times does the Justice system know a certain person is guilty, such as a Mafia Don, but don't have the evidence to prove it in court, ergo they never indict?

[Peter1469]

Would Grand Juries or Prosecutors pursue cases they are unlikely to win? I know justice should be pursued, but there's an economic component here. How many times does the Justice system know a certain person is guilty, such as a Mafia Don, but don't have the evidence to prove it in court, ergo they never indict?

It depends on the office. There are thousands across the country and they are not controlled by a central source.

[Max Rockatansky]

It depends on the office. There are thousands across the country and they are not controlled by a central source.

Understood, but there are still economic realities that apply to all cities and jurisdictions.