Showing posts with label St. Louis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label St. Louis. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon: Darren Wilson must be vigorously prosecuted

MissouriGov.JayNixon:DarrenWilsonmustbe

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon: Darren Wilson must be vigorously prosecuted

posted at 1:21 pm on August 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Daily Caller, skip to 3:20 to see how seriously Jay Nixon takes grand juries. And it’s not just a “vigorous” state prosecution that he wants: He’s nudging Holder here to bring federal charges against Wilson, with the FBI still in the field conducting its investigation. Will Holder comply? This WaPo report is thin on direct quotes but strongly implies that he and Obama are promising black leaders they’ll take action:

The White House is working behind the scenes to assure leading civil rights groups that the administration is determined to see justice achieved in the Michael Brown shooting as President Obama seeks to preserve his support in the black community with his handling of the racially charged case.

Tanya Clay House, public policy director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, said she came away from the White House telephone briefing convinced that the administration is committed to pursuing answers in the Brown case…

Holder and Jarrett were joined on the calls by Molly Moran, acting director of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. They said that FBI agents had conducted more than 200 interviews and personnel from the federal civil rights division and the office of ­community-oriented policing also are in Ferguson.

“Determined to see justice achieved” could mean any outcome, ranging from prosecution and conviction of a guilty man to refusing to indict someone against whom there’s insufficient evidence, but civil-rights groups obviously have a particular outcome in mind here and the White House knows it. They’re all but promising to have the U.S. Attorney try Wilson. Or, if the evidence against Wilson completely falls apart somehow and Holder’s left in a tough political spot, he could decide to investigate the Ferguson PD for its practices more broadly, not just vis-a-vis Michael Brown. This NYT report claims that he’s weighing that right now, in fact, inspired in part by a recent horrific-if-true account in the Daily Beast of what the cops there allegedly did to a man in 2009. He says they beat him — and then charged him for property damage when he bled on their uniforms. A sweeping inquiry into police brutality and racial profiling generally by the DOJ might help keep the peace even if Wilson walks.

Two clips for you below, the first of Nixon and the second via the Corner of Megyn Kelly tearing him to shreds for jumping out ahead of the evidence.



Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Fraternal Order of Police chief: Discussing police tactics from Martha’s Vineyard won’t calm the situation, you know

FraternalOrderofPolicechief:Discussingpolicetactics

Fraternal Order of Police chief: Discussing police tactics from Martha’s Vineyard won’t calm the situation, you know

posted at 8:01 pm on August 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

Smart politics. PDs are in a precarious position right now, criticized universally by the left for what happened last night in Ferguson and by many on the libertarian and libertarian-ish right, future presidential candidate Rand Paul among them. If that heat stays bipartisan, legislation to end federal provisions of military weapons to local police might happen. The fastest way to short-circuit that bipartisanship is to frame the argument as one between Obama and the police, knowing that Republicans will be more inclined to side with the cops if O’s on the other side. And so:

“I would contend that discussing police tactics from Martha’s Vineyard is not helpful to ultimately calming the situation,” director Jim Pasco said in an interview with The Hill.

“I think what he has to do as president and as a constitutional lawyer is remember that there is a process in the United States and the process is being followed, for good or for ill, by the police and by the county and by the city and by the prosecutors’ office,” Pasco added…

Pasco said both police and members of the public are entitled to due process but said he is not convinced police have used excessive force in Ferguson.

“I’m not there, and neither is the president,” Pasco said. “That is why we have due process in the United States. And this will all be sorted out over time. But right now, I haven’t seen anything from afar — and maybe the president has — that would lead me to believe the police are doing anything except to restore order.”

I’m assuming Pasco would have grumbled about Obama’s criticism regardless of where he delivered it, but mentioning Martha’s Vineyard is a nice touch too. You take his point: It’s easy to judge cops when you’re clinking champagne glasses with Vernon Jordan on the 18th hole, not in the thick of it with people who are throwing bottles at your head. If you missed Obama’s statement earlier, though, catch up now. He did say that there’s no excuse for police to use excessive force, but he prefaced that by emphasizing that there’s no excuse for using violence against the police — and he pointedly failed to say, when mentioning Michael Brown’s death, how Brown died or who it was who shot him. It was the vaguest, most banal “we all need to behave better” oatmeal, but Pasco still saw an opportunity in critiquing it.

Incidentally, it’s also apparently the position of the Department of Justice that St. Louis County PD has used “excessive force,” which explains why there are no fewer than six(!) DOJ departments now on the ground in Ferguson according to BuzzFeed. I think the feds have chosen the term “excessive force” carefully: They’re not accusing the police of brutality, which suggests beating people, just of using more force than they really need to to control the crowds.

In any event, as Ed noted earlier, the St. Louis County police are no longer on the case. The Missouri Highway Patrol is in charge now. Here’s Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon making the announcement, and reading it fast enough that it sounds like he’d rather be anywhere in the world except there.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Video: Are the Rams moving back to LA?

Video:AretheRamsmovingbacktoLA?

Video: Are the Rams moving back to LA?

posted at 12:31 pm on February 9, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Who says I’ve run out of Sunday NFL posts? I grew up in the greater Los Angeles area, and recall very clearly when then-owner Georgia Frontiere packed up the Rams and moved them to St. Louis in 1994, after running them into the ground over several years. Angelenos raged at the move, even though (ahem) LA enticed the Rams to move West from Cleveland after they won their first NFL championship in 1945. They have spent the last twenty years in futile attempts to get an NFL team to either relocate or originate in the nation’s #2 media market, an incredible streak of incompetence.

Now, a land sale has breathed new life into LA’s NFL dreams, and perhaps for a homecoming as well:

Stan Kroenke, the owner of the St. Louis Rams, has purchased a 60-acre lot in Inglewood.

The space, which is located between The Forum and Hollywood Park Casino, could potentially be used for an NFL stadium, according to the LA Times.

The Rams left the Southland for St. Louis in 1995, but the team will be able to leave its current lease at Edward Jones Dome after the 2014 season.

The team has tried to get its stadium up to date, but the commission in charge of the venue came short of the $700 million needed for renovations.

Chris Loesch, who lives in St. Louis, thinks there is real meat to this story:

The LA Times’ Sam Farmer believes it to be at the very least an effort to use as much leverage as possible to resolve the Rams’ current situation, and that a land purchase rather than just a bid means Kroenke is serious:

What’s notable about this land purchase?

The NFL was thoroughly apprised of it. An owner doesn’t have to tell the NFL if, say, he’s buying a house in L.A., or even land for a business. But if he has a stadium in mind, he’s got to keep the league informed. That’s what the Rams owner did when he made the purchase through the Kroenke Organization.

How could this also be a game changer for other teams?

This could cause other clubs to consider more possibilities than they might have considered before. If you’re the first team to take a step toward L.A., you’re looking for perfection. You want the vision that’s in your head. But if someone else is the first mover, and you’re just sitting there … well, maybe something you initially thought was absolutely essential maybe isn’t so essential after all.

For instance, maybe you thought an L.A. site would have to include land for 22,000 parking spaces. Maybe now you can live with 18,000. Perhaps deals that were close but not quite good enough are starting to look better by the day.

When owners start thinking that way, deals tend to get done.

So who are the most likely candidates to move to the L.A. area, besides the Rams?

The usual suspects: the Chargers and Raiders. The Chargers can get out of their Qualcomm Stadium lease each year, and the city of San Diego can’t sue them for leaving. That’s a powerful trump card. The Chargers are also highly motivated to not have another team roll into L.A. and leave them in the shadows (with diminished leverage for getting a new stadium in San Diego.).

As for the Raiders, yes, they left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth during their last L.A. go-round. But by the league’s thinking, there are three ways to effectively rebrand a franchise: 1) new city, 2) new stadium, and/or 3) new owner. A move of the Raiders could have all three, even if it means Mark Davis doesn’t sell his piece of the team but brings in a savvy new controlling owner.

Rebranding the Raiders might not have to be as dramatic as changing them from the Hell’s Angels to the Pirates of the Caribbean. It might be more like what happened with the Seattle Seahawks when Paul Allen bought them and moved them into a dazzling new stadium. They went from a forgotten, wobbly franchise to the envy of the league, and now Super Bowl champions.

I’d guess that this is at least partly a challenge to St. Louis to kick in more resources for a new stadium — and it’s why I detest pro-sports economics these days. The Rams went to St. Louis for a new publicly-financed stadium just 20 years ago, turning its back on an extensively-remodeled Anaheim Stadium that transformed it into a dual-use facility. Now the team wants another new stadium even though there is nothing wrong with its current facility, except that it doesn’t wring as much cash out of the public as newer stadiums for other teams have — thanks to equally nonsensical public-fund investment in private playgrounds for millionaire players and billionaire owners in other cities.

But as Farmer says later in his analysis, “this is no joke.” The league wants a team in LA, and the market would be huge for any team that locates there. So why hasn’t the NFL moved a team to LA or added an expansion team? In part, owners like the idea of using LA as leverage to get better deals from their existing cities. The Minnesota Vikings just did that up here, getting Minneapolis and the state to provide much of the funding for a replacement to the Metrodome, which was built by public funds thirty years ago to house the NFL and MLB franchises. (Minneapolis built a separate stadium for the Twins a few years ago.)

But in arguably equal part, Los Angeles has booted the negotiations by insisting for years on using the LA Coliseum for the NFL venue, which the NFL expressly rejected as a complete non-starter — and for good reasons, as the facility dates back to the 1932 Olympics. It’s not suited to compete with other NFL venues. In the city’s most craven episode, then-Mayor Richard Riordan ended up double-dealing Peter O’Malley in 1997, who wanted to add an NFL team in a new stadium at his LA Dodgers MLB site, and would have made a great owner for both teams. Instead, Riordan used O’Malley to play up LA’s bid, only to switch back to the Coliseum — a move that apparently convinced O’Malley to get out of sports ownership altogether. Houston ended up with the expansion franchise, while LA spent seventeen more years as a bargaining chip for every other team in the league.

Kroenke might be serious about moving the team this time, though. We’ll see how much that costs Angelenos, both now and every 20 years or so. This time, I’m feeling sorrier for St. Louis.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair