Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Fox News source: Wilson was “beaten very severely” before shooting Michael Brown

FoxNewssource:Wilsonwas“beatenveryseverely”

Fox News source: Wilson was “beaten very severely” before shooting Michael Brown

posted at 4:41 pm on August 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

The NYT reported this morning that law-enforcement sources say Wilson suffered an unspecified injury during his altercation with Brown. Fox News’s source is more specific: It was indeed an eye socket fracture, as Jim Hoft claimed yesterday.

Why’d it take 11 days for this to leak? No idea, but the conspicuous delay won’t do the cops any favors in getting skeptics to believe it. Nor, of course, will that cellphone video showing Wilson at the scene right after the shooting, in no obvious distress from having reportedly been beaten “severely.”

Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department’s top brass told FoxNews.com.

“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”…

“They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move,” the source said. “They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face.

The source claims that there is “solid proof” that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman’s firearm, resulting in the gun going off – although it still remains unclear at this stage who pulled the trigger. Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, “What, you’re going to shoot me?”

So there’s a theory that has Brown with his hands raised but not exactly in surrender mode. This account also very closely tracks the story “Josie” told Dana Loesch last week about what happened between Wilson and Brown, although Josie didn’t claim that Brown had badly injured Wilson, just that he had punched him. There’s something missing from this account too: The Times claims that “many” witnesses have told the police that Wilson fired at Brown while he was running away after the altercation, with his back to Wilson. (I’ve noticed that detail in some of the eyewitness accounts myself.) Was Wilson allowed to use deadly force to stop a suspect who’d just assaulted him but who was attempting to leave the scene and not apparently armed? Here’s what Missouri law says. Click the image to enlarge:

That might earn him an acquittal, but a statute that authorizes shooting people in the back to keep them from running away isn’t a statute that’s going to hold up well among the public once the media spotlight is on it.

Meanwhile, two vids that are making the rounds will show you what’s been happening in Ferguson over the past 24 hours. The first one shows an officer pointing his weapon at protesters and telling them “I will f***ing kill you– get back!” even though the guy with the camera claims he has his hands up. When the officer is asked for his name, he replies, “Go f*** yourself.” (Er, content warning on the clip, needless to say.) The second is of a woman turning out at a Ferguson protest to support Darren Wilson. We need to wait for all of the facts, she says, without explaining why she’d then take one side over the other before we have them. Erick Erickson wrote a few days ago that “Ferguson is not binary,” i.e. that it’s possible to be a law-and-order conservative who thinks Wilson is innocent until proven guilty while also thinking that Ferguson police are too aggressive and overly militarized. Ferguson shouldn’t be binary, I’d agree, but I’d bet some chunk of readers will watch the first clip and assume that there must, simply must, have been some threat to the officer off-camera to get him to behave that way, just as another chunk will watch the second clip and assume, Jay Nixon style, that this corrupt woman’s sticking up for a man who is, must, and can only be guilty of murder. Oh well.

Update: The cop in the first clip below has now reportedly been removed from duty.



Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Police sources to NYT: Witnesses, forensics prove Wilson sustained an injury during his confrontation with Michael Brown

PolicesourcestoNYT:Witnesses,forensicsproveWilson

Police sources to NYT: Witnesses, forensics prove Wilson sustained an injury during his confrontation with Michael Brown

posted at 11:21 am on August 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

Kind of an important detail, yet buried 21 paragraphs deep. They’re not as specific as Jim Hoft was yesterday in alleging that Wilson’s eye was busted — the type of injury is unspecified here — but this is the first evidence I know of reported in a major paper that Brown might have been physically aggressive towards Wilson.

Er, why didn’t the Times think to ask its sources, “What kind of injury?” Or did they and received a “no comment” in reply? Police might want to keep that detail a secret to see if witnesses will independently corroborate it. I.e. if it’s his eye and a witness claims he saw Brown punch Wilson in the face, they know that witness is likely credible.

However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car…

“It was something strange,” said [eyewitness Michael] Brady, 32, a janitor. “Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right.”…

According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force. Some witnesses have backed up that account. Others, however — including [Brown's friend Dorian] Johnson — have said that Mr. Brown did not move toward the officer before the final shots were fired…

The F.B.I., Mr. Bosley said, pressed Mr. Johnson to say how high Mr. Brown’s hands were. Mr. Johnson said that his hands were not that high, and that one was lower than the other, because he appeared to be “favoring it,” the lawyer said.

Brady says he’s been interviewed by local police but not by the FBI yet. Huh. The Times also stresses that several witnesses say that when Brown stopped running from Wilson and turned back to face him, he did put his hands up. Whether he then lowered them and advanced on Wilson, as Wilson claims, or stayed put in surrender mode is in dispute.

Another interesting tidbit from the Times: Supposedly “many” witnesses have told cops that Wilson’s gun went off while he was still in the car arguing with Brown, which apparently caused Brown to start running. Why the gun went off will be a hot topic at trial, needless to say. It’s possible, I guess, that Wilson fired it deliberately, to intimidate Brown, but … why on earth would he do that? There are lots of ways a cop can intimidate you without blowing a hole in his own squad car or risking a ricochet. It’s more likely that the gun went off accidentally. How come? Did Brown grab for it when Wilson had it holstered? Or did Wilson have the gun out to intimidate Brown when it went off, either through Wilson’s own carelessness or because Brown grabbed at it himself? The defense is going to argue that Wilson’s fear of death or severe bodily harm was reasonable; it’s hard to make that argument based on Brown’s size alone given that Wilson was armed and Brown wasn’t, but if they can show that Brown had already tried to take a deadly weapon from Wilson and obviously had the strength to succeed on a second attempt, the argument is easier. And if they can show on top of that that Brown had already evinced an intent to harm Wilson by injuring him somehow, it’s easier still. Kind of a big deal here. Why’d it take 21 paragraphs to get to it?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Was the cop injured during his altercation with Michael Brown?

Wasthecopinjuredduringhisaltercationwith

Was the cop injured during his altercation with Michael Brown?

posted at 2:01 pm on August 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

Jim Hoft, who’s based in St. Louis, claims he has two well-placed local sources who say yes.

The Gateway Pundit can now confirm from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.

Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the District Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

If Brown, a big man, punched Wilson in the face while they were jawing at each other through the squad car window, that would explain why Brown took off running and why Wilson took off after him. Then again, you don’t need to imagine any physical contact between Brown and Wilson to explain that. If Wilson had said, “Hey, you’re the guy who just robbed the convenience store!”, that might have sent Brown running too.

Is there any corroborating evidence that Brown hit Wilson in the face? Yeah, sort of. If “Josie,” the now famous caller to Dana Loesch’s radio show, really is who she says she is, then Wilson himself told her that Brown punched him.

“Just shoves him back into his car, punches him in the face, and then of course Darren grabs for his gun.” And yet — Josie doesn’t claim that Brown busted Wilson’s eye, a detail you’d think she would want to mention to emphasize the severity of the attack. Also, if you look back at the cellphone video captured by Piaget Crenshaw, you’ll see Wilson standing by Brown’s body with no apparent injury and seemingly in no distress from what allegedly would have been a nasty eye injury.

Most obvious of all, if Hoft’s sources are right, why haven’t we heard this already from Ferguson PD? It seemed odd when they let days go by before releasing the convenience store surveillance video of Brown, but there’s an explanation for that in hindsight. The DOJ was pressuring them not to release the footage, believing that it was immaterial to what happened later between Brown and Wilson and would be prejudicial to the public’s understanding of the case. The cops probably also wanted to let a bit of time pass between Brown’s death and releasing the video, lest they be accused of impeaching his character before the body was even cold. There’s no obvious reason, though, for them not to release information about Wilson supposedly being punched in the face and having his eye socket fractured by Brown if that’s what happened. It’s germane to Wilson’s self-defense claim and it’ll come out at trial, neither of which is necessarily true about the convenience store tape. Even if the feds are pressuring them to hush it up, there’s no reason why the police would respect that request if they were willing to defy the DOJ on the surveillance video. A busted eye would be the best evidence offered so far that Wilson was dealing with a serious threat to his safety — and yet the cops have said nothing about it. How come?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

St. Louis reporter: Police claim more than a dozen witnesses support the cop’s account of the Michael Brown shooting

St.Louisreporter:Policeclaimmorethana

St. Louis reporter: Police claim more than a dozen witnesses support the cop’s account of the Michael Brown shooting

posted at 11:21 am on August 19, 2014 by Allahpundit

A story is coming at the Post-Dispatch, I assume, but for now this is all we have.

The only public interview I’ve seen with someone who supports Darren Wilson’s version of the shooting was Dana Loesch’s chat with “Josie,” and Josie wasn’t a witness. She claimed to be relaying Wilson’s own account of what happened. But then, go figure that locals who saw the shooting and think Brown wasn’t as innocent as he’s been portrayed might want to avoid cameras with their neighbors rioting nightly for the past week. One question as we wait for Byers’s story is whether the witnesses who have spoken to cops support Wilson’s story (via Josie) in its entirety or just select details. E.g., maybe they saw Brown mouthing off to Wilson when he told him and Dorian Johnson to get out of the street. Maybe they saw some sort of scuffle through the driver’s window between Brown and Wilson when the latter pulled up alongside. Maybe they saw him run from Wilson, then turn back. Did they see him “bum-rush” Wilson, though? A witness who corroborates Wilson on the first three points but not on the crucial last one isn’t going to help the case for self-defense much.

Meanwhile, a question regarding the protests: Is it true, as protesters have been telling the media, that the most violent actors are out-of-towners who came to Ferguson to stir things up and maybe grab some free stuff in the process? There’s no way to know exact percentages, says WaPo, but yeah, there’s definitely some “looting tourism” happening:

They are known here as “the militants” — a faction inhabiting the hard-core end of a spectrum that includes online organizers and opportunistic looters — and their numbers have been growing with the severity of their tactics since the shooting…

Some of the men are from the area — Ferguson or surrounding towns also defined in part by the gulf separating the mostly white law enforcement agencies from a mistrusting African American public. Many others — it is hard to quantify the percentage — have arrived by bus and by car from Chicago, Detroit, Brooklyn and elsewhere

“We are jobless men, and this is our job now — getting justice,” [one "militant"] said. “If that means violence, that’s okay by me. They’ve been doing this to us for years.”…

Ferguson police officials would not quantify how many looters have been arrested since the Brown shooting but presented a Washington Post reporter with a stack of roughly 50 arrest reports. While some of those arrested for stealing are from Ferguson, a large number have addresses listed in Illinois or in Texas.

It’s not just looters and people enraged over the Brown shooting. Marc Lamont Hill, who was there with CNN last night, blamed left-wing radicals for antagonizing the cops. (There was also a guy carrying an “ISIS Here”(!) banner behind Jake Tapper at one point.) My first instinct reading that was that it’s good news. Eventually the out-of-towners will give up, go home, and the situation will calm down. But what if, as this drags on night after night, it ends up attracting more out-of-towners, more “jobless men” with nothing to lose? Every day raises the odds that someone will fire a gun at the cops from the crowd and then we’ll have a scene much darker than the teargas theater that’s been playing out over the last week. In fact, as the demonstrations get more violent, it may be that the locals will start staying home to keep out of harm’s way, leaving the crowds smaller but nastier, increasingly comprised of those fidgety out-of-towners. What happens then?

Via the Corner, here’s Malik Shabazz of Black Lawyers for Justice telling Tapper he thinks the violent protesters are “plants.” Gosh, I wonder who he thinks planted them.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, August 18, 2014

Two eyewitness accounts of the Michael Brown shooting

TwoeyewitnessaccountsoftheMichaelBrownshooting

Two eyewitness accounts of the Michael Brown shooting

posted at 12:01 pm on August 18, 2014 by Allahpundit

Some of you saw these elsewhere over the weekend but I want to put them together for those who didn’t, especially given the interest in the new autopsy report. Here’s how the attorney for Dorian Johnson, Brown’s companion and the only identified eyewitness to the shooting, described what happened:

The officer put his cruiser in reverse, Bosley said, and pulled up so close that when he opened the door, it bumped Johnson and Brown. “Through the window of his cruiser, he grabs Big Mike by the throat,” Bosley said. “Big Mike tries to move away. The officer grabs his shirt.”

Johnson, who was a student at Lincoln University, saw the officer pull out a gun. “He shoots Big Mike somewhere in the chest or arm,” Bosley said. “Dorian sees blood coming from the chest.”

Johnson took off running and hid behind the first car he saw, Bosley said. “Big Mike runs by him. He says to Dorian, ‘Keep running,’ ” Bosley said. “The officer chases Big Mike. He fires a shot and hits Big Mike in the back. Big Mike turns around. [Brown] puts his hands up. The officer shoots him five or six more times.”

Per the autopsy report, the detail about Brown being hit in the back is flat wrong and the detail about him having his hands up seems quite possibly wrong. What do other eyewitnesses say, though? Were there other eyewitnesses? Well, this guy whose profile claims he’s from St. Louis seemed to have live-tweeted the shooting on August 9th. The key bits:

His full tweet-stream that day is here. Note the third one above, though: A friend asks if Darren Wilson fired at Brown’s back and the tweeter says yes, twice. Obviously he missed but you can understand now why Johnson might have thought Brown had been hit from behind. If he was running too, glimpsed Brown running out of the corner of his eye, heard the shots, and then turned only after Brown had already turned and been hit from the front, he might have assumed (wrongly) that Brown was in the process of running when he was first hit. Either way, though, “ThreePhraroah” is going to end up on the witness stand for the prosecution testifying that Officer Wilson fired at Brown’s back more than once.

The other eyewitness account comes via Conservative Treehouse, which noticed a material snippet of conversation towards the end of the now widely-viewed cellphone video of the crime scene embedded below. (Brown’s body is visible so here’s your content warning.) The relevant part starts at around 6:25. Here’s how Conservative Treehouse transcribes the conversation:

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him

{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he coming back toward him cus – the police had his gun drawn already on him –

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing

I’m having trouble making out some of the beginning and the end of the audio well enough to track the transcript; I actually don’t hear the second boldfaced part and I don’t hear the part where the guy allegedly says Brown and the police was “both in the truck.” That would be new information, if true; what he says about Brown being “over the truck,” i.e. standing next to it when Wilson stopped them, fits with what he know. Either way, though, the middle part is clear. The eyewitness does seem to say “he coming back toward him,” apparently meaning Brown turned after initially running away from Wilson and came back towards him. Whether that means Brown was “bumrushing” him, as an alleged friend of Wilson’s claimed, or was just walking back is unclear. It’s also unclear from this when Wilson fired his first shot. Was it when Brown was running away, with his back to him, or was it when he had already turned and was coming towards Wilson?

Don’t these cops have tasers, by the way? The one fact that’s not in dispute as far as I know is that Brown was unarmed and yet Wilson emptied at least six shots into him, per the autopsy report, and may well have missed hitting him in the back once or twice before that. A squad equipped with a Bearcat and M4s should also have room in its inventory for non-lethal means to bring down even a big man like Brown. As Mark Steyn said, “[W]hether or not the fatal shooting of Mr Brown is a crime, it’s certainly a mistake. When an unarmed shoplifter* in T-shirt and shorts with a five-buck cigar box in one hand has to be shot dead, you’re doing it wrong.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Ferguson curfew ends after only one night (new video added)

Fergusoncurfewendsafteronlyonenight(new

Ferguson curfew ends after only one night (new video added)

posted at 9:31 am on August 17, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

The overnight news out of Ferguson leaves the viewer with some hard work to find a positive spin on it. Yesterday, Governor Jay Nixon announced that there would be a curfew in place from midnight until 5 in the morning until peace was restored to the town. Well, that lasted exactly one night and the curfew is no more. While the order may have kept those inclined toward law and order indoors, others took to the streets resulting in seven arrests and (the last thing we needed to hear at this point) a shooting.

A person is fighting for his life in Ferguson, Missouri, just hours after a curfew was imposed in order to bring calm to a city that’s seen a week of protests and sporadic looting.

Police say one male was shot and seven people were arrested in the city where the police shooting of an unarmed black teenager has sparked days of unrest…

Police have no information on the shooter, Johnson said, but added that there was a person in the street with a handgun and a police car was shot at.

There don’t seem to be any solid estimates of how many people were out in the streets in violation of the curfew, but the interaction with law enforcement apparently didn’t look much different. Of course, given how Capt. Ron Johnson described the official policy toward enforcement, that may not come as much of a surprise.

Earlier, Johnson said law enforcement would not be heavy-handed in enforcing the curfew.

“We won’t enforce it with trucks, we won’t enforce it with tear gas,” he said.

In the end, though, the cops wound up using both smoke canisters and tear gas after the shooting took place. The media already had the Governor on the ropes in terms of trying to balance the First Amendment rights of the protesters against the need to protect persons and property from hoodlums, as well as defending the decision to impose the curfew.

“If there was an easy way to separate those who hurt from those who helped, we would. But it’s hard,” Gov. Jay Nixon said. “And sometimes, especially at night, we can’t.”

“This is not to silence the people of Ferguson or this region or others, but to contain those who are drowning out the voice of the people with their actions,” Nixon said. “We will not allow a handful of looters to endanger the rest of this community.”

His decision stirred instant indignation among many gathered at the community meeting where he announced it. Some screamed out that authorities’ priority should be to provide justice to Brown’s family, not to clamp down on those calling for it.

One interesting side note which may provide a bit more background to the violence and protests comes from a video that CNN’s Victor Blackwell uncovered. It’s taken from somebody’s cell phone who was watching the police activity in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. And as a warning, the language is very coarse and the body of Michael Brown is still laying in the street for the entire thing, so you may want to skip clicking play.

If, as they suggest, this video has been making the rounds locally over social media, it may indeed have been fueling some of the anger. The introductory frames in the video have the bystander with his cell phone (who we’ll call Man 1) speaking with someone else who has arrived on the scene (Man 2) and is asking him questions.

Man 1: They say he had his hands up and everything.

Man 2: They trying to get at him?

Man 1: I don’t know. I wasn’t out here.

This part seems to establish that the owner of the video was not a witness to the shooting. He arrived after the fact, attracted by the sound of gunfire, and is getting his information second hand. But if this video has been making the rounds of the local residents, they probably paid a lot more attention to the next section of film. In the first sentence, it’s pretty clear that the owner of the video is talking about the police when he says “they” but then both of them refer to other persons (also “they”) who have apparently been giving details of what happened before the speaker arrived.

Man 1: They some lousy m***** f*****. They some dirty m***** f*****.

Man 2:They say they stood over him?

Man 1: Yeah. And shot him some more. When he was on the ground. That’s what they said. Shot him some more while he was on the ground.

Man 2:Police killed the dude.

Man 1: Yeah, police killed him. Said he had his hands up and everything. They still shot him. He fell on the ground, they stood over him and shot him some more. They’ve just got him laying in the street, dead as a m***** f*****. They just got him laying here.

Since we’ve yet to hear the officer’s account of what transpired in his own words, and since Michael Brown clearly can’t offer any testimony, we seem to be left with only one eye witness. And that witness winds up being the same person seen in a video helping Brown rob a store a few minutes before the fatal encounter, so you have to assign whatever level of credibility you wish to that testimony. But either way, having this sort of first person “reporting” making the rounds on everyone’s cell phones has no doubt been fueling a lot of the anger and speculation.

On the positive side, the numbers of people out there causing problems at least appears to be decreasing for now, so perhaps some semblance of normalcy will return to the area. The investigation continues.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

Openthread:Sundaymorningtalkingheads

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on August 17, 2014 by Allahpundit

War in Ukraine, war in Iraq, a looming executive power grab on immigration, and a 2016 GOP contender indicted for nakedly political reasons: There’s a lot on the ol’ news plate this Sunday morning but the main course, of course, is Ferguson. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is the lead guest on “Meet the Press” and “State of the Union,” and I’m going to go ahead and guess that he booked those appearances on Friday. He probably thought today was going to be a belated victory lap after he ordered the Highway Patrol to take the lead in crowd control on Thursday and the protests remained peaceful that night. Oops: Friday night brought more looting. Now he’s back on the hot seat.

If you’re not up for watching op-ed pagers sitting around the round table and navel-gazing about race in America, Rick Perry will be on “Fox News Sunday” to answer for his crime of thinking that someone who did time on a DUI charge probably shouldn’t be serving as DA. How’s the other side of that argument working out for Democrats thus far? Not so well. The full line-up is at Politico.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Saturday, August 16, 2014

The “militarization” of police was not only inevitable, but necessary

The“militarization”ofpolicewasnotonlyinevitable,

The “militarization” of police was not only inevitable, but necessary

posted at 10:01 am on August 16, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

The rioting, protests and controversy continue to swirl around Ferguson this weekend, and you will no doubt be reading plenty of coverage from both sides about it. But in the background, a disturbing, larger national conversation has erupted out of the troubles in the St. Louis suburb. The hot topic everywhere seems to be a growing call to halt the so called “militarization” of the nation’s civilian police forces, highlighted by the riot suppression gear on display in Ferguson. It’s an argument coming from both sides of the ideological spectrum, too.

The IBD editorial board warns us to “beware” of this trend. John Fund, writing at National Review, worries over not just police, but a host of federal agencies being armed to the teeth. Bob Barr sounds the alarm as to how the psyche of our police must become warped when they are equipped like soldiers. Our own Noah Rothman has written thoughtfully on the subject, expressing some of his own concerns.

Frankly, I find the whole discussion to be a rather rapid rush to judgement and lacking in larger context. As far as the specific incidents in Ferguson go, we still need a lot more information before final conclusions can be drawn. The details of the initial shooting may remain in question, but what followed was well documented. Riots and looting broke out on a massive scale for such a small town, and continue this morning. The local police stood on the edge of being completely overwhelmed. And whether or not you find their level of response appropriate, this one local disturbance has turned into a national demand to defang the police. The Washington Post quickly began issuing advice on how to tame the cops. Clearly the nation’s legislators were listening, as Hank Johnson (D – Georgia) has already drafted legislation to do just that.

Am I the only one who finds this rather insulting to the nation’s first responders in general? Even if we are to assume that the Ferguson police crossed a line in breaking out their heaviest equipment in an attempt to reestablish control (which has not been conclusively proven at all, in my opinion), what of the rest of the country? As these critics frequently note, police departments in cities and towns of all sizes have been equipped with more modern, military style equipment for quite some time now and they don’t seem to be converting the rest of the nation into a series of oppressive death camps. And far too often, the cops find themselves in need of the “big guns” and body armor.

In case you think I’m coming in late to this debate, it’s not true. There was apparently a meeting held at some point in which Radley Balko was appointed as the go to guy for such discussions, but that dates back quite a ways. More than a year ago, Balko was pushing his ideas about so called “warrior cops” and at that time I penned an editorial stating that he was going too far.

Do we need “kinder and gentler” cops interacting with the community in a friendly fashion? It is certainly to the benefit of the police to be in good standing with a cooperative community and to know the people they protect and serve, but they also deserve a fighting chance when the situation suddenly turns violent and ugly. The rise of “warrior cops” may not be what everyone would hope for, but I don’t see any realistic alternatives.

While I both understand and sympathize with the reminiscing for the good old days, the times have changed. The era of the lovable flatfoot, twirling his baton and wagging a finger at the precocious kid about to steal some penny candy has passed us by. Have we collectively forgotten the riots that took place following the Rodney King verdict? How about the now infamous North Hollywood shootout? And for our friends on the Left, what about the next time somebody goes into an elementary school armed with a Bushmaster and a couple of 9mm Glocks? You don’t want us arming the teachers or having local residents open carrying to keep the school grounds safe. “Leave it to the cops,” you say. But should the cops be going into a situation like that with nothing more than a layer of cotton uniform and a revolver to protect themselves and take down the bad guys? Or should they have to wait until a SWAT unit from an “appropriately large city” shows up, with the shooter mowing down third graders in the meantime?

While the shooting of Michael Brown may provide a teachable moment in terms of police interactions with the community, the nearly immediate mayhem which followed should also serve as a timely reminder. The old assumptions of law enforcement and their unwritten compact with the citizenry relied on a society where the police – and the laws – were respected, and criminals were a minority who would be rejected by the rank and file residents. But when the majority of an entire community decides to break that compact, the formula changes. They realize that they outnumber – and frequently outgun – the cops. A slumbering, snarling beast is awakened and in short order the police can find themselves on the run. This is not a formula for freedom of speech… it’s the path to mayhem and the breakdown of civil society. Before you’re too quick to demand the “demilitarization” of the police, you might want to remember who it is that stands between the neighborhood you have now and South Central L.A circa 1992. And Ferguson has shown us that you don’t need a huge metropolitan area for it to happen.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, August 15, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on August 14, 2014 by Allahpundit

Attorney General Eric Holder released the following statement Thursday following his meeting earlier today with President Obama to discuss the latest developments in Ferguson, Missouri:…

“For one thing, while the vast majority of protests have been peaceful, acts of violence by members of the public cannot be condoned. Looting and willful efforts to antagonize law enforcement officers who are genuinely trying to protect the public do nothing to remember the young man who has died. Such conduct is unacceptable and must be unequivocally condemned.

“By the same token, the law enforcement response to these demonstrations must seek to reduce tensions, not heighten them. Those who peacefully gather to express sympathy for the family of Michael Brown must have their rights respected at all times. And journalists must not be harassed or prevented from covering a story that needs to be told.

“At a time when we must seek to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the local community, I am deeply concerned that the deployment of military equipment and vehicles sends a conflicting message.”

***

Another officer asked us to wait and called a supervisor. After a few minutes, he came back and told us this was a “hot zone” and that he couldn’t guarantee our safety. We thanked him and said that we didn’t expect him to, and yet we still wanted to reach the protest site. He said we couldn’t walk down the street and that we would have to get there some other way.

“What would happen if we walked down the street?” Flores asked.

“You’re not going to walk down the street. If you insist on going down here, and you want to disobey the orders of the police that have been given to you, thoroughly and fairly, you’ll most likely be placed under arrest.”

“On what charges?” I ask.

“Disobeying the directions of a police officer,” he answers…

This is what a media blackout looks like.

***

Michelle McCaskill, media relations chief at the Defense Logistics Agency, confirms that the Ferguson Police Department is part of a federal program called 1033 that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars of surplus military equipment to civilian police forces across the United States. The materials range from small items, such as pistols and automatic rifles, to heavy armored vehicles such as the MRAPs used in Afghanistan and Iraq…

Since the creation of the 1033 program by Congress in the early 1990s, the program has distributed $4.3 billion of excess equipment, ranging from innocuous office supplies to bomb-disposing robots and other advanced technology. The flood of military supplies — along with the continuing drug war and grant programs from other federal agencies that provide military-style equipment — has pushed the culture of police forces far from its law-enforcement roots…

St. Louis County law enforcement agencies received twelve 5.56 millimeter rifles and six .45 caliber pistols from the Department of Defense between Aug. 2, 2010, and Feb. 13, 2013, a Missouri public safety official confirmed Thursday. Ferguson, Mo., is within St. Louis County. The Pentagon allows information on “tactical” equipment to be released only at a county level, so which police department(s) in the county received the weaponry is not available.

***

But part of the problem with the program, according to the ACLU, is a lack of transparency and oversight. Few restrictions are placed on what equipment law enforcement can request or how they use it. The organization concluded that the only significant restriction placed on departments is that they not sell whatever equipment they receive. In fact, departments are required to use the equipment that they receive within one year, which Dansky said could actually incentive the use of the equipment even when it’s unnecessary.

“The program contains a built-in incentive,” she said. “As these local police departments receive this equipment, there are no meaningful constraints on their ability to use it.”

“If all you have is a hammer,” she added, “everything looks like a nail.”

***

What is beyond dispute is that since Ferguson erupted in response to this tragic incident, the authorities haven’t done much to instill public confidence. Not only have they declined to release relevant details, much like the police officer in question is accused of doing, they have escalated the situation very quickly by engaging in a series of clashes with understandably upset demonstrators…

[T]his situation calls for a political force that will defend the Bill of Rights, rather than practice identity politics. That means ensuring that peaceful property owners are free of looters and law-abiding demonstrators are not crushed by SWAT teams. It also means taking an appropriately skeptical view of both police claims and Al Sharpton…

If libertarians and the best kind of conservative have any insight, it is this: government works for the people whose tax dollars sustain and support it, not the other way around. When this basic order of things gets reversed, Ferguson isn’t too far around the corner.

***

If you want an indication about where someone sits on the dividing line between conservative and libertarian, sometimes it’s as simple as how they answer this question: how do you feel about cops? Do you naturally tend to trust them, viewing them as a necessary and needed hedge acting in defense of law and order? Or are you naturally suspicious of them, believing them to be little more than armed tax collectors and bureaucrats with a tendency to violence and falsehood in service of their whims? Are cops the brave individuals who stand between the law-abiding and those who would rob, rape, and kill, or are they the low-level tyrannical overpaid functionaries of the administrative state, more focused on tax collection in the form of citations, property grabs, and killing the occasional family dog?…

The population of Ferguson has reacted with obvious frustration, followed by an overreaction of rioting and looting. The cops have responded by what seems from all appearances to be a massive crackdown on protesters and criminals alike, an escalation of arrests that includes tear gassing people for doing little more than yelling epithets from their own back yards. And so those people stopped throwing bad words and started throwing bricks and molotov cocktails…

“Justice is the end of government,” James Madison wrote in Federalist 51. “It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” It can be lost because of the mob, or it can be lost because of the response to the mob – and conservatives who believe in law and order should understand that. Responsible governance in this situation would involve de-escalation and conciliation, not militarization.

***

I guess the question is, after again remembering that we should never condone the looting or destruction of property of innocent bystanders: Are we really okay with asking people to just accept that cops can gun down a teenager and whitewash the whole incident and take that laying down or just “oh well, that’s life sometimes”? Because I’m not. I think if the cops don’t believe that there’s some line that will cause the public to rise up in arms against them we are in deep trouble…

I guess in the final analysis I’m fine with the criticisms of the very obvious excesses of the Ferguson riots but I’m not as willing as many are to categorically condemn the impulse. In fact, I’m glad that the impulse still exists within America to say that there’s a point beyond which they won’t be pushed by the authorities even if they do look more like a Marine division than a police force these days. And I understand the anger and frustration and with police brutality that led to this particular situation, even though, again, we can’t say definitively what happened in the Michael Brown situation.

When America dumped a bunch of the Crown’s tea into Boston Harbor the British called us rioters, looters, and worse. What’s happening in Ferguson is maybe not that, but our country was founded on the impulse of being willing to take only so much crap from a disconnected and unresponsive government, and I hope that impulse isn’t gone forever.

***

While there is no simple fix to race relations in any part of American life, there is an obvious way to reduce violent law enforcement confrontations while also building trust in cops: Police should be required to use wearable cameras and record their interactions with citizens. These cameras—various models are already on the market—are small and unobtrusive and include safeguards against subsequent manipulation of any recordings…

According to a year-long study of the Rialto, Calif., police department, the use of “officer worn cameras reduced the rate of use-of-force incidents by 59 percent” and “utilization of the cameras led to an 87.5 percent reduction in complaints” by citizens against cops.

Such results are the reason that the ACLU is in favor of “police body-mounted cameras,” as long as various privacy protections and other concerns are addressed. And it also explains growing support for the policy among elected officials. In the wake of Eric Garner’s chokehold death in July, New York City’s public advocate is pushing a $5 million pilot program in the city’s “most crime-plagued neighborhoods” as a means of restoring trust in the police.

***

There’s something else, harder to discuss but, like so many such things, urgent nonetheless. Deep breath: The black community cannot pretend that the stereotype of black men as violent comes out of nowhere.

Young black men commit about 50 percent of the murders in this country, 14 times more than young white men. Or, where do murder rates among young white men go up each summer the way they do among black ones in cities like Chicago? “Flash robs” happen when large groups of teens beset a store and steal from it, and I’m sorry, but these are rarely white affairs.

There are reasons for things like these. However, we are being unrealistic to expect America to watch these things and think it’s okay because the boys don’t have Dads and decent-paying low-skill jobs aren’t always easy to find. Let’s face it: If Korean boys regularly did things like this, we’d all be scared to death of them…

I wonder if the black community could step it up some on this. We need to devote some more energy to figuring out what we can do about The Violence, because among all else that it destroys, it feeds a perception bias that ends up killing innocents like Michael Brown.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Ferguson police identify officer in Michael Brown shooting

FergusonpoliceidentifyofficerinMichaelBrownshooting

Ferguson police identify officer in Michael Brown shooting

posted at 10:41 am on August 15, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The Ferguson police released the name of the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen, whose death set off a riot and then a tense standoff with police in the St. Louis suburb. The shooter was Officer Darren Wilson, a six-year veteran of the Ferguson police force, who was treated for injuries and has not — as yet — been considered the target of a criminal investigation. However, the police also released the report of the incident, which stated that Brown himself was considered the prime suspect in another crime:

The police officer who fatally shot unarmed teen Michael Brown, prompting days of unrest in Ferguson, Missouri and rallies nationwide, has been identified as Darren Wilson.

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson made the announcement Friday morning, having previously refused citing concerns over the officer’s safety.

Jackson said that Wilson had been an officer in the force for six years and no disciplinary action was taken against him. Wilson was treated for injuries after the shooting, Jackson said.

According to the police report, this incident may have been the consequence of an earlier strong-arm robbery. Another Ferguson police officer had been investigating a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store and had seen several angles from the store’s surveillance cameras of the suspects. The officer identified Brown as the primary suspect, and the witness to the shooting that has been talking with the media about those circumstances as Brown’s suspected partner in the robbery. Huffington Post reporter Ryan J. Reilly captured the report page in this tweet:

It is worth remembering that this incident is related to another incident detailed under Ferguson Police Report #2014-12391 as well as St. Louis County Police Report #2014-43984. In that incident, Brown was fatally wounded involving an office of this department. I responded to that scene and observed Brown. After viewing Brown and reviewing this video, I was able to confirm that Brown is the primary suspect in this incident. A second person, also at that scene, identified himself as being with Brown. That person was later identified as Dorian Johnson. After observing Johnson and reviewing the video, I confirmed that he is the second suspect in this incident.

That was the investigating officer’s opinion, not an adjudicated fact — but it does suggest why a confrontation between Brown, Johnson, and the police may have escalated quickly. Reilly also tweeted four pictures from the camera system in the report:

Reilly was one of the two journalists arrested on Wednesday night in Ferguson. Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post is the other, and is also tweeting from the same report. Lowery notes here that the convenience store was a Quik Trip:

One Quik Trip was destroyed in the riot that led to the police response this week. There may be more than one Quik Trip in Ferguson, but if it’s the same one that burned this week, it would be a very strange coincidence.

The police didn’t have much else to say, which made some residents angry — but not all that many, Lowery reports:

Today’s reveal raises all sorts of questions, not the least of which is why the Ferguson PD didn’t release the information about the Quik Trip robbery sooner. It doesn’t justify shooting an unarmed man in the back as he’s running away if that’s actually what happened, but that claim came from the man who is a suspected accomplice in the earlier robbery — and would explain why the police officer might have taken an interest in Brown and Johnson in the first place. Assuming that the officer investigating the strong-arm robbery is correct in identifying Brown and Johnson, it calls into question the entire narrative of the shooting that has been provided mainly by Johnson himself.

If the Ferguson police had been more forthcoming about the incident up front, much of this week’s drama might have been avoided, or at least somewhat mitigated.

Update: Expect this to come up a lot in the days ahead:

If Brown and Johnson were fleeing from a felony theft, the shooting may have been justified under Missouri law — which may explain why the police handed out the report on the strong-arm robbery. But they still have not released the report on the shooting itself, and it doesn’t explain why it took six days to get around to discussing the robbery.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair