Where Are the Anti-Police State Cliven Bundy Supporters on Behalf of Michael Brown?

Share

Last April, Federal agents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLS) arrived at the home of Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher that has been grazing his cattle on public land for the last 20 years without reimbursing the government for upkeep of that land, to evict his cattle from said public land and demand he pay the $1 million dollars in back-owed grazing fees. This sparked a face-off between redneck anti-government armed militia “Freedom Riders” and federal law enforcement. Bundy supporters decried the “jack-booted” thuggary of Federal law enforcement and declared that THIS was “exactly why we have a Second Amendment!” (no, it’s not.) Four months later, an over-militarized police force in up-armored land-mine resistant vehicles with machine-gun turrets on top, launched teargas grenades and fired rubber bullets into crowds of protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, and the same people who vilified the authorities for attempting to force Bundy to comply with the law, are stunningly silent when it comes to defending the mostly black protesters being confronted by a paramilitary police force as they attempt to express their First Amendment right to publicly protest.

One can’t help but wonder what Bundy supporters’ reaction would be if hoards of armed black protestors were training their weapons on Federal law enforcement officers. Where are the militia teanuts rushing to the defense of black protesters in opposition to the heavy-handed police tactics being employed in Ferguson, Missouri? How is the almost-hyperbolic militaristic response to a public protest not a “call to arms” for every anti-government militia group in the country?

Rancher Bundy acknowledged that he was in defiance of the law and thumbing his nose at Federal Law enforcement, stating clearly that he simply “did not recognize the authority” of the Federal Government over him. He went to court numerous times to defend his right to use public land without paying for its upkeep, and lost every time. And when the BLS came knocking on his door, demanding he pay nearly a million dollars in 20 years worth of back-owed grazing fees, armed militia groups from neighboring states rushed to his defense, railing against the “Police-State” federal government’s “jack-booted thugs” persecuting a poor innocent cattle rancher. Yes, poor, innocent, admitted criminal, government welfare moocher Cliven Bundy. When those same supporters showed up with guns and trained them on police officers, the BLS wisely just backed off and said, “You’re not worth it.” Fox “news” gave the “Bundy Standoff” wall-to-wall coverage, sending camera crews to cast protestors in the most sympathetic light (until Bundy started talking about “the Neg’ras”.)
 

Protesters in Ferguson, MO defying police
Black protestors in Ferguson, MO

 

Protesters at Bundy Ranch in Nevada defying police
Bundy supporter Eric Parker from central Idaho
Militiaman in support of Cliven Bundy Militiaman blows war horn in Call to Arms Bundy supporters in defiance of Authorities

 

Let’s be clear about one thing: Those of us who defended the government against Bundy are NOT “hypocrites” for now criticizing the governments response to protesters regarding the shooting-death of an unarmed black teen (who was in the process of surrendering to authorities after already being shot twice, then shot three to six more times til he was dead) last week. Bundy was already in defiance of the law and there was no question of his guilt when federal authorities arrived to fine… not arrest… Mr. Bundy.

Despite a video released after-the-fact that appears to show Brown committing petty theft (taking a handful of cigars from a local convenience store), the officer who shot the unarmed Brown twice when he grabbed Brown through the window of his police car, then fired 3-6 more shots killing him as Brown attempted to surrender, did not know about the robbery when he confronted Brown. And regardless, YOU DON’T SHOOT AN UNARMED MAN EVEN ONCE (let alone EIGHT TIMES) while they are in the process of surrendering.

The always excellent Media Matters also noticed the hypocrisy of Fox radio host and frequent Fox “news” contributor Laura Ingraham, who chastised the Media for inflaming the situation in Ferguson, saying that their presence there was only making the situation worse as protesters were “playing to the cameras”, likening them to “a lynch mob”. But four months ago, Ingraham struck a very different tune as she appeared repeatedly on Fox to describe the pro-Bundy armed militia protesters as “engaging in an act of civil disobedience”, chastising the federal government for its “ridiculously disproportionate response.”

Quite honestly, when I started work on this op/ed and Googled “Cliven Bundy” “Michael Brown”, I expected to see… at the very least… a half dozen other sites questioning the stunningly different reactions towards the use of military-style police force against protesters… one white, armed to the teeth, defending a man in flagrant violation of the law threatening the use of violence against a very menacing-looking police force… the other black, unarmed (alleged reports of “Molotov-cocktails” being thrown at police have never been substantiated), teargassed and shot with rubber bullets by local police in military vehicles wearing camouflage (in the city?) in full riot gear. I didn’t. Not one single news story remarking on the disconnect, and not even a handful of stories on the web (perhaps three) commenting on the obvious hypocrisy. But I expect that number to grow quickly.

I also expect to see the NRA out there any day now defending the black protestors’ right to take up arms against local authorities.

NOT.

UPDATE: Almost on cue: Fox defends Ferguson police response as “What needed to happen”.

So predictable.

 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

 
Share

August 18, 2014 · Admin Mugsy · 15 Comments - Add
Posted in: Crime, Guns & Violence, Politics, Racism, Right-Wing Hypocrisy

Comments
  • Admin Mugsy August 21, 2014 at 3:33 PM

    Holy crap. On Wednesday, St. Louis PD officers shot and killed a young black man. According to police, the man “charged officers wielding a knife in open-hand position” shouting “shoot me!” and fired upon when he came with 4 feet of an officer.

    Video of the event has surfaced bearing almost no resemblance to the police account (other than the man daring them to “Shoot me!”)

    Officers fired at least six shots, killing the man almost instantly. Then, while lying dead on the sidewalk, officers cuffed the man while continuing to point a gun at him.

    (Warning, video NSFW) http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/19/3473247/police-officers-involved-in-fatal-st-louis-shooting/

     
  • Be Fair Please August 26, 2014 at 8:32 AM

    Bullets go through patrol car windshields and doors. If police are called to the scene of an active shooter, sniper with high powered rifle they want to arrive on scene safely and not get picked off blocks away from the scene. So the line about “over-militarized police force” is the writer’s opinion here and certainly the police and many among the public that support the police would offer a different opinion.

    How many writers have characterized the crowds in Ferguson as “peaceful protesters?”
    Do peaceful protesters damage property, loot stores, destroy a business ( Quik Trip burned out.)
    Do peaceful protesters throw bottles, rocks, and petrol bottle bombs at police ? Do peaceful protesters shoot each other ? Do protesters help their cause by ignoring a lawful curfew imposed to help maintain order during this special situation? All this occurred in Ferguson and it seems bizarre to me that people want to bitch about the riot gear police wear to protect themselves and the lawful methods they use to bring a riot under control.

    I agree with the Mugsy’s Rapsheet outrage over the tea-party nut jobs that threatened to fire on law enforcement at the Bundy incident in Nevada. It appears that enough cameras were there and investigators should have photos of all of the offending subjects. I would hope to see them all arrested one by one on follow-up.

    This article not hypocritical but how about dropping the loaded language and terms and try to be accurate with the facts? How about letting the investigation be completed before you convict the officer involved. When the subject Brown shoved the store clerk at the doorway then advanced at the clerk ( to intimidate the clerk )…those actions changed the violation from a simple shoplifting charge to a STRONG ARM ROBBERY. Stealing by use of force against another person (victim).

    Also “unarmed teen” has been repeated to describe Brown by every news broadcast on this incident. A lot of articles ( this one included) do not even mention the factor of the confrontation between Brown and the officer at the patrol car. One writer who did not ignore it tried to describe it as a “tussle.” Tussle sounds like what happens when a kitten plays with a ball of yarn. Would it not be more fair to accurately include in your story that Brown was a young adult age 18 and the size of an NFL lineman, 6 ft 4 “, 292 lbs ? If a nearly 300 lb subject attacks an officer and attempts to disarm the officer that is not just a tussle….it is a life and death critical incident for that officer.

    This article claims Brown was running away and then tried to surrender. Brown’s accomplice in the crime at the store was the witness giving that account. I have caught on TV some news reports that had other witnesses that said Brown turned and charged at the officer. Running headlong and charging at a police officer who you a moment before had attacked and tried to grab his pistol … that is a version of events that the evidence may support and it does not amount to surrendering to the officer. One of the witnesses was recorded on audio saying…he just kept coming at the officer. So how about waiting for the full investigation to sort out the evidence and all the witness statements before you jump to conclusions.

    And you sound as wacky as some radical right wing writers with the line about the alleged Molotov Cocktails being thrown was never substantiated. Journalists on scene photographed subjects lighting and throwing the petrol bombs. A store was burned out.

    http://www.thefloridanewsjournal.com/2014/08/14/protesters-ferguson-throwing-molotov-cocktails-officers-during-violent-protests

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/ferguson-in-pictures/html_24b2b105-90e3-5ef0-9c65-769e848c0d31.html

    The Democratic Governor mentioned what police were up against. Was he being untruthful?
    “We will not be defeated by bricks and guns and Molotov cocktails,” said Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.
    http://abc7chicago.com/news/ferguson-protesters-police-clash-overnight/270366/

    120 arrests….does the writer want us to believe there was no cause for an arrest in all 120 cases?
    After-all …this was a peaceful protest.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/photos-capture-intense-scene-in-ferguson-as-police-protester

    You might want to try “hugging a looter” but tear-gas and rubber bullets are used to control riots.
    If police obtain military surplus camo clothing and military surplus vehicles and some of it is camo it is probably because they did not have the time or funds to repaint the vehicles and they made use of the clothing available which was donated or sold by the government.

    I think the writer needs to get a grip on reality. For goodness sake Vancouver lost the Cup finals and people there rioted over the loss of the hockey finals series. This crap about making law enforcement evil because they want to be well equipped and well prepared to protect themselves and maintain order…it seems like a rather foolish position to take and lacking in common sense.

    I have followed Mugsy’s Rap Sheet for a long time and agree with the vast majority of what appears there but this article is sadly lacking in integrity. It is only half correct at best and shamefully slanted and rather bogus in many respects.
    https://twitter.com/PDPJ/status/499754224134012928/photo/1

    http://media.cagle.com/205/2014/08/15/152392_600.jpg

    Did Al Sharpton travel to Lakewood, Washington in 2009?
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/ferguson-in-pictures/html_24b2b105-90e3-5ef0-9c65-769e848c0d31.html

    http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7489476-Fergusons-6-top-use-of-force-questions-A-cops-response/
    ========================================================================================================================================================
    The comment about the police that shot the man with the knife ( a sadly frequent scenario of suicide by cop…with a mental disturbed person wanting to be shot by police) the commenter seems disturbed that police continued to point their weapons at the subject until he was handcuffed. And the commenter seems disturbed that the man was handcuffed. Police are trained to do this. The FBI had a shootout years ago and the subject continued to shoot at the agents after he had been hit numerous times. A subject that has been shot and goes down can a moment later get up and attack ( stab someone.) The subject gets handcuffed in case they are not fully incapacitated. Situations and subjects can vary greatly. One shot may end a threat from a dangerous person while a dozen shots may strike a person and they may not go down and may continue to present a threat for minutes more. It only takes seconds for an attacker to cause great bodily harm or death.

     
    • Admin Mugsy August 26, 2014 at 1:14 PM

      While I can not provide a lengthy point-by-point response here, regarding the “tussle”… WHY was there any confrontation in the first place? Why was the officer attempting to grab Michael Brown from his car window, SHOOTING HIM TWICE BEFORE EVER LEAVING HIS CAR?

      And rare & random occurrences of stray bullets “going through police car windows” does NOT justify a paramilitary police force roaming our streets. Police are supposed to be “peace officers”. Dress them up as soldiers and the entire dynamic changes. Suddenly, you are a “soldier” in “enemy territory”.

      And yes, there were some people that took advantage of the protests to loot and commit mayhem, but they are the exception. At the same time, there are other protesters coming out and CLEANING UP the streets of any trash left behind the night before.

      The point of this article is not to vilify the police, but the point out the hypocrisy of the people that defended the protesters & vilified the police in the case of “Cliven Bundy”, only to fall totally silent when it comes to excessive police force being used against protesters in the Brown incident.

      Postscript: The tweeted photo of one person attempting to light a Molotov cocktail is questionable. Where are the police they are supposedly going to throw the cocktail at? No lighted storefronts or any evidence the photo is from the protests at all. The “FloridaNewsJournal” (actually a blog) does not identify the source of their photo or provide any evidence it’s from Ferguson at all. The “St Louis Today” photo is NOT of a Molotov Cocktail, but of a protester tossing a police “FlashBang” BACK at the police.

       
  • Be Fair Please August 27, 2014 at 5:58 AM

    If your purpose is not to vilify police then why to you clearly do so? I need to apologize to whatever writer described the confrontation at the patrol car as a “tussle.” I read tussle but was thinking scuffle. Tussle actually is defined as a vigorous struggle usually over some object / objective. Scuffle also a struggle but not as serious or prolonged … a brief struggle. Either way the point is that I was not there and you were not there so we both should wait for the forensics investigation to be completed and the evidence compared to the witness statements.
    In fairness withholding judgment is what is demanded by fair reporting. At least consider that the officers accounts have equal merit until disproved. You declare that the officer tried to pull Brown into his patrol car ? Really? It looks like the officer is around 185 lbs. -195 lbs at most…he could weigh less. You think an officer of any size would attempt to pull a 6′ 4″ near 300 lb.( twice his size) subject into the car through the window? That makes no sense at all. What seems a lot more probable is that the officer told the subjects to get out of the roadway to the sidewalk and as he stopped his patrol car and began to open the door the subject Brown pushed his body against the car door to prevent the officer from getting out of the patrol car. At this time according to what police have relayed as the officer’s account – Brown began to strike the officer and reach for the officer’s handgun. A witness stated it appeared that Brown and the officer were arm wrestling. That seems to be consistent with a subject trying to pull the handgun away from the officer and the officer attempting to retain control of it. We do not know at this point if the shots fired within the patrol car were accidental – incidental to the struggle as the officer fought to retrain control of the handgun.
    Your account of events seems to attempt to suggest the officer somehow got the idea to grab a subject twice his size and shoot him while the officer sat in his car ..as if that was all some plan of action by the officer. For reasonable fair-minded people that does not add up.

    I am fully aware that some of the photos show the rioters picking up and throwing tear gas canisters back at police. There is another photo on the St. Louis Today link from Chris Lee , clee@post-dispatch.com . (Email him and ask him about it.) The footer for the photo reads: Protesters try unsuccessfully to light a Molotov cocktail as the police prepare to advance on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2014, in Ferguson. It was the fourth night of unrest in Ferguson after the fatal police shooting of a teen on Saturday.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/ferguson-during-friday-police-standoff-protesters-try-stop-looters-entering-stores-1660418

    Here is a web site that is promoting the side of the protesters and it has a photo of subjects holding a Molotov cocktail.
    http://www.christenacleveland.com/2014/08/the-cross-and-the-molotov-cocktail/

    The Governor of Missouri made a comment acknowledging that Molotov cocktail bombs were involved in the violence that took place in Ferguson. Is ABC NEWS a fly by night unreliable source too? The photo you find questionable in the Florida blog is on this ABC News link. It is a Jeff Roberson/AP Photo.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/violence-ferguson-police-fire-smoke-bombs-tear-gas/story?id=24973522

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/tear-gas-molotov-cocktails-ferguson-protests-24974553

    Sadly subjects shooting at police are not so rare and random as you try to suggest. Police often must be prepared for the worse case scenario. Firemen drive to many calls for service in big fire trucks but the call is medical in nature and not a fire in progress. The big fire truck may have gear that is needed to extract an injured trapped person. Should we complain about firemen arriving in big fire rigs when there is no fire? If police arrive in an armored vehicle when there is no shooting going on it does not mean arriving in the armored vehicle is bad policy or bad procedure. The cops arrive in the armored vehicle because they perceive there may be a chance they will need it in a given situation. It seems to me that riot control that involves people shooting at each other would be one of those situations. You complain that this equipment makes it appear that police are looking at the public as “the enemy.” You do this at the same time your article paints the police as “the enemy.” I think the voices crying about excessive police being used in Ferguson ( crowd control ) are failing to make a very coherent case. The death of Brown is still under investigation. I think your article is half correct about the Bundy incident in Nevada. But I see hypocrisy in people writing negative comments about the police and how they perform their job when those writers don’t have knowledge about standard police procedures and on aspects of the law that guide how police do their jobs. Writers claim police are doing sloppy work yet those same writers are clueless about just how sloppy of a job they are doing as investigators / writers themselves. You call the police heavy handed yet several news sources ( ABC News link above on of them) have notations that report the police gave repeated warnings to the crowd to disperse. The repeated warnings were ignored before tear gas or other crowd control methods were used.

     
    • Admin Mugsy August 27, 2014 at 11:54 AM

      Briefly, there is a difference between “militarizing our police by equipping them as if they were soldiers” vs “vilifying” the police themselves.

      Regarding the “facts” of the case, TV host/professor Melissa Harris Perry provided a much better response than I could possibly provide here.

      What we DO know about this case does not favor the officer’s side of the story.

       
  • Be Fair Please August 28, 2014 at 8:42 AM

    Ever occur to you that many many of the nation’s law enforcement officer are former and active soldiers? Many are war vets from the Gulf War / Desert Storm 1991 conflict in Kuwait and many more are Afghanistan and Iraq war vets. Others are full time police and part time National Guard soldiers. So many of our police are in fact also soldiers.

    Well forgive me if I remain unconvinced by your declaration about the facts of the case after you stumbled badly a number of times in your prior comments about what was going on in Ferguson. I am a liberal to moderate on political issues and strongly support President Obama. It disturbs me greatly when I see Mugsy’s and Daily Kos , Crooks & Liars – sources I usually trust to provide solid information on the failures of the GOP and Tea Party – turn around and when it comes to this incident many pieces I see are so unfairly and unwisely slanted and flat out wrong on facts, it makes me figure I really will need to be careful in accepting information from these sources on the other issues of the day.

    And you are not doing any better in handing the ball over to Melissa Harris-Perry. There are three bogus assertions in the very first paragraph of the Daily Kos article. To claim the office “executed” Brown before the investigation is complete and before a jury rules on the case … if it goes to court…is irresponsible journalism. Executed is wildly charged and at this point totally unsubstantiated. If the store video is found to be accurate and represents Brown’s true actions at that store then Brown was not a non-violent shoplifter…he was a strong arm robber. ( Suspect.) And the robbery ( alleged ) at the store IS NOT UNRELATED TO THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE OFFICER AND THE SUSPECT BROWN.

    I took a look at the Daily Kos link you provide and find it just as lame as your comments are on this incident. Here is a link from a writer who has experience both as a soldier and a police officer. His narrative will I think serve to explain to you why I find your views on this incident sadly lacking in common sense and unfairly prejudiced against law enforcement.

    http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/08/24/a-dose-of-reality-for-ferguson-missouri/

    Every violent confrontation with a cop is an armed confrontation. If a subject attempts to take an officers handgun the officer must assume that the subject intends to use that handgun against the officer and that subject presents a threat to the public and all other police officers he may encounter. And as the Chris Hernandez article clearly explains…unarmed subjects can and frequently do present dangerous and deadly threats to others and to law enforcement officers.

     
    • Admin Mugsy August 28, 2014 at 11:21 AM

      Quick reply.

      First, just because many of our policemen are former military, doesn’t justify turning our PEACE OFFICERS into SOLDIERS. Their job is to “keep the peace”. A soldiers’ job is to act as judge, jury & executioner… which is quite literally the mindset we see emerging following the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, John Crawford and Eric Gardner.

      The audio recording of the Brown shooting that was released yesterday raises a number of disturbing questions… most notably, the number of shots fired against a man we KNOW was unarmed. And argue as you might that “we don’t know what the facts of the case are”, as MHP points out, the facts we DO know do not support the idea that this was simply “an arrest gone bad”.

      I read the link you provided and he does an incredibly bad job of justifying the officer firing at least TEN times. His argument that the fact Brown was “unarmed is irrelevant” because the officer might still have been defending himself from Brown lunging towards him is nonsense. This officer is using DEADLY FORCE.

      EVEN IF the officer was “protecting himself”, Brown was hit a minimum of SIX TIMES. You’re telling me the officer was “in fear for his life” after being charged by a badly wounded unarmed man?

      You say “every confrontation with a cop is an armed confrontation”. No. Because there is NO evidence the two men were in a struggle or that Brown ever got close enough to reach for the officer’s weapon. And why was he firing his gun at a jay-walker in the first place? Again, “judge, jury & EXECUTIONER”.

      If your goal here is to defend the officer against “baseless accusations”, you’re using “baseless assumptions” to make that case. The facts are not on your (or the officers’) side.

      PS: I have found NOTHING to suggest the officer involved in the Brown shooting is a veteran, so your first point is both irrelevant and your own use of “supposition” to criticize my own use of facts as supposition.

       
  • Be Fair Please August 29, 2014 at 5:40 AM

    Well I see limited value in engaging in an endless circle of offering information to clarify why police do what they do only to have you repeatedly fail to show any sign of
    understanding it or even of making a sincere effort at trying to understand it. Zimmerman was not a sworn law enforcement officer so the Martin case is not a valid comparison to the Brown case. Also Martin had not just committed two felonies ( robbery and battery to a police officer) allegedly.

    Again right over your head. When the investigation is complete the officer may be found to have acted entirely within the bounds of his training and the bounds of the law …even if he had fired 12 shots instead of 6. Police are trained to use deadly force in certain situations and if such deadly force is justified they keep firing until the threat they confront is no longer a threat.

    I don’t know how you can arrive at calling the cases Hernandez presents “nonsense” when he is presenting information that has been supported by court decisions and laws on the books.

    You write that there is no evidence that Brown and the officer were involved in a struggle. Wrong. There were 3 female witnesses saying Brown was right up against the patrol car door and appeared to be arm wrestling with the officer. They say Brown did not get in the car which is not surprising he likely would not even fit through the window. If he was close enough to make contact with the officer and struggle with the officer he certainly was close enough to strike the officer and reach for the officers handgun. The witnesses say the officer appeared to be trying to hold on to Brown and Brown was trying to break away. Well yes..if there is a struggle over control of the handgun and shots ring out ….and if the officer warns Brown to stop or he will shoot it makes sense that after one of two shots went off that Brown would try to run away.
    It also makes sense that the officer would try to clamp on to one of Browns arm…the one reaching for his handgun …to prevent him from taking control of that handgun. We have no information as to the exact time the witnesses first saw what was happening. They may not have seen the struggle from the start but instead turned and looked and first saw the struggle after it was already in progress and not from the beginning.

    And we are reading news accounts of this – not FBI interview transcripts or court records that have benefit of cross examination to clarify all the fine points that are important to clarify.

    And a fourth witness, a male , also reports the confrontation between Brown and the officer right at the door of the patrol car.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/20/police-sources-to-nyt-witnesses-forensics-show-that-wilson-sustained-an-injury-during-his-confrontation-with-michael-brown/

    The officer was not firing his gun at a jay walker. He was firing at a large ( felon if robbery case is valid and felon if he struck the officer.) The store video showed a clearly aggressive subject that stepped toward the much smaller store clerk to intimidate the store clerk. Brown ‘s frame of mind is an important factor in this case. He was not just some innocent pedestrian walking in the street when he should have been walking on the sidewalk.

    I never tried to suggest that officer Wilson was a veteran. I just made that point about a lot of cops are vets because you seem so twisted in a knot over the idea that police have been given and are making use of surplus military equipment. I mention that many police officers are former and current soldiers. They have experience regarding the tactical use of the equipment.

    What I am telling you and what the Hernandez and other links point out is that these life and death decisions and confrontations can last a mere few seconds. The officer generally has split seconds to evaluate what is happening and to act based on what he is confronted with. He will not have weeks to try to sort out everything like pundits and media have and the pundits and the media still can’t seem to sort out truth from fiction.

    I think you have failed to support your positions. I have offered several links to support my positions. The link you did provide was as flawed as all the others I have seen.

    The first media buzz had it that Brown was shot as he ran away being shot in the back. Now the autopsy results that have been in the news say the shots struck Brown as he faced ( charged at? )the officer. One question about a shot to his arm but the medical examiner hired by the family said he could not determine which way Brown was facing when struck by that one shot. So again I can’t agree with your assessment that all the known evidence is contrary to the officer’s account.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/08/18/autopsy-report-shows-witness-lied-about-shooting-brown-wasnt-shot-in-back-139619

     
    • Admin Mugsy August 29, 2014 at 11:40 AM

      Please don’t accuse me of “failing to understand” when you yourself are refusing to acknowledge that the entire altercation was provoked BY the officers actions, NOT Brown’s. As in your previous comment, you accuse me of making assumptions not based in fact while defending the officer based purely on assumptions of what may have taken place.

      I am well aware that Zimmerman was not a sworn law enforcement officer. That’s not the point. It’s THE CULTURE that is at issue, where a person placed in a position of authority believes they have not only the right but the “duty” to use lethal force in a situation THEY THEMSELVES PROVOKED. This is true of both Zimmerman and Wilson. And the fact that both men are white while killing young black men seems to increase the likelihood they will be found not guilty.

      The “autopsy results” you mention also show that Brown was struck in the BACK of one arm, such that Brown was either shot from behind or had his hands up when he was fired upon. The killshot was to the top of the head, sustained AFTER being shot in the face. Officer Hernandez is correct in how these events can spiral out of control quickly, but (as you yourself quote) he keeps referring to “life or death situations”. This means either the assailant is either armed, hoped up on drugs, or both. Brown was neither (unless you actually believe trace amounts of marijuana make people aggressive.)

      The officer was NOT firing at “the suspect in a robbery case”. Wilson himself was NOT aware of the robbery BECAUSE THE STORE KEEPER NEVER CALLED THE POLICE. You say Brown’s “state of mind” matters because it may account for his reaction to Wilson. But then, what accounts for Wilson’s “state of mind” to try and grab a jaywalker through the car window? And as I mentioned in my last post, Brown’s “state of mind” also includes a history of police killing young black men… recently. And again, you are applying “assumption” against Brown while using “assumption” to defend Wilson.

      I would also like to remind you that the article you are responding to was about the “hypocrisy” of the Bundy supporters, not whether the Brown killing was justified.

      And lastly, be aware that you are employing a common Right-Wing tactic of posting an avalanche of information in the mistaken belief that the more you write, the righter it makes you. And you just moved on to Conservative Debate Stage-2, double-posting (not to mention linking to Right-Wing sites like “Hotair” as “proof”.)

       
  • Be Fair Please August 29, 2014 at 5:49 AM

    I would add that I think you reveal your prejudiced mindset with your comment that a soldier’s job is to act as judge , jury , and executioner. There are laws about what is just and what is unjust during war and combat and regulations that cover soldier’s conduct. Soldier’s have been found guilty of misconduct during wartime.

     
    • Admin Mugsy August 29, 2014 at 11:52 AM

      Soldiers don’t put the people they are firing at “on trial” before pulling the trigger.

       
  • Be Fair Please August 31, 2014 at 10:46 AM

    A soldier’s conduct is subject to review by higher ranking chain of command and congressional oversight as well.

    Well… I expected some rational reasonable exchange here but sadly I suppose I will have to regard this blog as a crap sheet rather than a rap sheet. You don’t leave much
    choice for me other than to accuse you of failing to understand when your comments show you are ignoring the information presented. I disagree with your statement that the officer provoked the situation. As yet I have seen no second by second time line on the chain of events that would list the actions of both the officer and Brown and describe precisely where each was located at precisely what time.

    People walking in the middle of the street are people that are conducting themselves in a foolish and unlawful manner. Walking in the street obstructs traffic and people who are walking in the street place themselves at risk of being struck by both sober but distracted drivers as well as impaired drivers. Laws/ ordinances are on the books related what is a violation by a pedestrian. So a police officer is perfectly within the law to instruct a person to get out of the street and on to the sidewalk. If Brown is not out in the street he does not get hollered at to get out of the street. So you are trying to tell me it was the officer’s fault that Brown was walking in the street? The officer provoked Brown into walking in the street? At some point the officer might have gotten a radio or computer message regarding the robbery at the store. Are you going to tell me that the officer provoked Brown and the other subject to take the cigars from the store and rough up the clerk?

    Unless I misunderstood a story that was on TV news … as I recall the medical examiner hired by the family of Brown said he could not determine which direction Brown was facing when one of the shots struck his arm. Only that one shot could have come from behind. He went on to say if Brown was moving his arm or holding it in a particular way Brown could also have been facing the officer when that bullet struck him. I don’t recall seeing any other reports that definitely confirm that the direction was known on that one shot. All the other shots stuck the front of Brown the autopsy report said. And that was just one of the examinations of the three conducted.

    The most Brown would get for a pedestrian violation would be a verbal warning or some written citation. But Brown knew he just was involved in a robbery or at least a physical disturbance at the store. Brown got physical shoving and intimidating the clerk /owner. You seem to think that because the victim ( clerk / owner) at the store did not dial 911 that the incident never happened.

    A bystander / patron / witness viewed what happened and the bystander called the police. The police were notified to respond to the store. I figure the store clerk was made aware by the bystander that called the police that indeed the police were notified and on the way. So the store clerk would not need to phone to the police because the police were already notified. So your argument about the store did not call the police doesn’t really amount to anything and does not mean no crime occurred there.

    And the other point you appear to fail completely to grasp is that a person without any weapon…an unarmed person…can present a serious deadly threat. That threat in part being the physical size and strength of the subject, the emotional mental state of the person, and the behavior of the subject. If Brown tried to knock out the officer as he was stepping out of his patrol car and if Brown attempted to disarm the officer trying to take his handgun….then Brown was committing felonies. It appears the officer began to give chase after Brown…( the robbery broadcast or notice does not in itself factor into this so much as the physical attack does.) If the officer begins to chase after Brown on foot and Brown turns and starts to run toward the officer…the officer is not going to wait and try to combat Brown hand to hand. Brown looks to be 100 lbs. heavier than the officer. The officer is justified in believing Brown had intent to harm him if he already attempted to disarm him. The Hernandez link spells this out but you only seem to want to call part of his article valid while ignoring the other points he presents.

    You were the one declaring that the Molotov cocktail petrol bombs were just imaginary and that the crowds in Ferguson were harmless. If I post more than one link to present evidence that you were mistaken about in your view don’t whine and try to spin it like I don’t have a solid argument. I was responding to the bad content in what you had written. What the hell do you think you are trying to prove by crying about my assumptions. I openly state I was not there…I can only form an opinion or an assumption based on what I read about the incident. I happen to think my opinions and assumptions of the incident are closer to the truth than yours are. And I offer sources to support that argument.

    I agree with the part of your article on the Bundy incident and also openly said so in what I wrote. I do not agree with what you wrote regarding the Brown incident in Ferguson.

    I have been following Mugsys and C&L, and Daily Kos for years and agree with most of what I see from those sources. You are hiding behind a talking point of attacking the messenger rather than the content of what is said. Consider the source is good advice but sometimes a questionable source provides correct information. According to the link it is not a report by Hot Air but Hot Air was relaying a story from the New York Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=0

    So complain about the New York Times then. Don’t complain about my reply. A reporter or blogger with integrity does not convict a police officer before an investigation is complete and ignore and spin details about a criminal suspect ( there is video on the incident at the store – you seem very unsure about that but very sure about the incident of the shooting in the street that we must rely on witnesses and the as yet not final official reports to fully understand. ) The NYT article notes that all 6 shots struck Brown from the front. That does not rule out the possibility that Brown was aggressively moving toward the officer. Even if all 6 shots struck Brown in the back it could be ruled as a justified shooting because of the dangerous person escaping factor in the law. If the subjects conduct demonstrates he attempted to disarm a police officer the officer can end that threat to the public and other officers. If Brown runs off and attacks another officer he might be successful in disarming that officer. That presents a deadly threat or chance of great bodily harm to other officers or anyone else.

     
    • Admin Mugsy August 31, 2014 at 12:05 PM

      This is the problem with Conservatives like you. You disregard facts as “hearsay”, then offer “hearsay” as “facts”. And when the other person refuses to agree with you, you break down into insults and dismissals.

      And while I’m CERTAIN your first reaction to this will be to protest, “I’M NOT A CONSERVATIVE!” (because Conservatives ALWAYS deny they are Conservatives, preferring to believe they are “Libertarians” or “Independents”), everything you’ve said & done proves otherwise:

      1) Long-winded posts that say nothing, citing irrelevant facts to support their position (“Many cops are former soldiers”, the personal experiences of “Officer Hernandez”, and citing second-hand hearsay accounts of what happened from friends of Wilson) while disregarding actual video & audio footage and first-hand accounts of witnesses. Shakespeare said, “Brevity is the soul of wit”, which is why it takes Conservatives 2,000 words to make a point.

      2) You responded to a post that was about the hypocrisy of the Bundy supporters to argue about an entirely separate issue… the guilt or innocence of Officer Wilson. Translation, you went “looking for a fight”. That’s what Conservatives do. They are classic “provocateurs” and once an argument starts to slip away, they will even argue in favor of positions they themselves don’t support just to win.

      3) Descend into insults (“Crap Sheet”) upon realizing you are unable to cobble together a convincing argument that your “facts” are relevant while theirs are not.

      4) Selective presentation of the evidence. Citing only the shots to Brown’s front while ignoring the defensive wounds, and trying to “explain away” the killshot to the top of his head by suggesting Brown was “charging” Wilson… a position that is not only irrational, but for which you have absolutely no basis for. Do you not realize how much of your own defense of Wilson relies on “assumptions” of what “may” have happened based on alternative explanations for Brown’s wounds that don’t support eyewitness accounts?

      5) It takes two days to reply. If you had the facts on your side and the response were obvious, you wouldn’t need so much time.

      If you haven’t seen a “second-by-second” timeline of what happened, you haven’t looked very hard. If you truly are a longtime reader of MRS, Kos and C&L, you should know by now that we provide links to support everything we say. Your NYT link does NOT counter the facts of this case. It cites “conflicting eyewitness reports”, but those reports don’t necessarily counter each other, nor does any one report hold more weight than another (and accounts that support Wilson are fewer & weaker.) Your “Hotair” link and your new NYT link are not the same. “Hotair” changed the headline to reflect their own (incorrect) interpretation of what the NYT story says. You linked to the headline you believed better supported your position… the Conservative position.

      And if you can’t understand that “Brown didn’t go looking for Wilson” to understand just who the instigator was here, there is no point in continuing.

       
  • Be Fair Please September 1, 2014 at 7:42 AM

    A regular argument from progressives is that conservative GOP accuse progressives of doing what in fact conservatives are guilty of. There have been many examples of that ploy to support the charge as valid. You seem to be trying to use that ploy in reverse here. I apologize if you found my comments insulting. A lot of hot button strongly held values are involved in this debate. I am not dismissing your points entirely or ignoring the points I don’t agree with- hence the effort to explain my points at length. I can accuse you of ignoring the points I present because you don’t agree with them. I can throw at you the charge that you are being as closed-minded as the Conservatives you denounce.

    1) Another regular argument is that conservatives live by bumper sticker slogans. Simple minded arguments that fit on a bumper sticker. I don’t wish to be accused of making a simple minded argument but rather to address the issues in detail point by point as much as possible. Shall I accuse you of accusing me of being long winded because that is what you are resorting to because your argument does not hold up? How many times must I repeat that I was not there and you were not there so we base our opinion on news reports. You claim some witness info came from a friend of Wilson. Well who did the news first interview and run with that person’s account? It was the accomplice of Brown )( Johnson ) who was with him when the store robbery took place. But Johnson’s credibility is not in question with you apparently.

    2) It did not go looking for a fight. I was reading Mugsy’s rap sheet which I generally turn to for a reasoned perspective on political issues and found your article which contained in my view a lot of bogus unfair remarks. ( Molotov Cocktails not substantiated, you appear to mock police for doing what they are trained to do and for what circumstances demand of them. Suggesting the crowds in Ferguson were only peaceful protesters and every thing would be just rosy if not for the heavy handed police.) I found all that to be objectionable and thus expressed my view on what you had written. I agree with you that the radical tea party wing-nuts who look at the government and at law enforcement as “the enemy” are a disturbing dangerous bunch of nuts. I also think radical left-wingers that showed up and got violent in Ferguson are a bunch of dangerous extremist nuts. Something like 120 arrests were made during the unrest there and all but around 10 or so were subjects that traveled to Ferguson from some distance place. Just like tea party nut jobs traveled to the Bundy ranch a group of left wing radicals traveled to Ferguson to engage in less than peaceful protests. ( Vandalism, looting, violence with bricks, stones, petrol bombs, and firearms.)

    3) I think crap sheet is a rather mild rebuke. If you read a newspaper editorial page and find the cartoons or the remarks of the writer to be flawed, unfair, out right wrong….and you refer to that newspaper as “fish wrap” that does not seem to me to amount to a stinging rude insult. What good is that newspaper when it prints that sort of nonsense…not good for much more that lining the bottom of your bird cage a critic would say ( crap sheet.)

    4) Again you cry about selective attention when you have been the example of that repeatedly. The Hernandez link spoke to witness statements as not always being reliable. Each witness has a different perspective and may harbor preconceived attitudes which color how they report what they saw. I repeatedly suggest that we must wait until the official autopsy reports and official FBI and other investigations are complete and see if officer Wilson is charged with any crime. You are basing your conclusions on remarks by the attorney and his team hired by the Brown family. That medical examiner said his examination of the wound to Brown’s arm could not be used to confirm conclusively what position Brown was in when that shot hit him. Other news sources which apparently now have gotten some info on results from the other autopsies are reporting that the final shot to the top of Brown’s head is consistent with Brown either going prone to surrender or lowering himself as he charged aggressively toward the officer. A lot of additional evaluation and investigation of distance and so on together with witness statements will have to be considered. As it is the news has accounts of witness statements and have one man making remarks that were recorded that support the version that Brown “kept coming at ” Wilson. What is selective about evaluating these news reports? You call it selective because I am not buying your version…I am also not declaring that Wilson is absolutely innocent….I was not there to see what happened but I am not going to convict him before the investigation is done.

     
    • Admin Mugsy September 1, 2014 at 12:47 PM

      I’ll respond to item #2. With some additional research, I have found substantiated claims of protesters throwing Molitov cocktails.

      BUT, not until the police showed up in MRAP’s and dressed like some third-world military hunta. Much like the events leading up to Brown’s death, an indefensible over reaction helped PROVOKE the situation into chaos. Yes, there were looters and acts of violence in the first day(s). I’ve seen the same acts of violence after the hometeam wins/loses a major sporting event (smashing windows and overturning cars), and the city’s first reaction isn’t to send police in wearing dessert camouflage, and pointing machine-guns at rioters while driving up-armored Humvees.

       
  • Post a comment

     

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.