I’ve Absolutely Had It With the Media’s Ridiculous Coverage of the Mike Brown Shooting in Ferguson

hannity-fergusonSince Mike Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, Missouri, much of the media has behaved more like a circus rather than something to be respected when it comes to covering what’s happened. Now I’m not saying all coverage has been ridiculous, but a lot of it has been absolutely absurd and I’m sick of it.


All we know (as I’m writing this before the grand jury has released a decision) is that some kind of skirmish happened between officer Darren Wilson and Mike Brown that tragically ended in the young man’s death.

That’s it. 

Sure, there’s been a ton of speculation about what happened based on all sorts of information (even leaked autopsy reports, though still nothing “official”) where some has been factual and some hasn’t. We’ve had ridiculous pro-Darren Wilson supporters holding bizarrely comical rallies while “protesters” in Ferguson rioted and looted local businesses that had nothing to do with the shooting.

And in the middle of it all has been much of the media doing its best to push division, anger, hostilities and irrational behavior for the sake of ratings, views or website traffic.

Take for instance this article I ran across today on Blue Nation Review (a website I actually like a lot) titled FERGUSON UPDATE: Darren Wilson Video Emerges; KKK Locals Exposed. The video had nothing to do with the shooting and was nothing but a 16 second clip showing Wilson calmly dealing with a man who was recording him without any knowledge about why Wilson was there dealing with this person in the first place. Even in the article itself the writer says:

Wilson’s behavior in the brief clip doesn’t provide evidence about how the Michael Brown shooting went down. It’s not even unusual behavior for a police officer.

And even worse is that this video, or Wilson’s behavior in it, had absolutely nothing to do with the KKK. They threw the reference into the headline for the sole purpose of attracting hits for an article that had nothing to do with what happened between Wilson and Brown or some of the recent comments made by the KKK. All this article did was further the divide, build more tension and add to the endless amounts of pointless speculation that much of media has been exploiting for revenue for weeks.

Which brings me to this little nugget I ran across on Sean Hannity’s Twitter account:

Screen Shot 2014-11-18 at 3.25.30 AM

Tell me, what value could possibly come from that question? So that a bunch of uninformed people who haven’t been privy to the official autopsy reports or evidence presented to the grand jury can take random guesses at what will or won’t happen? Apparently what we need are more setups for clashes between those on “Darren Wilson’s side” and those on “Mike Brown’s side.”


Here’s a thought: Maybe this story isn’t what the media has been desperately trying to hype it up as.

It’s entirely possible that this had nothing to do with race. Just because Darren Wilson is white and Mike Brown was black doesn’t automatically mean that the shooting was racially motivated. Why can’t it just be a situation of terribly bad timing between two individuals who both reacted in the worst possible way? Why does it have to be the complete fault of one or the other? Why does it have to be “the racist killer cop Daren Wilson vs the Gentle Giant Mike Brown” or “the upstanding officer Darren Wilson vs. the criminal thug Mike Brown”? Why can’t it just be a situation that got completely out of hand and sadly ended tragically?

One of the biggest problems is that this story has gone from finding out the truth about what actually happened, to opposing sides hoping to “win” this issue.

As I’ve said from the beginning, I’m waiting for all of the facts to come out before making any kind of judgement either way, which is quite frankly what everyone else should be doing. If Wilson is guilty, then I hope he faces the full brunt of the law. If he’s not, then he shouldn’t. This shouldn’t be about one side or the other “winning,” because there’s nothing to win. This should be about making sure facts dictate justice, no matter what that justice might be.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • pgwarrick

    I agree with holding off judgment until all the facts are in, but I give a lot of weight to the white/black thing because, in this country, we have a big problem with white cops shooting and killing African Americans with no consequence to the officers involved.. And there has been an incredible effort to protect Darren Wilson from the beginning.
    Also, the fact that he appeared before the Grand Jury without an attorney suggests rather strongly that “the fix” is in. Testifying without an attorney for four hours? Come on.
    I, for one, want continuous attention on this case. Yes, a lot of people are jumping to conclusions. But a lot of us have suspicions about what’s going on. We know the difference between suspicion/skepticism and final conclusions. If my suspicions prove wrong, so be it. I can live with the truth.

    • Mel

      Actually, you’re not allowed to take your attorney into the grand jury chamber, as I understand it.

      • pgwarrick

        That may be, but isn’t it the defendant’s right to refuse testimony? I don’t know what Missouri’s laws are exactly, but why would anyone testify for 4 hours without the advantage of an attorney advising him/her?

      • regressive teaparty trash

        free coffee and donuts?

      • pgwarrick

        I’m not being clear I guess. The prosecuting attorney controls the grand jury proceedings and his purpose is to prosecute the defendant. Why would the defendant come in and testify for four hours, which is without benefit of counsel, unless it was to sway the grand jury over to his side? In other words, why would a defendant willingly comply if it’s not to his benefit? I cannot help but think that the prosecutor here is out to help Darren Wilson get off–hook, line and sinker. He cannot be tried if the grand jury refuses to indict.

    • curmudgeon VN Veteran

      We also have a lot of black on white crime that is not being reported by the liberal lap-dog media!

      • ta2t2o

        Which absolutely has nothing to do with this specific case at this point in time. Because there is a lot of black on white crime, your insinuation is that as a consequence ALL blacks are suspect. Therein lies the issue, and why folks seem to be ok with a cop shooting an UNARMED – SUSPECT 6 times. Sadly in your statement, you sum up the entire problem here – and don’t even realize the actual point that you’ve made or why your statement itself becomes the problem. You’ve defined prejudice and stereotyping.

        Black on White daily interactions overwhelmingly occur on a cordial basis without the occurrence of crime. I work with black people every day and am not assaulted by them. Should I assume that because in crime statistics, there is a perceived greater occurrence of black on white crime, that all my black co-workers are suspect? Do black on white crimes occur more often in truth, or is that the perception? Or is it that – as in this case, blacks are not fairly represented in the justice system and more likely than their white counterparts to be convicted than acquitted for a similar crime?

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Sad you have been so brainwashed. Too bad the lame stream media is merely the propaganda arm of the liberal democRAT party. You need to get in touch with reality. How about taking a stroll through South Chicago, Detroit, Gary, Indiana or East Saint Louis at night. These are not the Black people you work with, these are the Black people you support with your tax dollars. You do write a lot, but actually say little other than writing the liberal talking points while ignoring reality.

      • skahdt

        I go to East St. Louis at least once a week to volunteer and interact with lots of pleasant albeit very poor people you use as ideological talking points.

        But yeah keep mouthing your all fear all the time BS in whatever bunker you reside in with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on continuous loop, all the while telling us that are out in the struggling communities making a difference that WE are the ones brainwashed.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        So you go during the daylight hours or are Black yourself. So? Going to the looting in Ferguson?

      • ta2t2o

        You’re spouting standard stereotypes and I’m the one who’s brainwashed? Lol. So I lived in Baltimore for 4 years, Center City Philly for 5 years and currently live in DC. I’ve even witnessed a mugging with black on white crime. You know what though, I’ve also witnessed a lot more black people just trying to live their lives. Sad that you succumb to these racial stereotypes.

        FYI – I’ve been to Kabul, Afghanistan 9 times, Dubai 20 times, and Beirut twice. Here’s a newsflash, if you’re not an asshole trying to blow them up, most Muslims happen to be pretty kind people too.

        Sorry you were raised the way you were. Must suck living with that much prejudice.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        I am over thirty. Congratulations on keeping your head.

    • Truth Pointer

      We have a big problem with people committing home invasion, gang violence, rape, murder and other criminal activities. Sure that all races involve some into these criminal activities, but check the statistics and facts on which one is responsible for the majority.

      • pgwarrick

        The incidence of white cops shooting and killing black citizens runs very high. The rate of police harassment minorities also runs high. If you do not care to stay current with this particular case, that’s your prerogative. I still think it’s very relevant and exemplifies a national problem.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Lets see your facts. There are also high numbers of LEO’s killed by the dregs of society and vastly under or non reported by the liberal lap-dog media.

    • Shane

      ” in this country, we have a big problem with white cops shooting and
      killing African Americans with no consequence to the officers involved”

      How did you come to this conclusion?

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        He/she reads the mainstream liberal media stories that have been approved by the “Ministry of Truth”.

      • Shane

        You should be careful relegating people to such old fashioned things as he and she. It could be construed as offensive to those in the “undefined” category…

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Sorry, I know the homo’s think there is three gender categories: Male
        Female
        Other
        Unfortunately the gene has not been discovered.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        hey shitbag,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ur racism is showing again

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Got a quarter?

      • regressive teaparty trash

        sorry,,,,,,,,,only ounces

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Looks like an over abundance of pounds there Tubby.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        6’2 1/2″ 211lbs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 11 pct body fat–
        shall we look at YOUR aesthetically disgusting photo?
        no?????

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        You a tranny or dyke? Picture makes it hard to distinguish.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        ahhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I see!
        you are another small dicked loser troll.
        please excuuuuuuuuuse my stupidity in not recognizing this earlier

      • lol.

  • Jon Webster

    I think a lot of the protesters are just waiting for an excuse to riot and loot. They do not care about the issues at hand.

    • curmudgeon VN Veteran

      Look at the numbers of race agitators from out of town. Don’t they have jobs?

  • Pipercat

    What seems to be the problem here is the grand jury trying the case; hence, all the time that has elapsed since the DA put the issue before them. Their duty is to indict if the evidence warrants, not pass judgement. A trial is warranted in this case due to the basic facts. Let the courts do their duty and seek justice.

    • ta2t2o

      Exactly. There were no riots after Trayvon. The anger stems from the fact that there is a perception that blacks do not have equal representation in the justice system. Clearly indictments have been made in rape and child molestation cases on the basis of a single accusation. Here we have multiple witnesses and there should be no question that there should be an indictment. The Grand Jury is not supposed to determine guilt or innocence – just if there is sufficient evidence to levy an indictment. A cop with a gun, a victim without one, witnesses who say there was a skirmish at the police car (that we don’t have any additional details about), an unarmed man running from the cops, witnesses who say he was surrendering, and witnesses who say the cop gunned him down. Pretty clear grounds for indictment – why wouldn’t this go to trial?

      • Macdoodle

        There are multiple witnesses who also back Wilson’s version of the events so how can you say there SHOULD be an indictment?Were you there?Please share your account of what you witnessed with the rest of us.

      • Pipercat

        Precisely, that’s why you have a trial! An advocate, a prosecutor and a judge! Rules of evidence, discovery and due process. Sort out the conflicting statements since there are inconsistencies.

        The appeal to ignorance fallacy is irrelevant.

      • Fred Bastiat

        Actually, that’s why they have a Grand Jury, then a trial.

        You’d like to skip a step for some reason. I imagine if there were different color skin involved, you’d want more steps. You’re just being silly. Why not wait for the Grand Jury and see the evidence, then decide what you think justice?

      • Pipercat

        No, that’s now why they have a grand jury before trial. A district attorney can indict without going through a grand jury. Also, dispensing just justice is not the duty of the grand jury. A grand jury has only one duty, to indict or not. I will wait as a matter of fact, only to see if they perform their duty. I suggest you re-read the Mac’s comment before you reply with straw men.

        Oh, I never made the assertion to skip this step.

      • Fred Bastiat

        I truly hate being in a position to defend police. They are arrogant and corrupt. They are generally bullies and I do not appreciate their role as government enforcers of violence to achieve government ends.

        But, the facts simply aren’t in yet. We don’t even know yet what we don’t know. If a DA looked at the evidence and thought it a case worth prosecuting or a Grand Jury, same to me, I don’t really care.

        What bothers me is people making a judgement with so little information. Give me the information and if the officer shot the man in cold blood then I’ll be pleased to flip the switch, but until I see some information then it’s just a screaming mob. You can be the mob, I’ll wait and listen.

      • Pipercat

        All of the facts are not necessary to indict. A grand jury has no authority to judge the facts of the case, only to decide there are enough of them to come to an indictment. You keep saying I’m making a judgement, I am not. I am saying an indictment must be rendered due to these basic facts: a homicide, an agent of the state used deadly force, there are eyewitness accounts of surrender by Mr. Brown, multiple gunshot wounds and a kill shot through the top of the head. A full trial must be convened on those facts alone. Waiting around for all of the facts is nonsense.

      • Fred Bastiat

        I really don’t care if it goes to a grand jury and then a trial or straight to a trial. If anything, I wish everyone got a Grand Jury and that pr*ck DA’s didn’t get to use their powers against so many people. Look how many individual’s are pressured by DA’s using over charging to get convictions, there is massive under reporting of police abuse against citizens, and our current state of laws are throwing millions of people in prison for victimless crimes. So I think you keep reading me wrong as to my intentions and are so biased in desiring an outcome in this case that you don’t want to hear the rest of the evidence before deciding the JBT’s guilt or innocence.

        I don’t have any more or less faith in a grand jury than in a DA making the same decision, to go or not to go to trial. If there was no Grand Jury, the DA would be collecting and hearing evidence and then deciding whether it deserves a trial. Don’t blame me that there are humans that in government that decide whether accused crimes go to trial or not. You think the DA would have just ordered a trial without calculating the odds of a conviction, which he couldn’t know without more information?

        I keep saying that I’m reserving judgement until I hear everything the Grand Jury is hearing, that includes reserving judgement on whether or not a trial should occur.

      • Pipercat

        You wont hear everything the grand jury is hearing unless they indict. Missouri grand jury proceedings are closed to the public.

      • Fred Bastiat

        Understand and agree with everything you just said.

      • ta2t2o

        Thank you. It’s not the purpose of the grand jury to determine guilt, but rather if there is evidence to indict and go to trial. Also, you’ll need to help me with these witnesses who back Wilson’s version as they don’t seem to be very visible. They might back the testimony that there was a skirmish in the car – but all seem to lack details. However, each and everyone of them has confirmed that Brown was unarmed when he was shot and killed.

      • Lori Piechocki

        Well, why was there a skirmish in the vehicle??

      • ta2t2o

        Sounds like a good question to ask at a jury trial.

      • Lori Piechocki

        Look, I am not saying that there aren’t dirty cops.. because there are. No doubt… but if the grand jury decides (remember, they have seen evidence that we haven’t) that the cop was doing his job and MB was a threat to his life… why does it even need to go to trial? If this cop shot this kid down without any provocation than he should be arrested and a trial should be held… but just because there are bad cops out there… is not a reason to throw this cop under the bus. You DO realize that his life as he knew it is over… regardless of what happened that day…. It’s a shame because nobody wants due process… they just want his head.

      • ta2t2o

        I’m pretty sure a trial by jury would give both the Brown Family and Officer Wilson due process. Based on JUST THE EVIDENCE THE PUBLIC KNOWS about this case, there is clearly enough evidence to hold to trial. If Officer Wilson truly is innocent, then a jury trial will bear that out. But at least he and the Brown family will have had their day in court to prove it.
        And….LOL….”You DO realize his life as he knew it is over…” – The difference is that he’s still alive. YOU do realize that Michael Brown’s life IS over…..BECAUSE of what happened that day.

        Conservatives all over want to know the “truth about Benghazi” and if Obama or Hillary is responsible for the death of 4 Americans in Libya….why are they so resistant to getting to the truth behind the death of 1 American here in St.Louis?

      • Lori Piechocki

        If there is evidence pointing to anything other than self-defense… there will be an indictment (so they say, you can indict a ham sandwich). Why should he go through the stress of a trial if he was just doing his job (if that comes to be true)??? If Michael Brown did attack the officer and go after the gun… then, if but for that event.. he’d be alive…. probably in jail from what I’ve seen of his behavior… It’s a tragic event… no doubt…. but he brought on his own demise, if you ask me.

      • Pipercat

        For some bizarre reason, the notion of a trial is a liberal ideological concoction or mob rule. Nonsense, to get any semblance of justice requires a open hearing and not by some secret committee behind closed doors.

      • Fred Bastiat

        Blacks don’t have equal representation in the justice system, far from it, but that may or may not have anything to do with this particular event. I’m the first to discuss police violence, police crushing a man’s neck for selling under taxed cigarettes, shooting family dogs, burning a baby with an incendiary device, invasive body cavity searches, and unconstitutional stop and frisk type policies.

        But you and Pipercat are both misguided and speaking from ideology. As much as I distrust all parts of the government, the Grand Jury is looking at evidence most of us have not see. Presenting something like, ‘one had a gun and one did not’ is not determinate of anything without the rest of the facts and eye witnesses. Facts and eyewitnesses that haven’t been disclosed.

      • Pipercat

        Really? And what precise ideological concept am I speaking from?

      • Fred Bastiat

        Mob rule.

      • Pipercat

        Well, you must be LINO. The State doesn’t exist; therefore, the aggressor was the police officer. Since real Libertarians believe in NAP, young Mr. Brown was not the aggressor. The agent of the state stopped Mr. Brown in violation of his natural right to personal title; ergo, Wilson was the aggressor. No “Statist” contraption like a grand jury should prevent a resolution of differences – after the fact, which should be heard by an impartial venue like a court of law.

        Your support of the grand jury hearing all the evidence and abiding by its decision, which may prevent an fair resolution of differences, is a statist position.

        Mob rule is anarchy which is also falls into Libertarian thinking.

      • Fred Bastiat

        If we’re looking at this from a Libertarian perspective, nobody has the right to steal other people’s property. The owner of the shop in which Mr Brown allegedly stole certainly had the right to use deadly force to protect himself and his property and would be well within NAP to respond to Mr. Brown’s initiated violence. The police was a hired agent (albeit through forced taxes) of the shop owner, so the police did not initiate, he was responding to the theft.

        The real question I have is what happened at the moment of the shooting. Was Mr. Brown surrendering to the JBT, or was he charging the JBT? If Mr. Brown was charging the JBT, then the JBT was simply responding to more violence from Mr. Brown.

        You’re a hoot calling the our court system an ‘impartial venue’, what planet are you from? Impartial to who?

        Mob Rule is not anarchy, that would be Democracy. Anarchy is peaceful cooperation based on natural rights and universally preferred ethics. So let’s just use the right definitions for the right things.

      • Pipercat

        You are correct about mob rule not being Liberatian. The rest is rubbish.

        However, all of your questions cannot be answered by a grand jury only by a court of law. Many jurisdictions keep the testimony confidential, so your questions will probably not get answers.

        You ridicule the notion of a impartial trial, but are willing to take the most statist of state institutions at their word in the form of the grand jury. Which will be probably keep their deliberations private. Bit of a paradox or you’ve already made up your mind.

      • Fred Bastiat

        Take them at their word? I said no such thing, so there is no paradox. Do I trust DA’s or Grand Jury’s or a Judge and Jury? Not really. A jury of piers is only as good as the evidence they are allowed to hear. And often the state takes great measures to protect their own. I want to hear these witnesses who are either too frightened or have been gagged. I want to see the evidence the state has collected and hear the testimony of those involved in the collection. I want to see this information vetted by news agencies, the family, and others in the community.

        I’m not sure why you find this view so offensive.

      • Pipercat

        Good I agree, I am just saying you wont get your answers from a grand jury decision. Instead, let me offer this cone shaped scenario. Three possibilities can come of this which should meet your criteria:

        The grand jury comes back and does not indict, the family sues Wilson, Ferguson, et al for wrongful termination.

        The grand jury comes back with an indictment and Wilson is acquitted. The family still sues for wrongful termination

        The grand jury comes back with an indictment and Wilson is convicted. The family sues for wrongful termination.

        That is why I took issue with this notion of getting some answers no matter what the grand jury comes back with. When this thing goes to civil court, you and I will finally get some real answers. Wilson cannot refuse to testify, no one can, and the field is quite level for both the plaintiff and the defendant.

        Here are my basic questions:

        Did Wilson know of the robbery? This is a pretty big issue obviously.

        What happened during the initial through the window skirmish? We’ll probably never know this.

        Did Brown go through the motions of surrender? This is the biggie and my biggest reason for saying there should be a criminal trial. Plenty of eyewitness testimony here.

        This may astonish you, but I hate the grand jury system. A tacit form of tyranny. Basically allows district attorneys to have their cake and eat it too. I also agree about criminal jury trials, for the most part. Recent events lend credence to this.

        Now civil trials… There’s the exception to the rule. Being through a wrongful termination myself, I can say this: The field is level and the evidence is only a matter of a subpoena away.

      • Fred Bastiat

        We might disagree on the weight of various facts. Whether or not Wilson knew of the robbery is on the same level on whether or not Brown and Wilson struggled at the car prior to the shooting. Both might speak to Wilson’s state of mind, but the key facts surround the moments around the shooting. If Brown was charging Wilson, Wilson had the right to protect himself and shoot. If Brown was not, then we have a murder. I don’t know which it is and I’m eager to find out. It does not matter whether Brown was a nice guy or bad guy or whether Wilson was a “good and decent cop”. What matters is what Wilson decided to to if and when Brown surrendered or did not surrender.

        I agree about the grand jury system, but then I don’t like the DA system and the way prosecutorial discretion is being used. Not to mention how DA’s are charging these days and selecting their cases. It’s all rife with fraud and abuse, the system has become so heavily levied against the poor that ‘blind justice’ and the scales of justice are a joke. Those scales you see entering the courtroom room, those are to measure the coin in your pockets.

      • Pipercat

        This is the most comprehensive reporting on the matter that popped up on my FB feed just yesterday. It’s from The Intercept.

        firstlook-.-org – the main headline.

        It’s a long read, but very detailed. Firstlook/Intercept is the group that Glen Greenwald belongs to. Not a fan, but since he’s the Mikey of journalism and hates everything, I found the reporting to be reasonably neutral.

        Lots of questions here and some enlightenment. Enjoy!

        cheers

        (FP doesn’t allow URLs in the comment section.)

    • Fred Bastiat

      A trial is warranted do to what facts exactly?

      The Grand Jury is making the determination right now, most of the facts the public hasn’t even seen. How can you make a judgement on facts you haven’t seen?

      • Pipercat

        I suppose a dead body, one gun, multiple witness statements of surrender along with the gunshot wounds means self defense. This case should go to trial if for no other reason than those basic facts which are pretty well documented.

        But by all means, leave it to the grand jury.

      • Fred Bastiat

        You may suppose right or you may suppose wrong. I don’t want to suppose, I’d like to hear and see the same witnesses and evidence as the Grand Jury has seen.

      • Pipercat

        Then as “Libertarian,” you should be advocating for a trial. All conflict resolution must be in an impartial venue so both sides can present their respective position. All of the evidence in an impartial venue can be compelled; as opposed to being compelled only under the gun of the state.

      • Fred Bastiat

        I’m not a Libertarian, though I have sympathy for their ethical ideas and that a small state can be kept under control. My difference with them is simply that if I’m told I have cancer, I’ll ask the doctor to remove all the cancer and not leave some to grow again.

        You’ll have to show me one of these impartial venues that the state has created, I’ve not seen one yet.

      • Pipercat

        Well that would certainly include the grand jury, yes?

      • Fred Bastiat

        Impartial? I think not. The state finding ways to clear their own permeates the entire justice system. Its only the national attention and uprisings that this even got a Grand Jury. Otherwise, the department would have taken 24hrs and cleared themselves – assuming history in other cases is a guide.

  • ta2t2o

    I think this is an incredibly naive article. The reason this becomes about race is because after Trayvon Martin and Bundy Ranch, there is the perception that black suspects are treated differently than white suspects. I agree the media hypes this more, but to try to pretend that there shouldn’t be any racial perspective on this is just being willfully ignorant. This case as well as this article bring to light the racial perspective with which media as well looks at these cases.

  • Fred Bastiat

    The author might have given an honorable mention to MSNBC for their non-stop efforts to mischaracterize and hype the story.

    • ta2t2o

      I’m pretty sure it wasn’t MSNBC that put out the fake story of Officer Wilson’s orbital fracture. I’m also pretty sure you revealed a distinct bias with your statement there. Sounds like you’re afraid to see this go to trial. Why is that?

      • Fred Bastiat

        You’re reading me wrong. As far as I’ concerned the more state and police violence revealed, the better individuals are in the US. The police state needs revealed. I simply want to see the evidence before making a determination. You’ll have to explain to me about what’s so very radical about wanting to see all the secret testimony and the collected evidence before I personally decide what happened that day?

  • regressive teaparty trash

    what will FOX “news”——-as well as cretins such as rush limp-baugh and mike savage and glenn beck– do if the cop IS found guilty of a homicide? (a) yell “BENGHAZI” (b) remind ‘the American people’ that the GOP won the 2014 elections (c) call again for the impeachment of Obama (d) demand that eric holder be prosecuted for ANYTHING (e) continue the incredibly important coverage(?) on ”THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS” ??? ……………….please vote now on these choices

    • curmudgeon VN Veteran

      Not going to happen if the law is followed rather than the desires of the liberal media to continue having a story to report and the race hustlers something to live off of. You can bet that Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson and the members of the Congressional Black Caucus will continue throwing gas on the fire and fanning the flames!

      • regressive teaparty trash

        and if he IS guilty based upon facts???
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ????

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Real facts or liberal fabricated facts? I think you are really speaking of opinions.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        wrong answer ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, facts are facts- lets see what comes out in the trial
        ======================================
        until then,,,,U should keep showing us your blazing intellect

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Think your ears would pop if you ever pulled your head out?

      • regressive teaparty trash

        only when I come up from scuba diving,,,,,,,,,
        *( I live in paradise: 352 yds from atlantic ocean in pompano beach FL)
        lobster anyone?

  • Cori Hatchet

    The guy on Hannity told the truth. He said he does not want justice for Wilson, no matter what. So, there ya go.

  • skahdt

    I live in St. Louis, and what a lot of outsiders don’t get is the municipal fragmentation that has led to this situation . It goes beyond what happened on Aug. 9 between Mike Brown and Officer Wilson. Neither of whom are heroes if you ask me.

    Residents of St. Louis County live in a patchwork of towns some as small as a subdivision or apartment complex. Many of these municipalities have their own police force and depend n traffic tickets and court costs for most of their revenue. Operating as fiefdoms some of these towns are under incredibly corrupt control and residents are often ticketed for minor offenses that carry fines of hundreds of dollars.

    In the backdrop of all of this an unarmed young man made a poor decision and an officer may or may not have overreacted with deadly force.

    I make NO excuses for those who loot or are violent in their protest. But now those who reflexively support Office Wilson have dug in and seem to think ANY protesters are out of line and the corrupt status quo should be maintained.

    And of course the media is hoping for fireworks to justify all of the fear mongering they’ve done regarding the Grand Jury decision. I think in the end it will be similar to the Y2K panic. A lot of hype that in the end fizzled.

    St. Louis is a great place, and so is Ferguson. But things need to change. I would like to invite the non violent out of town protesters to move here and change the system from within. In the last election Ferguson voting rate was 40%. Still too low, but much higher than previous midterms and higher than the national turnout. Let’s keep it going!
    And please keep positive thoughts for all of us in STL and Ferguson, thank you!

  • modera8

    Couldn’t agree more, Allen! Thank you for being a voice of reason. We cannot form opinions without learning more facts.