Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front

No Frank, I'm not a an Assistant District Attorney. I didnt say I was a prosecuting attorney, I said in the cases I have prosecuted...its cop parlance.
FYI, in some jurisdictions and in some cases I've had it is the police officer who brings the charges...in others it is the state. Back in the day, in a couple of jurisdictions I have been in where it's a misdemeanor or traffic case, if the defendant represented himself, I had to assume the role of the prosecuter in a cost cutting effort
You obviouisly know nothing of eveidence or of trying of cases in the real world...ANY ADA would be salivating at the prospect of having this tape to convict for robbery.

Sounds to me as though you are the kind of guy who likes to exaggerate his importance and responsibilities, John.

But whatever.

In any case, YOU alleged I could see definite evidence of a robbery on the tape if only I watched the "whole thing" as you say you have done. I certainly could not see that in the tape that I have viewed.

I requested a link to the "whole tape"...and I would like to comment on whether or not I could see it on that tape.

So far...NO LINK.

I suspect I know why. Sorta like producing tape of the shooter working from the grassy knoll, isn't it.

But I am willing to wait a bit more.

Or are you now going to allege that the whole tape is only available to cops who become prosecutors through some magical formula...and that I am not allowed to view it?

I 've seen it on TV several times,
of decedent perpetrating a strong arm robbery,
assaulting (twice, as I remember) the proprietor. No big mystery.

And frank it sounds like if you were being hanged you'd argue for a new rope.

Here ya go frank...of course you coulnt find it...cause you didnt want to find it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L3uNw4sNm9c

In this video you can CLEARLY see Brown reach behind the counter and take cigars, he drops some and then you see the cleark come from behind the counter to confront him...THEN in another view we see the famous confrontation where the force takes place at the front door (do you need me to fetch that one for ypou as well?) This is waht I refered to as the whole tape. The news was mostly only showing the view at the door not at the counter.
But Im sure you will find it possible that Brown was trying to SELL cigars to the store clerk and when the clerk refused Brown took his wares and left the store, right?

But you admit that a robbery was committed as stated by the people involved and Brown did push a man against the counter? As in strongarm?

I have a feeling that the prosecutor has been thinking back to the attempt to convict George Zimmerman without any evidence. That did not end well for the joker who hauled him into court on a bill of goods.

Here is an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMSO0CXnYtE

There is absolutely NO WAY you can clearly see a robbery occurring in this video...and any attempt to show this as a robbery just with the video would be laughed out of court...IF there were a prosecutor so incompetent as to attempt to use it that way. (I doubt there is...and I am beginning to question your ability to evaluate evidence.)

There are all sorts of scenarios that fit what is seen in that video...that do not include robbery...and if you are anywhere near the law enforcement person you claim to be...you would easily recognize that.

One...I would not have to "admit" it...I might acknowledge it.

I certainly acknowledge that there may well have been a "strongarm robbery." I would, however, prefer to see what the judicial system says before shooting off my mouth as some here have been doing.

Why not tell us what that boring young man will eventually get to...and what his credentials are for saying it. I do not want to waste five minutes on the tape.

I believe that we will all
be better off if violent criminals of all races r stopped from further violence.

He gives a nice analysis.

Frank...what did YOU see in the video. If you say you didnt see Brown reach behind the counter and take the cigars, if you say you didnt see the clerk rush from behind the counter to confront Brown, if you say you didnt see Brown use force and the threat of force on the clerk, you are either LYING ,blind, or senile.
It appears that even if Brown had a hand written sign that he held up to the camera saying," Hey ******, I'm stealing these cigars!!!", you would still say it's not proof...so, being that I learned long ago not to argue too long with drunks and the unreasonable...I'm done. Have a nice day in Frankland.

I saw things happening...and I am not willing to characterize them. You, on the other hand, are completely willing to characterize them in a way that suits your sense of what happened.

You do not see a robbery on that tape...unless you want to see a robbery. There ARE non-robbery events that could be happening. The tape does nothing to insure that it is a robbery.

How do you know there was a clerk confronting Brown about a supposed robbery. The tape does not tell you that. You see one person apparently confronting someone else. And there is nothing on the tape to tell you what the confrontation was about.

I am neither lying, blind, drunk, unreasonable, nor senile. I am honest...which is more than I can say for you.

So you are saying you are done...once again. We'll see how that works out.

FBI Warns Ferguson Decision ‘Will Likely’ Lead to Violence By Extremists Protesters
Source: ABC News

As the nation waits to hear whether a Missouri police officer will face charges for killing unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., the FBI is warning law enforcement agencies across the country that the decision “will likely” lead some extremist protesters to threaten and even attack police officers or federal agents.

~snip

“The announcement of the grand jury’s decision … will likely be exploited by some individuals to justify threats and attacks against law enforcement and critical infrastructure,” the FBI says in an intelligence bulletin issued in recent days. “This also poses a threat to those civilians engaged in lawful or otherwise constitutionally protected activities.”

Within hours of the FBI issuing its bulletin, some police departments across the country issued their own internal memos urging officers to review procedures and protocols for responding to mass demonstrations.

Still, the bulletin’s conclusions were blunt: “The FBI assesses those infiltrating and exploiting otherwise legitimate public demonstrations with the intent to incite and engage in violence could be armed with bladed weapons or firearms, equipped with tactical gear/gas masks, or bulletproof vests to mitigate law enforcement measures.”

~Continues at link

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-warns-ferguson-decision-lead-violence-extremist-protesters/story?id=26980624

Exclusive: Officials in Ferguson, St. Louis County, MO Were Warned Paper Ballots Would Run Short
Source: BRAD BLOG



Exclusive: Officials in Ferguson, St. Louis County, MO Were Warned Paper Ballots Would Run Short
Emails obtained by BRAD BLOG show County election chief ignored warnings BEFORE election from experts, leading to long lines, voters turned away on Election Day 2014…

Election officials in St. Louis County, Missouri were repeatedly warned by local Election Integrity advocates that a plan to supply enough paper ballots for only 15% of the electorate at polling places on Election Day there would not be enough, according to emails obtained by The BRAD BLOG.

The emails, sent well before Election Day, expressed concern and doubt about "enough paper ballots at every polling place on November 4th to cover all of the voters who would like to have one," as one of advocates wrote to the Democratic Director of Elections in St. Louis County.

The warnings were ignored, the missives suggest, and, as reported by local media, the result was a widespread shortage of paper ballots on Election Day 2014 at sites throughout the county, including in the embattled city of Ferguson, MO. Throughout the county, the shortage of ballots resulted in long lines and voters who were turned away or forced to vote on 100% unverifiable touch-screen systems which the county has long encouraged voters to use. Some precincts were required to stay open at least an hour after the normal closing time in order to accommodate those who were in line to vote before the close of polls at 7pm local time.

St. Louis Public Radio reported the day after the election that "unexpected demand for paper ballots caused a shortage at about 95 polling places throughout the county Tuesday. That's more than 20 percent of the county's 444 balloting sites."

"The paper shortage," they explained, "was the biggest unexpected problem on Election Day".

But, in truth, it wasn't unexpected at all, at least according to emails we reviewed to and from the county's chief election official, suggesting that the Board of Elections simply ignored the clear warnings they had received from local Election Integrity experts...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10945


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10945

Looters and arsonists should be shot on sight...anyone who is unruley or disruptuve or who do not follow lawful orders of police should be arrested immediately. Any use of force should be met with overwhelming counter force. Video should be taken to identify agitators and instigators and charged with terroristic actions and incitement to riot.
If police violate the law they should be ajudicated by the rule of law.

What is stunning is that it seems to be a given that if the cop isn't indicted there will be riots in and around Ferguson, but also that they are feared and possibly expected in other cities throughout the country.

This is insane.

I hope the people of Ferguson and the black communities in LA, DC, Chicago etc prove everyone wrong, but even if they are inclined to, we can be fairly certain there will be agitators from within and without of the communities trying to figuratively and literally set fire to the situation. This can't be allowed.

We have no way of knowing what is going on inside the minds of the members of the Grand Jury, but how surprising would it be to learn that a number of them might be thinking of finding against the cop simply to avoid the threatened riots? I can certainly imagine someone thinking that an indictment isn't a conviction and that the cop would be found innocent at trial, but obviously there's no such guarantee, and certain groups have already indicated that nothing less than a conviction (and presumably a harsh sentence) will satisfy their call for justice, and without justice there will be no peace. A justice system that allows threats of violence to taint it's impartiality is certainly no better than one that allows money and privalege to do so. It won't be leveling the playing field, it will be further destroying the system.

A nation of laws can't allow this to happen. No matter what the black experience is in Ferguson or any other part of this country, protests cannot be allowed to devolve into rioting. Responding to a unsatisfactory finding by the justice system with looting, arson and assaults and possibly murders is tantamount to a declaration of civil war or armed rebellion, and it should be treated as such. If there is rioting, it won't be spontaneous. You can't call actions that have been repeatedly threatened over weeks and months spontaneous.

Granted that a large and heavily armed police presence in areas where rioting is feared will heighten tension, but what is the choice? Routine police presence cannot, by itself, quell a riot, and should one break open it is essential that it be shut down and fast. The alternative is to allow whole sections of cities to burn, livelihoods destroyed and lives possibly ended and then to send it the National Guard...too little; too late.

Authorities should do what it takes to make it clear to the public that looters and arsonists will be shot on sight. There is no overreacting to people who are agents of chaos and who by their actions undermine the rule of law.

If there is evidence to support prosecution, the cop should be indicted and if there is evidence to support conviction he should be convicted, but these threats of rioting put a cloud over the entire process. Sure the groups doing the threatening may be satisfied by an indictment and conviction, but there will be other groups who are convinced it was the threats and not the evidence that convicted the man.

Any black leader that encourages anything other than peaceful protests by using phrases like "no justice, no peace" or similar allusions to a violent reaction are as bad or worse than those who actually riot. It's certainly not in the best interest of African-Americans for riots to follow a finding they deplore, and it sure isn't in the best interest of America.

If there is no indictment, I fully expect massive protests, and if they are peaceful I actually welcome them. MLK didn't lead African-Americans to greater equality through violence. He knew that would not only be ineffective but counter-productive. To the extent there are people in power who want to suppress the rights of black people, you can bet that they are hoping there will be riots.

The biggest mistake that authorities can make in dealing with any riots is to allow any sympathy they may have with people's frustration and anger to stay their hand in demanding order and doing all that is necessary to maintain it.

Some will actually believe that if they allow rioting to go on for a period of time it will somehow let the steam out of the pressure cooker. What could be more racist? And if the feared riots are anything like the ones we have seen in the past the irony is that it will be minorities who suffer the most. Perhaps mindful of this some protest leaders have been reported threatening to take their protests outside of the area in which Michael Brown was shot; to white neighborhoods. Again, if the protests are peaceful, no problem, but these are some of the same leaders who are using the most fiery rhetoric. No one, black or white, should become victims of rioters, but if rioters target white neighborhoods the sense of an open rebellion or race-war will be that much greater. What will that do to race relations in this country?

Maybe the cop will be indicted and the threat of rioting will be forestalled until the trial, or maybe we'll see something remarkable and the protests will remain peaceful. I certainly hope for the latter, but I'm afraid I don't believe there's much of a chance for that.

Anyone who thinks that race riots are just what this country needs to wake up to a situation of pervasive injustice is incredibly stupid and irresponsible. You can't force people to think differently or moderate their views with violence.

This is a horrible situation and there doesn't seem a very clear and wide path to a just and peaceful result. If the Grand Jury doesn't find for an indictment, President Obama may be the only one who can steer the nation from a disaster. I hope he'll be up to the task.

I could be living in a dream world but I really think that if there is no indictment and any protests that ensue remain peaceful, it will create an impetus to more closely examine the complaints of the protesters. This may be a fanciful crock, but I do know that looting, arson and assaults won't. They will only serve the hard liners on either side of the divide.

This is what happens when liberals get away with redefining justice as " Doing what the victims and their advocates want". We never should have allowed the concept of justice to be destroyed by the victim culture advocates. COnservatives did not do the right thing here, they did not step up to fight this outrage.