August is a slow month for 2016 presidential news but there are a lot of other important topics unfolding around the world. At the moment, the country is focused on the unrest in a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri.

Report on the latest from the Washington Post:

FERGUSON, Mo. —Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will travel to this battle-scarred St. Louis suburb to oversee the investigation of the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager at the hands of a white police officer, the White House said Monday.

Holder’s visit was announced as National Guard troops arrived to back up local and state police. On Monday night in Ferguson, an early evening calm gave way to new confrontations as some demonstrators threw bottles at heavily armed police and officers threw stun grenades and tear gas towards them.

The day was expected to be a crucial test for everybody in charge here, from local police commanders to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) — who had called out the National Guard after chaotic protests Sunday — to President Obama himself. Obama’s decision to dispatch his attorney general was an admission that the teenager’s killing had become a symbol of something enormous: a test of the American justice system and the government’s ability to police the officers who police everyone else.

The bottom line is that the facts aren’t yet 100% clear and the investigation will take time. In the meantime, the violence has continued through the weekend.

34 COMMENTS

  1. Since this is a political blog, let’s talk about the political angles.

    (1) Libertarians and liberals agree that the militarization of the domestic police force is a bad thing. Really looks like Big Brother. And, of course, if there is a disturbance, it makes matters worse to have the force send out a bunch of Robocops.

    (2) The GOP is the law-and-order party. If we get more protests–especially with a racial overtone, it could look like the 60s all over again.

    (3) There’s no way this can look good for Obama. Race is involved on one side, and misuse of police power on the other.

  2. Looks like I’m the only one who cares about this topic, but the Weekly Standard says pretty much what I did:

    That many libertarians align with liberals on the topic, whereas, the GOP, as the “law and order” party, is on the other side:

    http://view.news.mediadc.com/?j=fef01079716d01&m=fe9012727163017e71&ls=fe5a10777366017a7015&l=ff3216717c65&s=fe6a1672756404757612&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe9715717066027a77&utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JVL+8_20_14&r=0

    They even said the same thing as I about the fact that if the public gets sick of protests, the GOP will get more votes from the “Silent Majority.”

  3. Today’s cops are hooligans with guns. Police departments nationwide are vetting the ones with above 100 IQ and only selecting those with below 100 (look for the article where an applicant was refused entry in the police, since his IQ test was over 100).

    Why — because the Government wants Marching Morons that blindly obey orders, in the Gov’s zeal to turn US into a Police State!

    Our police force has become a militarized nationwide LAW-BREAKING ENTITY, not one that protects our rights, but A FORCE thast considers itself ABOVE THE LAW, so breaks it on daily basis, because they’ve been allowed to do so!

    Time to stop this INSANITY by electing Rand Paul as US President!
    ————————————————————————————-

    Had it not been for this black criminal, that robbed stores, getting shot by a white policeman — this story would have never been heard!

    For a week it has now sparked the media and overtaken all other topics — with Obama and Eric Holden leading the charge — and causing riots in Ferguson nonstop!
    —————————————————————————————
    REALITY CHECK — had it been a 95 year-old White US WW2 Veteran, killed by black cops FOR NO REASON…NO RIOTS happened, nor has Obama or his sidekick, Eric Holden, taken up the Cause of these KILLER COPS Injustice!

    The lesson to be learned form all of this — if you are a black criminal, must handle with kid gloves.

    If you are WHITE, and an innocent 95 year-old WW2 veteran — expect no protection from Obama and Co.; the anti-white racists of this nation — but expect to be killed by their Militarized Police!

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ww2-hero-refuses-medical-care-so-cops-kill-him-in-his-nursing-home/#axzz3B5W0Uiy8

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

  4. Double standard of MSM — watch how the robber of a store is described being shot by police ON FRONT PAGE!

    “…the civil unrest in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, linked
    to the fatal shooting of a BLACK 18-year-old by a WHITE police officer.”

    (Obama vacationing too much — read this MSM’s placating and disgusting excuse-piece of the Kenyan Usurper of our White House):

    http://news.msn.com/us/obama-taking-less-vacation-but-too-much-for-some

    In contrast, MSM reported on page 100 (where no one could find it) —

    WW2 hero refuses medical care, so cops kill him in his nursing home.

    What’s missing from this headline..?!

    1) The WW2 hero was 95 year-old defenseless man and WHITE.

    2) The cops that killed him were BLACK!

    ————————————————————————————-

    How calculated to inflame anti-white hatred by MSM to report that the criminal that robbed stores was BLACK and a WHITE cop shot him!

    But, MSM avoids stating that Wrana, the WW2 veteran that fought to save our Nation, and survived the Japanese that tried to kill him during the war, was a WHITE man, that was eventually killed at the age of 95 by BLACK cops (what Japan failed to do, kill Wrana, these black cops DID in America)!

    http://cris4764.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/ww2-hero-refuses-medical-care-so-cops-kill-him-in-his-nursing-home-updated/

    —————————————————————————————–

    Obama & Co have shown themselves to be one sided!

    Not what a REAL US President would stand for — but a racist white-hating Criminal in Office does!

    Time to Impeach Obama after the 2014 elections — and put him in Jail for Life, with his cohorts, where they all belong!

    • Surfisher: You’re overlooking how these stories got started. In the case of Trayvon Martin and now Michael Brown, the media ignored the stories at first. It’s social media–local people–who wrote about it and passed around what they had heard. There was an explosion of individual chat, which the media saw as RATINGS, so they started covering it.

      That’s the real name of the game for the media–money. Money comes from advertising, advertising comes from ratings, ratings come from what people are interested in, people are interested in conflict and anomaly.

  5. A few questions and views come to mind:

    If the police have to many MILITARY TYPE WEAPONS why didn’t they use them instead of BEING ORDERED to stand back and letting looting occur ?

    Seeing that of the 79 arrest during the first night ONLY 4 WERE FERGUSON RESIDENTS could the gun control advocates be a part of this unrest as well as the usual professional self serving race pandering ambulance chasers?

    The left preaches tolerance and wants a “National Conversation” on gun control, marriage equality, income equality, immigration, debt, climate change, obesity, bullying, and of course RACE. There tolerance however only goes as far as their views which turn into totalitarian. If all opinions are equal how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open minded but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot? How does that attitude help a “National Conversation”?

    The following is a combination of quotes I jotted down from different sources which unfortunately at the moment I can’t quite give the proper credit to ( I believe they might all be from Daniel Greenfield) and are separated by quotation marks but when put together make an idea I can agree with……”POLITICS IS DIVISION”……..”America today is more divided, more tribal, and less politically flexible than in previous times.”………..”The right of self defense presumes a right to the individual and the nation. Liberals reject both individual and national rights in favor of group and class rights. They are also biased against acts of rational self interest in favor of emotional outrage and they term grievances based violence a response to intolerable oppression and the underclass rising up. Liberals have no problem with violence. They have a problem with violence that does not have a progressive source or agenda and as long as it is aimed at a state or group they oppose. Liberals naturally make exceptions, as progressives are self described as revolutionary. Therefore liberal violence is never oppressive to liberals within the same degree of ideology.”

    P.S. No you aren’t the only one who cares about this topic Goethe. I was away on vacation for the past 8 days.

    • I was just expecting a bunch of responses right away.

      I don’t think the anti-gun people are involved. I think this is specifically those who think Blacks are treated worse than whites in these situations AND those who are upset with all the war materiel loading into local police stations.

      I haven’t followed it that closely, but I haven’t heard anti-gun rhetoric.

      Anyway, as I noted above, if the protests go on much longer, or increase, there will be a backlash that will elect a lot of Republicans in November.

      • I’m curious how you see this issue helping Republicans in other states and other races outside of that immediate area? Where’s the connection that would drive people to the polls to vote against Democrats?

        • This one incident won’t do it–unless there are violent riots and looting. That scares people, and they would go for the “law-and-order” party. The riots of the late 60s were a key factor in Nixon’s win.

      • Goethe;
        I can’t say I have been following it closely either but I have been reading about it.

        You are probably right about gun control advocates not being a part of this but the premise of the protest has changed from it’s original intent. Originally it was a race issue of a white Officer Warren shooting Afro-American Michael Brown. NOW it’s about the police using military style weaponry. Officer Warren wasn’t wearing body armor or using high tech weapons. Is this 180 degree change because they realized they have no case against the Officer? As you said the impact of the “protest” have been nullified probably due to the “memorializing by looting” itinerary after every shooting. As you also said this is based on ratings in the MSM and political for our elected officials. The White House sent more officials to Michael Browns funeral than they did to Margaret Thatchers (3-0)

        Which brings us to another question. Now I totally support the 2nd Amendment however all this talk about the right to own guns to protect yourself from the government is naïve in the 21th century in the respect that there is no way the general citizenry can match the fire power of all levels of the government. Attempting to do so will only have you painted as another Timothy Mc Veigh. If any attempt to “Take Back The Government” is attempted by individuals it will viewed as the same as the Black Panthers “Offing the Pigs” and if attempted on a mass scale as another Waco or Ruby Ridge. A failure in either case and supported by only the small percentage who totally believe in the cause. I have found that you never take it for granted you will have the support of the masses behind you. It seems that in both cases the problem encountered is the “proportionary response” is over powering. Hmmm sort of like Israel’s response to the Palestinians isn’t it?

        • Har! Right. And as I noted elsewhere, I do recognize that one reason we are in a position of defending Israel without question is that no one else does. HOWEVER, that’s because we’re so fanatical about it. And, so, they figure, “let George do it.”

          Our backing away in the Middle East has caused Egypt and the Emirates to take action against extremists. That’s probably a good thing.

          Thanks for your spirited comments. Sorry if I hit hard sometimes. But it’s because I know you can take it.

          ANYWAY, back to your point:

          I think the issue has become militarizing the police because of the harsh “police action.” The original case was put aside, and people worried about police-state issues.

          And, yeah, to your new point: people who think individuals will ever out-gun the state are insane. And that’s what really scares me–seeing those same insane people armed to-the-teeth with weapons of war.

          • Goethe;
            If you are referring to repeating over and over your simplistic one issue view on how Richard Nixon won in 1968 or stating that Egypt and Emirates recent inept strikes in Libya as “hard hitting” remarks …well obviously you’re losing your touch DUDE!

    • Yeah, I don’t see the gun control advocates involved. The opposite has been true with citizens using firearms to defend their businesses and homes. Plus gun purchases are up like 90% in the area as residents buy for self-defense worried about their property.

      The protests are dying down – for now. If they determine there is too little evidence to charge the officer with murder or even manslaughter, there will be more unrest than we’ve seen up to this point in my opinion.

  6. You say you are a LIBERAL MAYOR of a major American city and the citizenry who elected you find the Police having military weaponry offensive? What can you do? Well you can do what New York Cities “Bolshevic” Bill de Blasio did …..HE OUTSOURCED POLICE PROTECTION TO EX-FELONS. That’s right! His $13.7 million dollar plan to curb violence in his city is to out sourcing ex-felons to “interrupt violent activities” before they happen. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

    The article below entitled: “NYC Mayor Hires Old Felons To “Interrupt” New Felons”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/23/nyc-mayor-hires-old-felons-to-interrupt-new-felons/

    Did I mention two of his ex-felons are now back in jail?

  7. Back on topic. . .One of the issues in the Michael Brown shooting is whether he had his hands raised at the time when he was hit with four bullets to the body and two to the head.

    Seems to me, the autopsy could show that. The path of the bullets to the body would be different if the arm muscles pulled the upper chest muscles upward.

    Of course, that would only count for one bullet. If you’re shot, you’re not likely to keep your hands up. So investigating bullet path wouldn’t prove that he didn’t have his arms raised, but it could prove if he did.

      • Well, that clears up the questions of whether he was shot in the back, or with his hands up. Also, as the article notes, hitting someone with six shots ain’t a lot, if you’re packing semi-automatic heat. But it scares me that even a well meaning cop could fill a guy with lead, just because the gun wants to fire.

        However, I think it’s disingenuous for the writer to praise the cop for not shooting him while he’s down. If you shoot someone in the eye and then smash the top of his head, only an idiot would waste more government-issue at that point.

        The article raises other questions.

        For one, the progression of shots show that Brown was standing still, with his arms DOWN. That is also a harmless stance. And the shots were fired over about ten seconds, according to the writer. Ten seconds is a long time, yet, Brown apparently stood still and took the lead.

        If Brown were really erratic, or charging him, as the officer claims, the shots would not have followed such a straight path.

        • Goethe:

          I fail to see the same facts in the article that you do. In the article he states that “People who think six shots is a lot are not familiar with the speed a reasonably trained shooter can fire six times with a semi-automatic pistol. The answer is less than two seconds.” not the ten seconds as you say the article mentions. In addition he states that “the pattern follows someone who is shooting in a panic mode as if being charged by an assailant.” not an attacker standing still.

          I know Nate is more knowledgeable than I am with fire arms….what’s your take on this article Nate?

          • Bob: My mistake. I thought it said up to two seconds BETWEEN shots.

            But, cripes, that is even more scary. We’ve given the cops guns that fire faster than anyone could possibly think–six shots in less than a second, according to the author–and it’s also impossible to control. AND, those six shots were only the ones that hit. We know that more were actually fired.

            Weapons like that may make sense in war, when you really do want to kill everybody you see, but not on an American street.

            I am not defending Brown, I’m doubting Wilson. My job is to raise questions when people claim to know the unknowable.

            The novelist shows that he is not just “looking objectively” with the line, “being charged by a much larger assailant.” His point was just that the officer shot indiscriminately. Period.

            But then, he adds, “or someone preparing for just such a moment,” so we are now, once again, forgiving shooters for what they THINK the other person might do.

            • Goethe;
              I’m not making excuses for officer Wilson nor persecuting Brown either. From our discussions you seem to look at things in the prism of human nature and thus as objectively or skeptically as I do.

              As for the officer shooting indiscriminately it may have to do with his losing sight in one eye due to the attack by Brown. That would also answer that when you have a 300 pound man coming at you there is no doubt “thinking what the other person might do” and thus the panic mode.

            • Bob: You and I disagree on some things, and our responses have been heated at time, but I do respect you as a person. I’m not sure that has come through.

              Good catch. Yes, I was calling the writer a “novelist” specifically because he was injecting his opinion at a time when he was supposedly giving an objective analysis. He was certainly not writing as a “journalist,” but rather, as an advocate. Even a “devil’s advocate” is an advocate

              The trouble with events such as these is that it is so hard to find out what really happened.

              CNN’s account says he was shot in the street, and that the shots were spread over time:

              http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know/

              Another account:

              http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri/mike-brown-shooting-facts-details

              There is some confluence between accounts by the two sides. The kids said the cop was being aggressive and tried to open his door, which hit the kids and rebounded. The cop says he was pushed back into the car. Those are just two views of the same thing–did the door bounce off the kids, or did they push it?

              One problem is that there have been so many killings by cops lately.

              I think people are confusing the Brown shooting with the shooting of Crawford, inside a Walmart:

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/14/required-reading-on-race-michael-brown-and-ferguson-mo/

            • Goethe:

              I don’t believe it is an instance of “people are confusing” one shooting with another as much as lumping them together without separating with facts. It’s convenient to do if you have your mind already made up but it is neither mature nor reality. But as you are aware from election sound bites to foreign policy America isn’t in to spending anything more than 10 seconds of their time accumulating facts. This tribal division America is locked into is probably the main cause we will never solve our internal problems or have a national dialogue on a number of subjects. As with the intent of our discussions it should be an exchange of ideas and not your view is wrong because you are out numbered two to one.

              Always good talking with you. I enjoy our discussions.

            • OK, well, let me speak for myself. I thought Brown was standing in the Walmart. So the autopsy would make sense. As would the analysis–a guy standing there, who is shot.

              But now, I’m reading that the Brown story is really about a cop driving up, tells kids to use the sidewalk, they mouth off, he pushes the car door against them, but they are big enough that the door just bounces back, there’s a fight, and he shoots the kid twice, the kid runs and hides behind a car. Now at this point, it doesn’t matter whether the kid is charging him, because the shots no longer match the autopsy, which appear to have been shot at one time.

Comments are closed.