michael brown – chrishernandezauthor

Ferguson, Idiot Cops, and Experts Who Know Nothing at All

chrishernandezauthor — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:00:00 +0000

This was published December 9th on Breach Bang Clear.

***********************************************************

Remember a couple years back, when that plane crashed in that city and killed all those people? And all the news networks talked about it for months? And every guest interviewed on the news said, “I don’t know anything about flying, but let me tell you what that pilot should have done”?

Reason.com photo

Or maybe you remember that incident not long ago, where doctors tried and failed to save a patient with a rare and deadly disease. After the patient died, “experts” with no medical training, knowledge or experience talked nonstop about what the doctors did wrong. “Those doctors must have no idea what they’re doing. All they had to do was make the patient not die. How hard is that?”

What? You don’t remember those incidents? That’s odd. Maybe you’ll remember this one.

There was this cop once, in some small town somewhere. He stopped a guy for something minor and let him go, then realized the guy was a suspect in a bigger crime and stopped him again. The guy attacked the cop. They fought, and eventually the cop shot and killed the guy.

And for months, people with literally zero training, knowledge or experience with lethal force encounters blathered on about what that cop should have done. They spoke on national media outlets. They wrote articles for newspapers and blogs. They spoke at public events. And they constantly said ridiculous, stupid things like “The officer should have shot Brown in the leg.”

Or “All the officer had to do was use a Taser, baton or pepper spray.”

Or “There’s never a reason to shoot an unarmed person.”

Or “That officer fired six times and there’s no way that can ever be justified.”

Or “That poor young man was executed for stealing cigars.”

Or “The officer must have been lying. An unarmed person would never attack an armed cop.”

Or “The cop should have been put on trial for murder so everyone could see whether he was guilty or not.”

Sound familiar? Could be you’ve heard a little something about this case. I have, and I’m sick of the constant storm of ignorant bullshit being spewed about it.

images_RCS Moduloader Frame Paddles
Brought to you by JTF Awesome.

I don’t mean that I’ve simply heard reasonable criticism of police practices, or honest questions about use of force. The public has every right to question how we police them. But I’ve heard comments so moronic I wonder if the person making them remembers how to breathe without instructions. Since Officer Darren Wilson was no-billed by a Grand Jury, the nonsense has only gotten worse. I don’t want people to stop asking questions, and I’m happy to give answers. But for god’s sake, at least try to find out what the hell you’re talking about before you broadcast your opinion to the entire world.

What’s most frustrating is that dumb comments often come from otherwise intelligent, reasonable people who don’t second-guess pilots, doctors or professionals in other fields. These commenters generally stay in their lane and don’t hold forth about things they know nothing about. But when it comes to law enforcement, they feel completely justified prattling for hours on a subject about which they’re completely blind.

Why the difference? As far as I can tell, it’s because the public respects pilots, doctors and almost all other professionals. But cops? We’re different. Any idiot can be a cop. No intelligence required.

Maybe that belief is due to a lifetime-plus of cultural conditioning. Since before I was born, cops have been portrayed in popular culture as fools. Yes, we’ve also had positive cops on TV and in the movies; even so, not many people know Crockett and Tubbs or Barney Miller, while almost everyone knows Officer Barbrady and Barney Fife. The apparent result of this cultural conditioning is a widespread belief that police work is simple. Much of the public doesn’t know our job is complex, dynamic, challenging and sometimes dangerous; rather, they think it’s dull, plain, and frankly beneath anyone with even average intelligence.

Who knows, maybe police work really is that simple and easy. My experience may be a total fluke. Police work has put me in some of the most mentally and physically demanding situations of my life. I’ve had to fight for survival. I’ve had to talk people out of suicide. I’ve had to anticipate the next moves of desperate fleeing criminals. I’ve had to decipher the terrified, stuttering words of crime victims in a race against the clock to get descriptions out before suspects could get too far from the scene. I’ve had to ignore the horrible suffering of innocent people in order to focus on my task of ensuring the guilty didn’t escape justice. I’ve exercised every ounce of discipline I had and held my fire when a drunk pointed a pistol at me, because I wasn’t sure who was behind him.

None of that was easy. Many of those situations were incredibly complicated. I had to make multiple snap judgments based on training, hard-earned experience, and highly nuanced understanding of human nature and my own biases and weaknesses. I’ve worked with a lot of smart men and women who faced situations just as difficult, and sometimes far more difficult, than those I faced.

I want the public to understand the difficulties, challenges and realities of police work. So I’m going to briefly address some of the ridiculous, moronic misunderstandings that I’ve seen and read. None of what I’m about to write even hints that cops are always right, or that private citizens should never question them; we cops are beholden to the public we serve, and we should answer honest questions from good people (I myself have a LOT of questions and concerns about the Eric Garner case in NYC). I hope my answers help those who truly want to understand why Officer Wilson opened fire that day. But I also hope it encourages rabble-rousing, clueless idiots frantically running their mouths about how police “should” handle lethal force encounters to shut up and swim back to the shallow end of the pool.

“The officer could have just shot Michael Brown in the leg or arm.”

No, he probably couldn’t have. A leg or arm is a small, easy to miss target. Darren Wilson was firing center mass at a large target, and still completely missed with several shots. Even if he had hit Brown’s arm or leg, that wouldn’t have guaranteed Brown would stop, or live. Limb shots rarely immediately disable people. Plus, they can damage an artery and cause death within minutes.

Watch this video of a femoral artery bleedout:

***************************************************

Read the rest at http://www.breachbangclear.com/ferguson-idiot-cops-and-experts-who-know-nothing-at-all/#comment-31654

Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com, Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at [email protected] or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).

http://www.amazon.com/Line-Valley-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B00HW1MA2G/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=09XSSHABSWPC3FM8K6P4
http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Our-Resolve-Chris-Hernandez-ebook/dp/B0099XMR1E/ref=pd_sim_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0S6AGHBTJZ6JH99D56X7

Watch out Ferguson, here it comes

chrishernandezauthor — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:00:41 +0000

We’ll hear the Grand Jury’s decision on the Ferguson, Missouri shooting any day now. Police departments in the area have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare for possible riots after the decision is announced, and the Missouri National Guard has been mobilized. We (allegedly) don’t know what the Grand Jury is going to say, but the future seems pretty clear to me.

Officer Darren Wilson isn’t going to be indicted.

The leaked Grand Jury testimony we’ve heard thus far seems calculated to soften the blow: numerous black witnesses corroborated Officer Wilson’s account. Evidence proves Michael Brown was shot in the hand during a struggle inside the police car after he assaulted Wilson. Brown wasn’t shot in the back as originally claimed. Brown didn’t have his hands up. Basically, the public is being prepared to hear “no charges against Officer Wilson”.

If I’m right we’re going to see riots, probably in several cities. Police officers will become targets, whether or not they’ve ever done anything “wrong”. The riots, damage and retaliation murders could equal or even rival 1992’s LA Riots, which killed 53 people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots).

We’ll also see random assaults on whites, probably nationwide. Some whites, like Ellis Haines who was killed by a mob of black youths during the LA Riots, will be murdered just for being white (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm). Others will be attacked and survive, just like Reginald Denny in South Central LA. He was beaten, hit in the head with a brick and shot at from close range. Other minorities will be attacked for not being black, like Fidel Lopez. He was beaten with a car stereo, robbed, spray-painted black, and one rioter tried to slice his ear off.

Fortunately, many black voices are urging calm and peaceful protests. Unfortunately, others aren’t.

On November 13th, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published this “Q&A for people tired of Ferguson protests” (http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/q-a-for-people-tired-of-ferguson-protests/article_1cb26dec-d2b6-5ddd-aba9-b6110c0a71f5.html?mobile_touch=true). This article had answers from the “Don’t Shoot Coalition”, a group of “over 50 social justice organizations”. The group didn’t make any overt appeals for violence. But they did make some comments that certainly seem to justify taking action against the innocent.

In response to the question “What good does it do to disrupt businesses and people’s lives, when these people are not part of the problem?”, the DSC said this:

“Your question does not reflect the whole picture. This involves all of us. It’s wrong to simply draw arbitrary boundaries around issues like fair policing, and decide that most folks are not involved. Many people — especially white folks — feel they can ignore the problem. People who benefit from or are not impacted by this unfair system have a duty to speak up and not be complicit. Ferguson has shifted the boundary line. It is not enough to say, ‘I’m not racist’ just because you have suppressed your conscious biases. The protests are designed to make people feel uncomfortable and spur us all to end society’s structural biases.”

That sounds semi-reasonable. All the DSC wants to do is “spur us all to end society’s structural biases”, right?

Not exactly. I have serious concerns about a few points they make.

1) “Many people — especially white folks — feel they can ignore the problem. People who benefit from or are not impacted by this unfair system have a duty to speak up and not be complicit.”

So if I’m intentionally neutral on the Michael Brown case, I’m part of the problem? Let’s say Joe Citizen from Alabama adopts this position: Joe doesn’t trust cops and thinks Wilson probably shouldn’t have shot Brown. But Joe also thinks Brown was acting like a thug and doesn’t deserve sympathy or elevation to hero status. So Joe is waiting for the Grand Jury to announce its decision and present evidence before he decides whether or not the shooting was justified.

In my eyes, this makes Joe a reasonable guy. I’d disagree with Joe on a couple of his opinions, but I understand his point. Since Joe was obviously not involved in the incident, I’d say he bears no blame either way, and obviously has no responsibility to change society or demand justice for Brown (especially since we don’t even know if the killing of Brown was a crime).

The DSC doesn’t see it that way. According to them, Joe MUST speak up against what the DSC sees as an unfair system. If Joe doesn’t, then in the DSC’s eyes Joe is part of the problem. Especially if he’s white.

2) “It is not enough to say, ‘I’m not racist’ just because you have suppressed your conscious biases.”

This is fantastic. First, who is the DSC to decide what is “enough”? They don’t give orders to anyone, nobody is required to take whatever action the DSC deems necessary. This is America. People can respond to this situation as they see fit. If someone wants to peacefully protest or publicly speak, great. If someone wants to stay out of it, fine. If someone wants to say “I’m not racist”, no problem. That’s enough if they decide it’s enough.

And the “suppressed your conscious biases” comment makes a very strong statement. The DSC apparently assumes we’re horribly biased, and at best we’ve only gotten the conscious biases under control. This is a pretty good stretch, unless they’ve psychoanalyzed everyone in America.

3) “The protests are designed to make people feel uncomfortable and spur us all to end society’s structural biases.”

Well, they’ll accomplish one goal. They will make people feel uncomfortable, especially since at least some of them are planning on targeting white people (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/203806-ferguson-protesters-discuss-exactly-targeting-grand-jury-announcement/). As far as ending all of society’s structural biases, as soon as they get done with that they can work on getting the sun to rise in the west. Sorry, but humans are a biased bunch, and nobody’s changing that. The DSC is biased as hell, and they prove it with this next statement.

4) “Sure, judgments made through newspaper accounts and word of mouth are often flawed but, filtered through the black community’s lived experiences, they are still more trustworthy than the current legal process.”

So let’s get this straight: the DSC knows media accounts and shared stories are often wrong. But that doesn’t matter. Incorrect media reports and nonsensical “crooked cops shot this poor innocent gentle giant for no reason” rumors carry more weight than the results of an investigation. People who claim they’re against bias, then turn around and say “I don’t care about evidence, all I care about is how I feel” are the most biased of all.

So if Wilson isn’t indicted, we’re going to see riots and attacks. If Wilson is indicted, we’ll still see riots and attacks if he’s charged with anything less than murder. Brown’s supporters have decided Wilson is guilty, they don’t care that the media reports were wrong, they don’t care that witnesses supporting Brown were lying. They just know Wilson is guilty and that’s the end of it.

And they’ll be protesting all over the country, and even in Canada (what the hell does Canada have to do with this?). As usual, professional protestors will do all they can to provoke police, and every nutjob with some stupid agenda will join in. We’ll see communists, who want the state and police to have more power, protesting alongside people who demand that the state and police have less power. We’ll see “Occupy” protestors screaming about big corporations figuratively robbing the little guy, while simultaneously supporting a 6’4”, 300 pound bully who literally robbed a little guy.

Some demonstrations will be peaceful and well-organized, some will go insane. Check this link, it shows where and when many of the protests will be.

http://fergusonresponse.tumblr.com/

To my law enforcement brothers in and around Ferguson, and all over the country, stay safe. Things are going to get bad for us. To innocent people of any color in and around Ferguson, two things: don’t take unnecessary risks, and don’t let anyone victimize you. Don’t let protestors force you to take a side, don’t let them dictate what you “have to” think. If you have means to resist, don’t let anyone physically attack you, your family, home, business or property.

Some of the protestors will have legitimate grievances and will present them in a reasonable way. Some will use the protests as an excuse to be the thugs and looters they already were. Some will show their passion against racism and injustice by attacking innocent people of other races.

If Brown’s death showed how racist America supposedly is, wait til you see what protestors do when Wilson is cleared of wrongdoing.

A Dose of Reality for Ferguson, Missouri

chrishernandezauthor — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:00:34 +0000

Unlike much of America, I’ve stayed quiet about the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. As a cop, I know initial media reports about any incident are usually wrong. I also know that many media outlets and internet commentators deliberately twist facts to inflame emotion. They’ll throw out empty, meaningless phrases like “he was shot in broad daylight, in his own hometown” even though that has literally nothing to do with the legality or illegality of the shooting.

And it goes without saying that in any incident involving a police officer, many people with absolutely no understanding of police work or lethal violence suddenly think they’re experts. After Brown’s death I expected a loud chorus of hysterical cries from people who had no idea what the hell they were talking about. I haven’t been disappointed.

“But he was unarmed!”

I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard the term “unarmed teenager”. Yes, Brown was an unarmed 18 year old. He was also 6’4″ and 292 pounds. Anyone who thinks an unarmed, 6’4″, 292 pound man can’t be a threat has never been punched in the face. Unarmed people can be extremely dangerous.

In 2012 an unarmed 17 year old beat an El Paso police officer to death. The officer was 29 years old, a former Marine and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21708260/el-paso-police-officer-dies-from-sept-25

An off-duty police officer in New York City was beaten almost to death by an unarmed man last November.

In July, an unarmed 21 year old “felt like killing someone” and beat a 56 year old random victim to death at a train station in San Antonio.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/suspect-in-san-antonio-beating-death-i-feel-like-killing-someone/

In 2012, an unarmed 24 year old man beat a man to death for raping his daughter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-texas-father-beat-death-daughters-molester/story?id=16612071

Those chanting “but he was unarmed” are pathetically ignorant of the reality of violence. Unarmed people hurt or kill others on a regular basis. No, that doesn’t mean every unarmed person needs to be shot; it does, however, mean an aggressive, unarmed person can be a threat to your life. The bigger and stronger that person is, the bigger the threat.

“All Michael Brown did was shoplift cigars.”

No, he didn’t “shoplift” anything. He committed a robbery. Shoplifting is a nonviolent crime, usually committed by people desperate to avoid confrontation. Robbery is violent. When someone uses or threatens force to take anything, no matter how unimportant or inexpensive, that’s robbery. If someone grabs you by the collar, reaches into your pocket and takes a single piece of chewing gum, the problem isn’t the lost gum. The problem is that someone used force to take your property.

Many media outlets refer to Brown’s crime as theft or shoplifting. That’s probably a deliberate lie, chosen specifically to downplay the crime Brown committed. The Daily Kos, which can always be trusted to produce inflammatory stupidity, said “Brown shoplifted some cigars on the day he was killed”, which does not in any way describe what happened (the same article also claimed “Michael Brown was gunned down by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, apparently for the crime of jaywalking”).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/22/1323751/-Ferguson-Missouri-The-case-of-the-vanishing-fractured-orbital-bone-and-journalistic-integrity

Cracked magazine, which usually does a good job of cutting through nonsense, mentioned “robbery” but then decided to go full propaganda: “…the officer (who was aware of the previous robbery) saw Brown walking with the same cigars that had been stolen and suspected that he was the shoplifter.”

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-facts-about-ferguson-media-keeps-screwing-up/#ixzz3BEelkF41

No, Cracked. He wasn’t a “shoplifter”. He was a robber. There’s a huge difference between someone who sticks cigars in his pocket and walks out of a store, versus a guy who grabs cigars, pushes a store owner around and threatens him, and then walks out. The first act is simple nonviolent theft, the second is a violent robbery.

Both Kos and Cracked assert the robbery didn’t matter, either because the officer didn’t know about it or because stealing $50 worth of cigars doesn’t justify a shooting. I offer a counterpoint: yes, the robbery is hugely important. We’ve heard conflicting reports about whether or not the officer was aware of the robbery, and I can’t say for certain he knew Brown was a robbery suspect. But Michael Brown sure as hell knew he had committed a robbery. He knew he was about to be arrested for something more serious than shoplifting. Does that mean Brown would likely react more aggressively toward the officer than someone who had committed simple theft? Based on my experiences dealing with suspects who just committed felonies, I’d say yes.

“The officer shot him six times!”

Yes, the officer shot Brown six times. That sounds excessive. It’s not. On TV and in movies, people get shot one time, fly through the air in a spray of blood and immediately die. In real life they don’t.

A police officer got into a gunfight with a robbery suspect in 2009. The officer shot the suspect 14 times with a .45 pistol, and 6 of the bullet wounds were nonsurvivable. The suspect still didn’t go down. The officer finally shot the suspect three more times, in the face and top of the head. The head shot finally stopped him, but didn’t kill him; he died later, at the hospital. An autopsy determined he hadn’t been under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

Last year I wrote an essay about what bullets really do (and don’t do). I described incidents I worked where people were shot but didn’t react the way most people think they should. These incidents include a robbery victim who was shot three times including once in the forehead and still ran 500 yards to find help, a young female shot through the thigh who showed no reaction at all, and a man with part of his head blown off who was still conscious and alert.

https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/01/28/seven-rounds/

Police officers are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. Under stress we’re not counting bullets, we’re shooting until we’ve eliminated the threat. It is not at all uncommon for a person to take multiple bullets before they stop being a threat.

“The officer should have used his baton, Taser or pepper spray instead of his gun.”

Here’s a little-known reality about intermediate weapons: they don’t always work. In 20 years as a cop I’ve used my baton twice. Both suspects wound up in the hospital… eventually. At the time I was hitting them, they weren’t impressed. I’ve also pepper sprayed around 30 suspects. Pepper spray works on everyone… eventually. Some people don’t react to it right away. And even if you get a hit, that hit might not be enough to stop the suspect.

In 1992 a police officer responded to a domestic disturbance and confronted a violent wife abuser. The officer sprayed the suspect. The unarmed suspect beat and disabled the officer, then fractured the officer’s skull with a stick of firewood. The officer died shortly afterward.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/05/grant_county_cop_killer_to_be.html

Here’s a video of a March 2014 encounter between a police officer and suspect in a Philadelphia train station. The officer pepper sprays the suspect and hits him with a baton, to no effect. During the fight the suspect tries to disarm the officer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-captures-intense-fight-between-suspect-philadelphia-officer/

Here’s one of an officer who pepper sprayed a combative suspect. It didn’t work. He then shot the suspect. The suspect disarmed the officer and tried to shoot him, then almost beat him unconscious.

But what about Tasers? Tasers work great, except when they don’t. If there’s not enough spread between the darts, the shock won’t disable the suspect. If one dart misses, no shock. If one dart gets hung up in clothing, no shock. If the Taser itself malfunctions, no shock.

And any intermediate weapon takes time to deploy and properly use. If a large, aggressive suspect charges me, I know I have mere seconds to choose a force option and hope it works. Whatever I choose, I know it’ll likely be the only weapon I can employ before the suspect is on me. Batons, pepper spray and Tasers all have significant failure rates. In some cases, the best option is to go straight for the pistol.

“Witnesses said Brown was giving up when he was shot.”

Witnesses have said a lot of things. Brown’s friend insists he and Brown were innocently minding their own business until an evil racist police officer cursed at them, ordered them out of the street, grabbed 6’4″ Brown around the neck (without even getting out of his patrol vehicle!), shot Brown as he was running away, then shot him again after Brown put his hands up in surrender.

There is no reason to disbelieve this version of events. Except for the fact that Brown’s friend was with him during the robbery, has a warrant for theft and giving a fake name to police, and, being Brown’s friend, is biased in his favor. Oh, and the multiple autopsies that show Brown wasn’t shot in the back.

This might be a shock to some, but sometimes people lie to protect their friends. Every time we cops show up to a bar fight, it’s practically a comedy routine from each “victim” and their friends. “Officer, I was walking by the pool table and that guy bumped into me. I said ‘Excuse me sir, I didn’t mean to bump you and I profusely apologize’, but the guy punched me! For no reason!” I’ve lost count of the hours I’ve wasted taking statements from bar fighters and their friends who insist they’re all sweet innocent angels who were viciously attacked for no reason.

I worked one shooting where the victim’s girlfriend swore – SWORE – that her boyfriend’s ex-wife had driven by and shot him as he and the girlfriend were leaving a restaurant. No other witnesses said anything even remotely like that. No physical evidence corroborated the girlfriend’s story. Eventually investigators figured out the boyfriend was shot by an unrelated woman during a fight between eight drunks in the parking lot. The woman even confessed. But the girlfriend still swore – SWORE – it was the ex-wife. Amazingly enough, witnesses with an axe to grind sometimes lie.

There are witnesses who insist Brown was attacked for no reason whatsoever. But at least two of those “witness” statements don’t match up to the physical evidence.

“Johnson [Brown’s friend] said the officer hit Brown with another round as he was running away and fatally gunned him down after he stopped and raised his hands in surrender.”

“Brady [another alleged witness] said Brown and Johnson then ran away, while Wilson got out of his car and began shooting.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/21/here-is-everything-police-and-witnesses-said-happened-when-michael-brown-was-killed/

No, the officer didn’t shoot Brown in the back as he was running away, unless all three forensic pathologists managed to miss the gunshot wound in his back during their autopsies. Call me crazy, but I’m not going to take their “That cop shot Brown for no reason as he was running away” statements as gospel. Another as-yet-unidentified witness made a statement in the background of a video taken right after the shooting. He said a shot was fired in the police car during a struggle, then Brown ran away, then was shot repeatedly after he turned and charged the officer. The witness statement begins around 6:30.

We will likely never know the identity of that witness and I’m sure that statement will never reach any court. But I think it was from an actual unbiased witness, and is probably closer to the truth than any other “witness” statement we’ve heard.

Bottom line

You’ll notice I said “I think” the videotaped witness statement is true, instead of saying “I know”. I’ve formed an opinion but can’t claim I know what actually happened. Officer Darren Wilson may have stopped Brown for walking in the street, then shot him repeatedly for absolutely no reason. Crazier things have happened.

But you know what’s more likely? Wilson simply ordered Brown and his friend to get out of the street, then realized they were robbery suspects and tried to stop them. Instead of complying, Brown shoved Wilson back into his vehicle, punched him (and maybe broke his eye socket), then ran away after Wilson fired a shot. Wilson jumped out and ordered Brown to stop. Brown chose to charge Wilson, who fired until Brown fell dead.

That’s what I think happened. But I don’t know for certain.

Since I don’t know the actual truth I’ll keep this opinion in the land of conjecture, where it belongs. I won’t scream about racism. I won’t demand prosecution as a way to curry favor with a particular demographic. I won’t excuse the thieving, brutal punks who use this alleged injustice as an excuse to be the murderers and looters they already were. I won’t let dumbass fantasies like “unarmed people can’t be a threat”, “he could have just used pepper spray” or “there’s never a reason to shoot someone more than once” influence my opinion. Instead, I’ll stand by and wait for actual evidence.

If that evidence shows Officer Wilson murdered Brown, I’ll fully support his prosecution. But if the evidence shows Wilson acted both legally and morally, I’m 100% on his side. Either way, I won’t let emotions drive my decision. Maybe a few others on TV and online, and a whole bunch of people in Ferguson, should try to keep their emotions in check as well.