The Ferguson, Missouri Mess

Much like Treyvon Martin, I woke up late to the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri and only in the past couple of days have begun paying attention.  It is troubling, but here are some thoughts.

When I first heard the eyewitness accounts of the shooting, it sure sounded bad for the officer. That version goes something like this: Two guys walking down the middle of the road are stopped by a patrol officer. Witnesses say the officer while sitting in his car was unable to open his driver's side door because Mike Brown, the deceased suspect, was blocking it. The patrolman then wrapped his arm around Brown and tried to pull him into the car (though the window?). A shot was fired from inside the car, Brown ran, the cop got out of the car, and fired his weapon striking Brown in the back. Brown turned around and put his hands in the air as if to surrender and was shot several more times. Bad shooting? Sure sounds like it to me.

Last night, I was switching back and forth between Fox and MSNBC. While Sean Hannity was highlighting the rioting in an effort to defend the cop's use of force and military-style tactics in the aftermath of the shooting, Lawrence O'Donnell at MSNBC was pretty much convicting the cop of first degree murder.

Then came this today.



It appears at this point that the cop was responding to a call of a strong-arm robbery of a liquor store (as opposed to an armed robbery). The above video is alleged to be of Brown and his friend (one of the witnesses). Keep in mind that Brown was 6'4 and 300 pounds.

Let's assume that the cop stopped Brown and his companion because they matched the description of the robbery suspects. Did the cop know it was not an armed robbery, or did he have reason to believe a weapon might be involved? (Brown was unarmed.) It appears that a reasonable case can be made for the stop. However, is it reasonable to believe that the cop would try to put an arm lock on a man Brown's size and drag him into the vehicle-apparently, through the window, no less? That strains credulity.

One thing that has been stated by the police is that Brown tried to grab the officer's weapon. We don't know that one way or the other. It does appear that one shot was fired from inside the vehicle and that police recovered a shell casing inside the car. The officer was reportedly treated for bruises and/or a swollen face at the hospital.

Then the question arises as to whether the cop shot Brown in the back as he tried to run and then shot him multiple times as he tried to surrender. That becomes much more problematical. Federal guidelines when I was a Customs and DEA agent dictated that you could not shoot at a fleeing felon unless he or she posed an immediate threat to the officer(s) or public, for example, being involved in a shootout and were still armed. I cannot speak for every state and local jurisdiction. Could the officer maintain he was justified in shooting Brown as he ran away because he (Brown) had just been involved in a struggle for the officer's gun, which necessitated the first shot inside the car? And what about the subsequent shots, which witnesses claim came after Brown stopped, turned around, and put his arms in the air? This is a big problem if those accounts are true.

Also a problem are the statements made by the usual crowd- Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther Party, who have descended on Ferguson, the former chanting, "No justice, no peace," and the NBPP advocating violence. Of course, there has, indeed, been violence. To the extent that the local cops crossed the line between handling peaceful protesters, and rioters and looters, I am not qualified or knowledgeable to say or judge.

As for the federal involvement, I have no problem with the FBI investigating this. As for Eric Holder, who has already taken a side by contacting Brown's family, I have no faith in him whatsoever, nor do I have any faith in his DOJ Community Resources Services, a shadowy group he formed which basically helps the community to protest. I have no problem with the protests, mind you, only the law breaking. As for that, I am not going to judge the local cops' strong response. Rioting is serious business.

As for the arrests of the two reporters, I don't know if it was justified or not, but in a riot situation, you have to realize that the cops' emotions are running on code red, and it is best to follow their directions and complain afterward.

Once in my law enforcement career, I was involved in a race riot. It was when I was an MP in Germany in the tense days of the 1960s. The military was no exception. Suffice to say it is a scary situation for everyone including the police. For bystanders, it is no time to argue with cops when they give commands.

As for the President's remarks, it was clear that he did not want to make the same mistake he made with Treyvon Martin and Henry Louis Gates. That is why he took no questions because he wanted to stick to the script and not have to ad-lib with any answers. Yet, he did strongly imply that the police had exceeded their authority in handling protesters and the journalists. That drew a rebuke from the Ferguson police.

Hopefully, calmer heads will prevail, and the investigation can proceed. I think this case is going to hang on the forensics. In the meantime, the State Highway Patrol captain who took charge yesterday has done a fine job in trying to calm things down. Hopefully, things will continue along that line.

*Update:

Looks like I spoke too soon.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/16/there-are-no-police-ferguson-store-owners-guard-businesses-with-own-guns-lack/