Tweet
I wanted to give my thoughts on the whole Ferguson debacle because I am sick and tired of the lies being spewed by the media, with the assistance of many talking heads who claim to be lawyers, many of whom probably never tried a case in front of a jury. You can read this, take it for what it's worth or not read it at all. You don't have to believe a word I say, but I am eminently qualified to speak on this subject. I carried a weapon as an enlisted MP for seven years, and have done two tours overseas, where I carried a weapon(s) 24/7. I have taught the use of force to college students and also to deploying Soldiers. I have defended a Soldier accused of causing the death of another and in my civilian capacity, I have presented hundreds of cases to the grand jury. I have lost some "friends" recently over this garbage, because they simply refuse to hear anything I have to say. Rather they hear only what they want to hear. So allow me to clear up some of the bull sh#t that is being thrown out there.
1. One of the biggest lies that is being told is that it is unheard of for a police officer, who could be a potential defendant, to testify in front of a grand jury. This would be true if an officer was charged and the DA was seeking an indictment, but many jurisdictions allow grand juries to be used as an investigatory body. So if a cop is not a suspect and can exonerate himself, I don't see a problem with an attorney allowing his client to testify. The best man at my wedding is a Houston cop and had shot an unarmed suspect 20 years ago after the suspect grab his flashlight and began beating him over the head with it. He was NOT indicted.
2. The next big lie is that the " fix was in". Many of the talking heads kept saying that the DA wasn't seeking an indictment. But why does he need to seek an indictment of his own investigation determined that he shouldn't move forward? I am surprised he even presented it to the grand jury but he was smart to do so. I mean, he had three options really. The first was just file himself but again, that would have been unethical if he truly believed there was no PC. He could have done nothing at all but then folks would have been saying he should have gone to a grand jury and let them make the call. This is why he did what he did.
3. There have been folks saying that the prosecutor actually presented the defense's case and that this is never done. Bull. In most cases, I will admit that indictments are pretty easy in the sense that you put everything on from the State's perspective. However, a prosecutor MUST present evidence that is clearly exculpatory. By this I do not mean that if the defendant told the cop he didn't do it that the officer must say this on the stand. If this is his defense, let him put it on at trial. But when there is store video showing that the alleged victim is the initial aggressor and evidence that there was self defense, a prosecutor would be unethical for not putting this evidence on.
4. The next piece of nonsense is that everyone says that if it were a civilian who shot a cop, he would be treated differently, and that the cop should have been arrest. Well, no kidding that they would be treated differently. There is almost no scenario where a civilian would be justified in using deadly force against a police officer. However, in the vast majority of cases of deadly force by cops against civilians, it is totally justified because they are permitted by law to use deadly force against civilians if necessary. Besides, who in his right mind would sign on to be a police officer if told that whenever he shoots someone, no matter what the circumstances, he would be arrested and remain in jail until trial? This is insane.
5. The last one that makes me want to throat punch someone is people saying that the cop could have shot him in the leg. And yes, some of them are lawyers. But anyone who knows anything about the use of force knows that there is no such use of force that permits an officer to do this. It is completely unauthorized because a firearm can only be used to kill. If used for anything else, it means you had authority to use it in the first place. Imagine the lawsuit if you gave a guy a limp for the rest of his life after you put in a police report that you knew you had no authority to kill but was just trying to incapacitate him with a deadly weapon.
Anyway, I am done with the conversation, particularly because this whole damn thing was news media and social media driven for the sole reason that Wilson was white and Brown was black. This kind of nonsense is going to get an innocent person killed one day and the media will have blood on their hands. They don't want a national conversation about race either. They want a politically correct conversation where any mention of what people in the hood could do to ameliorate the situation will automatically get you labelled a racist. There have been almost 800 police officers killed in the line of duty since BHO became President and nobody from the White House was at any of their funerals. Yet a thug robs a convenience store and assaults a cop and three people from the White House attend his funeral. What an absolute embarrassment.
1. One of the biggest lies that is being told is that it is unheard of for a police officer, who could be a potential defendant, to testify in front of a grand jury. This would be true if an officer was charged and the DA was seeking an indictment, but many jurisdictions allow grand juries to be used as an investigatory body. So if a cop is not a suspect and can exonerate himself, I don't see a problem with an attorney allowing his client to testify. The best man at my wedding is a Houston cop and had shot an unarmed suspect 20 years ago after the suspect grab his flashlight and began beating him over the head with it. He was NOT indicted.
2. The next big lie is that the " fix was in". Many of the talking heads kept saying that the DA wasn't seeking an indictment. But why does he need to seek an indictment of his own investigation determined that he shouldn't move forward? I am surprised he even presented it to the grand jury but he was smart to do so. I mean, he had three options really. The first was just file himself but again, that would have been unethical if he truly believed there was no PC. He could have done nothing at all but then folks would have been saying he should have gone to a grand jury and let them make the call. This is why he did what he did.
3. There have been folks saying that the prosecutor actually presented the defense's case and that this is never done. Bull. In most cases, I will admit that indictments are pretty easy in the sense that you put everything on from the State's perspective. However, a prosecutor MUST present evidence that is clearly exculpatory. By this I do not mean that if the defendant told the cop he didn't do it that the officer must say this on the stand. If this is his defense, let him put it on at trial. But when there is store video showing that the alleged victim is the initial aggressor and evidence that there was self defense, a prosecutor would be unethical for not putting this evidence on.
4. The next piece of nonsense is that everyone says that if it were a civilian who shot a cop, he would be treated differently, and that the cop should have been arrest. Well, no kidding that they would be treated differently. There is almost no scenario where a civilian would be justified in using deadly force against a police officer. However, in the vast majority of cases of deadly force by cops against civilians, it is totally justified because they are permitted by law to use deadly force against civilians if necessary. Besides, who in his right mind would sign on to be a police officer if told that whenever he shoots someone, no matter what the circumstances, he would be arrested and remain in jail until trial? This is insane.
5. The last one that makes me want to throat punch someone is people saying that the cop could have shot him in the leg. And yes, some of them are lawyers. But anyone who knows anything about the use of force knows that there is no such use of force that permits an officer to do this. It is completely unauthorized because a firearm can only be used to kill. If used for anything else, it means you had authority to use it in the first place. Imagine the lawsuit if you gave a guy a limp for the rest of his life after you put in a police report that you knew you had no authority to kill but was just trying to incapacitate him with a deadly weapon.
Anyway, I am done with the conversation, particularly because this whole damn thing was news media and social media driven for the sole reason that Wilson was white and Brown was black. This kind of nonsense is going to get an innocent person killed one day and the media will have blood on their hands. They don't want a national conversation about race either. They want a politically correct conversation where any mention of what people in the hood could do to ameliorate the situation will automatically get you labelled a racist. There have been almost 800 police officers killed in the line of duty since BHO became President and nobody from the White House was at any of their funerals. Yet a thug robs a convenience store and assaults a cop and three people from the White House attend his funeral. What an absolute embarrassment.
Comment