Ferguson Turning to Ground Zero for Growing National Anti-Police Abuse Movement


It’s been just over a week since a Ferguson cop gunned down an unarmed 18-year-old man in the middle of the street, leaving his body uncovered for four hours; an incident that sparked a week of protests, rioting, looting, lawsuits, curfews, cop spin, racial divisions, police militarization and, of course, the usual attacks on media.

Statistically speaking, the killing of Mike Brown wasn’t anything extraordinary. Just another black man gunned down by a white cop in an economically repressed neighborhood. The type of incident that might wind up as a brief in the local newspaper, if even that.

But the fact that police left his body uncovered on the street for hours, allowing residents blow up the social media realm with photos, videos and commentary, left police unable to spin the usual story that a cop was in fear for his life, not that they didn’t try.

One witness even live tweeted the shooting, providing up to the minute details in the seconds after the shooting, snapping a photo of the cop later identified as Darren Wilson standing over Brown’s body (posted above).

Another resident recorded the chilling video in the immediate aftermath that captures the shock of residents and Brown’s parents upon seeing their son lying dead in the street.


As a result, police lost control of the message before losing control of the community, which only happened after the cops claimed that Brown had attacked Wilson,  even though numerous witnesses said Wilson executed Brown while the teen was on his knees with his hands in the air.

A private autopsy just determined Brown’s body was shot six times; four bullets in his right arm and two to the head, including one at the top of the head, indicating the 6’3″ teenager was on his knees with his head down as witnesses stated. The shots don’t appear to have been shot at close range either, debunking the current spin on some sites that Brown had charged at the cop.

Today, heading into the second week of protests, the Missouri National Guard is on its way to Ferguson as well as dozens of activists from around the country, turning the St. Louis suburb into Ground Zero for the growing anti-police abuse movement in this country.

Already having sparked a wave of protests in cities that have seen their own citizens killed at the hands of police, it is no longer about Mike Brown, if it ever was about him.

And it’s no longer about police violence against black people, even if it is about police violence against black people in Ferguson.

It’s about Kelly Thomas and Eric Garner and Jim Boyd and Israel Hernandez and Luis Rodriguez and the hundreds of innocent people killed every year.

It’s about the woman beaten on the side of the road by a California Highway Patrol officer. It’s about the baby almost killed during a no-knock drug raid in Georgia that resulted in no arrests and no drugs. It’s about the man in New Mexico pulled over for a minor traffic violation before he was forced to endure anal probes for drugs that never existed.

It’s about those of us who have been beaten and arrested for recording cops in public, treated like enemy combatants in our own country by an increasingly militarized police force that has gone from “Protect and Serve” to “Comply or Die.”

It’s about all of us, no matter where you stand because the cops have been building this “us vs them” mentality for years now, a war they started and a war they were winning until they killed Mike Brown.

It is in Ferguson, a mostly black community served by an almost all-white police department with a history of violence and fabricated reports, that the tide started to change.

Last week, a poll indicated that 45 percent of Americans do not trust the justice system while 37 percent do and another 19 percent said they didn’t know, perhaps thinking their phones were tapped by the growing police state and not wanting to give the wrong answer.

Screen Shot 2014-08-18 at 7.58.04 AM

Also, several politicians as well as the attorney general are questioning whether we have gone too far with the militarization, which is infuriating the cops on Police One.

Even USA Today, which rarely criticizes police, came out with a report that police are killing an average of more than 400 people a year, citing “very incomplete” information from the FBI, including the entire state of Florida, so the actual number is much higher.

And the fact that a prominent New York doctor stepped in to do the autopsy, knowing the official autopsy could take months and be completely falsified, spoke volumes.

People may criticize the looting and rioting, which has been done by a minority of the protesters, a few bad apples as they say about the bad cops, but it is the looting and rioting that grabbed the nation’s attention where they saw Ferguson transform itself into Fallujah.




Besides, it was the protesters themselves that stood guard around the stores to prevent them from further getting looted as the camouflaged-wearing cops threatened reporters with arrest.

When was the last time that we saw police earnestly police themselves as the protesters did Friday night? Large groups of young, black men clamoring for the live stream cameras to tell the world that they do not believe in looting their community, that they are just sick of the cops looting their community of basic civil liberties.

What we’re seeing in Ferguson has the potential to permanently tip the iceberg against the growing police state in this country, much of it a result of our country spreading freedom abroad before using those war machines to squash freedom at home.

Ferguson Jake Crawford
Sunday night in Ferguson. Photo by Jake Crawford of We Copwatch

But the battle has just begun. The cops are not about to lay down their ams. They are trained to do anything but that.

They are trained to kill instead. And many of them seem itching to kill. Begging for a movement, a look in your eyes, an assertive stance, a belligerent attitude, anything that would make them “fear for their lives.”

That is why it’s going to be dangerous in Ferguson these next few days and perhaps these next few weeks. With the national guard coming in, further militarizing the town, and the activists coming in, solidifying with the residents who have remained quiet way too long, it is very unpredictable as how this will work itself out.

But it needs to work itself out because it’s not just Ferguson, but every urban city and rural town in this country. Some more than others, but it’s gotten to the point where we can’t even call the cops for help without fearing they might turn on us.

Despite knowing the entire world is watching, St. Louis County police have arrested, attacked and threatened so many journalists, that it’s impossible to keep count, but the National Press Photographers Association has been busy.

According to the New York Times:

Police officials in Ferguson made it clear that they had no interest in accommodating news coverage. Officers in riot gear tear-gassed a crew from Al Jazeera working on a stand-up far from the action, then walked over and laid their equipment on the ground after they fled. Two reporters, Wesley Lowery of The Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of The Huffington Post, were arrested at a McDonald’s, perhaps for the crime of lurking with intent to order a cheeseburger. Antonio French, a Democratic alderman from St. Louis who had been documenting the protests and the security response nonstop on Twitter, was arrested as well.

(In one bit of irony in the aftermath of the events on Wednesday, President Obama said, “Here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their job and report to the American people what they see on the ground.” This from an administration that has aggressively sought to block reporting and in some instances criminalize it.)

News organizations learned about the arrest and harassment of their reporters on Twitter and were able to take steps to get them out of jail. In the meantime, important information continues to flow out of Ferguson. As much as any traditional wire service, Twitter spread the remarkable work of David Carson, a photographer at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch who managed to take pictures despite being pushed around by both the police and the protesters.

Sunday night in yet another clash between cops and protesters, a cop was caught on video threatening to kill a live streamer for having a light turned on, as if they don’t shine flashlights in our faces and lenses on a regular basis.

“Get down, get the fuck out of here and get that light off, or you’re getting shot (or shelled) with this,” the officer could be heard yelling at Mustafa Hussein, a reporter from KARG Argus Radio, who had sued local and state cops earlier in the week for denying him the right to record where they reached “an agreement” that established what was already established.


According to the Washington Post:

Since chaos erupted in the streets of Ferguson, Mo., more than a week ago, journalists from all over the world have flocked to the scene. They have also, increasingly, become the target of police arrests.

Overnight, several journalists reported being detained, threatened or otherwise prevented from covering the unfolding story. The arrest late Sunday night of three reporters — Robert Klemko of Sports Illustrated, Chicago-based Financial Times reporter Neil Munshi and Rob Crilly, a foreign correspondent for the Telegraph (and no stranger to war zones) — reportedly came as the journalists attempted to gather more information while police faced off with protesters.

They were ordered arrested by Missouri Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, who has been serving as a critical bridge between the Ferguson community and law enforcement.

Police claimed Sunday night that protesters were throwing molotov cocktails at them, which is what prompted them to start shooting tear gas at them, but three journalists I spoke with that were with the protesters never saw a single molotov cocktail.

Photo by Jake Crawford of We Copwatch


I’m planning on sending PINAC crew member Taylor Hardy out there to do on the ground reporting, so it would be nice to get some financial support as we are still searching for seed money to build what is now being treated as a startup. Tax-deductible donations can be made in the upper right-hand corner of the site.

Also, Charlie Grapski, who is overseeing PINAC’s Open Record Project, has provided this guide on how to make public records requests for records of the incident.

Finally, if you hear of a protest in your area, don’t hesitate to join it. And don’t be afraid of chanting Hands Up, Don’t Shoot with your arms raised next time you see a cop – the defiant chant that started on the streets of Ferguson the night of the killing and is spreading throughout the country – showing them we’re not afraid while shaming them that we are afraid.

Because look at the way they treat reporters in the video below knowing they are on camera. And imagine how they act when they are off camera.





About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.

Check Also

Over the years, Springfield police detective would happily pose with money seized from drug suspects. Now he stands accused of pocketing that money. (Photos via Mass Live)

Retired Massachusetts Cop Charged with Stealing $400,000 from Evidence Room

In 2014, Massachusetts Police Detective Kevin Burnham retired after 43 years on the job with …

  • Fotaugrafee

    Hands down, one of the single BEST goddamn articles ever written on this website.

    • Carlos_Miller

      Thanks! It was another all-nighter.

    • Rail Car Fan

      I agree.

      Rail Car Fan

  • borderraven

    BRAVO! Carlos Miller, you deserve the Online Journalism Award for Excellence.


  • Charlie Grapski

    Hopefully our “law enforcement” troll will not show up to muddy this thread.

    • Boko Hos

      You mean Ex C(unt)op-Law Shill?

    • Rail Car Fan

      Your comment brings up a question I’ve had for some time now.

      “What ever became of Johnny “Cops Can Do NO Wrong!” Law?

      I haven’t seen anything posted by him in a long time.

      Rail Car Fan

      • Charlie Grapski

        Unfortunately in such significant subjects as we deal with through PINAC – you are going to get inundated, the more you are effective at getting information to the public, with both “self-appointed” and actually “employed” (professional) trolls.

        I would not be surprised if the current troll is doing so on a payroll.

        I do not know about this previous poster you refer to – it could, in fact, be the same person. Or just another troll.

        BUT – just to add – the person being referred to in shorthand as ECLS is not a troll. He does have a perspective – that is critical of much of policing – but still retains a belief in much of the rest. His participation is not meant to disrupt, the deceive, to muddy, to discourage, etc. It is to put a particular perspective into the discourse. If you engage him – he will honestly and sincerely respond. You may still disagree – but you CAN have a viable and valuable conversation with him. That is not the case with our “default” troll of the past few days (never posted before this month – I might add – he has only recently arrived in this particular context – with a very clear agenda).

  • Raylan Givens

    It’s possible that the cop just snapped or overreacted beyond the point of return. If that’s the case, he’ll pay the price. If not, then he’ll still pay the price. Either way he’s screwed and the city will most likely burn.

  • Chip Seal

    Bravo Carlos, thank you! I admire your suggestion to protest locally with “hands up, don’t shoot” whenever one comes across a cop while going about your business. (I started doing that last Thursday, so of course I approve!)

  • Charlie Grapski

    Well one thing the VIDEO and PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence proves – is that our “troll” from last night – spouting the latest official “ad hoc” justification for the shooting – was WRONG.

    As I repeatedly tried to state when he would claim that the shooting was plausibly asserted as being caused by a struggle between the kid and the cop for the gun – it is NOT plausible.

    First – what we see here (and what others tried to raise – to no avail to this troll) is that the body and the police SUV are several yards apart (I think someone said 35 feet).

    That fact alone NEGATES the claim that this was a PURELY DEFENSIVE shooting – because the officer FEARED FOR HIS LIFE.

    [However – of not – this “troll” did expose himself further – when he argued, as police WANT to believe and DO argue – contrary to reason, morality – and the law if actually respected … that (a) police MUST and OUGHT to shoot to kill – every time; and (b) ANY physical resistance of an individual JUSTIFIES an officer using a gun (and using implies – from the prior assumption – that it is used to kill).]

    The troll keep stating – incessantly – that there was a struggle IN THE SUV.

    He says the following is what occurred and what CAUSED and JUSTIFIED the shooting and killing. (Because he believes any shooting therefore – by default – justifies killing).

    According to our troll (trying to put all the publicly known evidence into a story that holds together (even if not well)) – Brown had just committed a “robbery”. But the officer – when he FIRST encountered Brown – did not know this. Brown, at that first encounter, was not afraid of being arrested (despite having committed the “robbery” [it was actually more “shoplifting” than what robbery implies and entails]. So – Brown walked in the middle of the street, at a leisurely gate, even though a police vehicle was driving up behind him. And – even though he just committed a “robbery” – when the officer demanded he get out of the street – he mocked and antagonized the officer. Because he was not, at that time, afraid of being arrested (as if Brown had known what the officer did or did not know).

    Then – according to our trolls stretched and implausible ad hoc justificatory argument – the officer RECEIVED information about the “robbery” [one note: this troll says it is unreasonable to demand or expect the incident report of the shooting – even today – because these are not produced immediately; but – at the same time – he relies on the incident report of the “robbery” – which was produced IMMEDIATELY apparently].

    Now – knowing about the “robbery” [but strangely – the troll argues – not in an effort to make an arrest on the robbery] – the officer engages with Brown a SECOND time.

    This time, however, Brown IS scared of being arrested for stealing a pack of cigarillos. [Again – why was he scared the second time, and not the first?]

    So – unlike 99.9% of those in such a situation who do not submit to the officer – and RUNNING AWAY … Brown, who is now afraid of a shoplifting arrest, decides that HE is going to single-handedly attack and overpower the armed police officer – take his gun – and shoot and kill him. To prevent his being arrested for shoplifting a pack of cigarillos.

    So – while the officer is INSIDE his vehicle (but also attempting to get out of it) – Brown rushes toward the vehicle and slams the door shut – pinning the officer INSIDE the vehicle.

    And now the story gets really absurd.

    Brown (outside the vehicle) and the officer (inside the vehicle) are locked in a life-and-death struggle – with Brown “going for” the officer’s gun [justification for shooting and killing – reasonable fear for the officer’s life].

    BUT – as I pointed out – if the officer is INSIDE and Brown is OUTSIDE – how can such a struggle add up – particularly with the detail of going for the gun. The DOOR would be BETWEEN the two.

    Yelling and screaming the troll protests – the window was open. Of course – he only ADDS that detail (from a PRESUMPTION – but with the CERTAINTY of a zealot) after the FLAW in the story is pointed out.

    SO – OK – add an open window – in an (and I stress) SUV.

    Well – an SUV sits considerably high off the ground. You CLIMB IN to get inside. You CLIMB UP to get there from the outside.

    So – with this height differential – we have to presume a fairly “large” kid, on the outside, is climbing UP to the window – with an officer inside (with the “high ground” so to speak) and looking DOWN at his assailant …

    … AND in this – the kid is so THOROUGHLY INSIDE (he has climbed up – and then climbed inside) the window – that WHILE completely overpowering the officer (inside the vehicle) from his partial squeeze up and in the window – he ALSO has one hand free to REACH DOWNWARDS, toward the seat, where the officer’s holstered gun on his hip was, GRAB THE GUN … and thus give the “cause” for shooting that the police are looking to INSERT into the situation. (A real and reasonable fear for the officer’s life).

    NOW – as ABSURD AND IMPLAUSIBLE as all that is – let’s ASSUME all that happened as claimed.

    The fact that the kid is THIRTY-FIVE FEET AWAY from the vehicle means that ALTHOUGH he was UNSUCCESSFUL in the struggle, ALTHOUGH he did NOT get the gun, the officer EXITED the vehicle (presumably the kid was not RETREATING down the street – otherwise the officer could not have gotten out of the door – with the kid’s body half-way through the window, struggling for the gun, and overpowering completely the officer).

    As the kid RAN AWAY – the officer, because he PREVIOUSLY was (assuming this) in fear of his life (but no longer facing ANY threat to his life), believed he had a RIGHT to shoot – and thus a RIGHT to kill.

    If the officer shot this unarmed man – regardless of what occurred previously (either at the store or at the SUV) – from thirty-five feet away – this WAS an act of murder. Because a police officer MAY ONLY legally and MORALLY shoot (and not always TO kill) – IF and WHEN there is a real, reasonable, serious actual threat – at that time – that this individual was going to cause SERIOUS harm to the officer or others. (AND YES – that IS the law – properly understood – under the 1985 US Supreme Court decision in Tennessee v. Garner – which stated that – even an ARMED suspect, FLEEING arrest, cannot be shot and killed – just because they are fleeing or just because they are armed. MORE has to be included to give a reasonable belief that if not STOPPED immediately – the person is going to seriously harm the officer or others).

    It is VERY SIMPLE. But the authorities DO NOT LIKE the LAW. And so – like our troll (I suspect he is employed within that realm) – they play SEMANTIC GAMES to try and DILUTE and DENUDE the law of its actual purpose and intent. And to TWIST the law and logic – to JUSTIFY the unjustifiable (either in law, in logic, or in reason or morality).

    • Raylan Givens

      I don’t agree with that view or reasoning (not yours). This is a difficult and complex case as not everyone is being honest (whiteness’s) including the police alike.

      If you recall, Johnson stated that he ran and crouched behind the “first car” he came to. He then stated Mike Brown “ran past him” and told him to “Keep running Bro”.

      If you view the Cell Phone Video above, plus others online (with the police officer (shooter) still on the scene) there are not any parked vehicles on either side of the street between the cruiser and Brown on the pavement. So how exactly did Brown run past Johnson on the street while he (Johnson) was hiding behind a car?

    • Mike

      I’m sorry, but you are posting a lot of speculation and facts that simply aren’t in evidence currently. For a website that is so insistent on calling out cops that misrepresent, why is the opposite misrepresentation allowed? Even Carlos in the article misrepresents the findings of the autopsy. Considering both sides have been shown to be less than truthful, perhaps it lies somewhere in the middle, and we should wait for more evidence to cry “thug” against either Brown or Wilson.

      • Charlie Grapski


        A critic who says you are making a lot of “speculation and facts that simply aren’t in evidence” – without SPECIFICALLY stating WHAT is a “speculation” or a “fact” that has been stated – as if it WERE a fact – is not making any substantive critique.

        If you have a SPECIFIC POINT – I’d suggest POINTING IT OUT.

        • Mike

          In terms of Carlos: the findings of the autopsy.

          In terms of your comment: any reference to fleeing; references to the distance of the vehicle and body determining shooting distance; any speculation as to what happened inside the vehicle; the relative positions of Brown/Wilson in and out of the vehicle; speculation on the emotional state of the officer as he exited the vehicle. You get the idea.

          Feel free to substantiate, I would love to be proven wrong, but considering the evidence reported on its doubtful.

          • Charlie Grapski

            “In terms of Carlos: the findings of the autopsy.” – that is simply too broad to address. You need to be far more specific to claim what you have on this.

            “In terms of your comment: any reference to fleeing; references to the distance of the vehicle and body determining shooting distance;”

            I believe I was CLEAR on that – but if not – let me CLARIFY further: What I said was that GIVEN THE PHOTOGRAPHIC AND VIDEO EVIDENCE – we can SEE the distance between the officer’s SUV and the DEAD BODY laying in the street.

            That is not speculation – it is a FACT. There IS that distance.

            What I then did – with that fact – was, yes, to SPECULATE. But I did not claim anything more than that. But it is not mere “speculation” – but ANALYSIS of the facts at hand and other information we have.

            “any speculation as to what happened inside the vehicle;”

            I SPECIFICALLY DO NOT speculate what went on inside the vehicle. My point is that WE DON’T KNOW what went on – despite those claiming the “official” (changing) story is true.

            What I HAVE said about all THAT SPECULATION – is that, logically, IT DOES NOT ADD UP. I say – specifically – that was is being said about that – is NOT PLAUSIBLE.

            “the relative positions of Brown/Wilson in and out of the vehicle;”

            See again the above. But add to it: the PHOTOGRAPHIC and VIDEO evidence – DOES provide information on the distance between the officer and the victim – when he was shot and killed.

            AND – in addition to all eyewitness accounts – the AUTOPSY DOES state that the shots were fired FROM A DISTANCE.

            “speculation on the emotional state of the officer as he exited the vehicle.”

            Again – I don’t claim anything about that. I do offer “speculations” – but they are put forth to COUNTER other speculations that DON’T ADD UP. Either to the KNOWN facts – or even INTERNALLY in a logical sense.

          • Mike

            The autopsy didn’t show that Brown was on his knees as Carlos suggests, not did it conclude anything on shit distance, as I’ve said previously.

            It is speculation that the officer was firing from an immediate area around his vehicle as you suggest. The distance between the body nd vehicle suggest the Brown moved roughly 35 feet after being next to the vehicle; it’s speculation to relate that to the shots fired.

            Saying we don’t know what happened and then giving a story and plausibility of a story, is speculating.

            By positions of Wilson and Brown I was referring to your comment of Brown looking up, Wilson looking down and any other references to the initial contact. The SUVs in question do not have lifts and a 6’4″ person could easily look down on the driver without having to step up.

            Do you have a link to the autopsy? I haven’t seen a reporting saying the autopsy determined this. TIA

          • Charlie Grapski

            Mike – I agree the autopsy does not conclude that Burns was on his knees. But that is not something that I have stated.

            The person who conducted the autopsy stated, clearly, that a fairly significant gunshot wound to the head – likely the fatal shot and final shot – came into his head “from above.”

            He stated that this COULD HAVE been the case (a) where the victim was submitting to the officer with his head down; OR (b) where the victim was charging, head down, towards the officer.

          • Charlie Grapski

            As for distance – the person who conducted the autopsy CLEARLY STATES that all evidence that he had before him indicates that the shots were all fired AT A DISTANCE.

            He does ADD a caveat: that he only had the BODY as evidence – and thus the nature of the wounds and the absence of powder burns.

            He DID state that IF the clothes HAVE powder burns on them – then this would CONTRADICT that conclusion (limited) and suggest that at least one shot was fired from a fairly close distance.

          • Mike

            Agree to disagree as it seems it’s a semantic argument based on the narrative of the media rather than the actual autopsy report (at least I haven’t seen the full report).

          • Charlie Grapski

            Here is the pertinent paragraph from the NYT.

            “The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that DETERMINATION could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.”

            It clearly refers to the DETERMINATION of the autopsy – that the shots appear to have been fired from a distance.

            It states that that DETERMINATION could change – if the clothing were examined and showed residue.

            But that still says that – given the evidence and from that evidence (without other key evidence) the autopsy results DETERMINED (in a qualified sense as stated again) that the evidence suggests firing at a DISTANCE.

          • Mike

            And again, it’s still the editorial of the Times, not a quote from the autopsy. Also, not very close doesn’t inherently mean at a distance, which was my other point. What do you equate is at a distance? In the context of the location of the car, in my mind would be 20+ feet. Close would be 5 or less, intermediate somewhere between.

          • Charlie Grapski

            I am not stating anything about the distance based on the autopsy report – other than this particular autopsy states that given THAT LIMITED evidence (the body alone) that this evidence suggests a shot “from a distance” rather than “from close range.” I understand the distinction – and make no claims about WHAT that distance was.

            From the photographic evidence of the scene – I can see the distance between the SUV and the body.

            That distance does not rule out that the officer and the victim were at a distance when shot.

            ALL I have said on this – is that GIVEN the “official” story about a struggle for the gun with the officer trapped in the SUV – the DISTANCE evidence of the photographs THOROUGHLY CONTRADICTS the plausibility of that “story.”

            That’s all I have said.

          • Mike

            And what mid saying is that perhaps we disagree based on differing opinions as to semantics. If you believe at a distance refers to something more than 12 inches, that would explain the discrepancy. Understand?

          • Charlie Grapski

            I understand.

            But let me be clear – I recognize that the distance referred to in the autopsy is not a large distance, in feet, but a smaller distance.

            I do not argue that this autopsy proves that the officer was shooting from 35-feet away (which someone may mistakenly assume of my position).

            What I have said, regarding DISTANCE, is the distance between the victim’s body and the officer’s vehicle CONFLICTS with the story that the officer was trapped in the vehicle, in a life-and-death struggle for his gun, and so shot and killed the victim in an act of necessary self-defense.

          • Mike

            Fair enough. One of the latest stories I heard was the officer chased him and Brown turned around and confronted/charged him. Which depending in the initial confrontation may make the officer fear for his life. Whether or not that fear was reasonable seems iffy at the moment. But considering an able bodied person is able to close ~20 feet in about 1.5 seconds it’s hard to say either way definitively. Hence the need for additional crime scene evidence to come forth.

          • Gregor
          • Gregor

            Not picking on Charlie… I just clicked the first post I saw and replied.

          • Scott

            Remember that without examining the clothing they can not determine the distance between the gun and Mr. Brown. the words you quote “…very close range…” were used because as they also stated that no powder burns could occur at 18 inches. It appears that people are assuming that ‘at a distance’ means that Brown was far awy from the cop but in fact he could have been two feet, five feet, or twenty feet.

            Assuming the cop did run after Brown then the distance between the cop and Brown was less than the distance between the body and the vehicle. Since there were no vehicles parked between the cop’s vehicle and the body then Brown had to be moving towards the cop – Brown’s friend was behind a vehicle when Brown passed him and told him to keep running. How fast he may have been moving or why remains unknown.

          • Charlie Grapski


            Dr. Case,

            This is a formal request for a public record under Missouri’s Public Records (Sunshine) law.

            I hereby formally request that you provide me with the AUTOPSY of Michael Brown.

            If you believe that any portion of this public record is exempt under the law – then please provide me, in writing, with the SPECIFIC and EXPLICIT statutory exemption being relied upon – and REDACT that particular information from the report.

            However, let me anticipate in advance your likely claim that this entire record is exempt because you have turned it over to another agency which may be investigating the incident that led rise to the death of the person you performed the autopsy upon.

            Missouri law, with regard to public records, must be NARROWLY construed. Thus there are no “blanket” exemptions – only highly particular and clearly specified exemptions. The only exemption applicable IN THIS CONTEXT – is the exemption for the “REPORT of the INVESTIGATION.”

            This does not mean that ALL records that may be considered within the scope of the investigation are exempted. In fact – any record that existed independent of that investigation and had a status as a public record on its own – is NOT exempt under that particular exemption, for the “report of the investigation,” during the “ongoing status” of the investigation.

            THEREFORE the autopsy report – unless you provide a SPECIFIC STATUTE that pertains to the exempt status of an “autopsy report” – is NOT exempt, IS a public record, and MUST be provided without delay.

            Therefore please provide me, as an attachment to an email, an electronic copy of the autopsy report.

            If you claim you do not have that record in electronic form and cannot provide it therefore in that format – email me and I will send you an address to which it can be sent via mail.

            Thank you,

            Charles Grapski

            Not the same autopsy report (this is the official one for the City – the other was a private one for the family). But this report SHOULD have been made public – and has no legal exemption to keep it secret during an on-going investigation into the shooting. The two are independent.

            The BIAS of the medical examiner, however, for the City’s position that the shooting is “justified” – was made clear by her only two statements:

            I WILL tell you SOME information that SUPPORTS the City/Police position. The shots came from the front.

            I WILL NOT TELL YOU ANY MORE because this information is confidential and exempt because there is an ongoing investigation.

            Well if the latter were true – then the former statement was inappropriate.

            But since the latter is untrue – the autopsy itself should be released – rather than allow SELECTIVE release of information to support a particular agenda.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Again – I don’t deny most of what I said above was speculation. It WAS presented as such – but to logically deconstruct the “official” story being repeated by others as if true – to show it is NOT PLAUSIBLE.

            What I DID say is that IF that story were true – then the DISTANCE between the dead body and the vehicle ITSELF CONTRADICTS that story.

            THAT is my point.

          • Mike

            On that count I completely agree, again apologies if I mistakenly misrepresented you.

        • Mike

          There hasn’t been evidence released that conclusively supports either story. Nothing that states the location of shell casings, not trajectory of the shots fired, no crime scene findings, no report on the clothes warn by either person, etc.

          So far it seems the officer used excessive force, and yet the autopsy contradicts Johnson’s story of Brown being shot in the back.

          • Charlie Grapski

            The autopsy does not support the shot in the back aspect. (But then again – there are now THREE autopsies being conducted – including one being called upon to be conducted by the DoJ).

            The current autopsy report is ODD – because the person conducting it was not given, for example, the victim’s clothing. Thus there is reason for further autopsies.

            BUT – this particular autopsy report DOES support the claim that the shots were fired at a DISTANCE.

            Yes – if they had the clothes and on the clothes were powder burns – this would CONTRADICT that claim for ALL shots fired.

            BUT – in the absence of that – the report DOES pretty strongly indicate that most (if not all) shots were fired at a distance.

          • Mike

            No it doesn’t support that, it’s agnostic, it has no conclusion. It supports the fact that Brown was shot, something that was being argued against.

          • Charlie Grapski

            This particular (odd and incomplete) autopsy – DOES conclude that the shots appear to be fired at a distance.

            It then states a caveat – that this is determined WITHOUT COMPLETE INFORMATION. Based solely on the gunshot wounds themselves. And the condition of the body.

            It DOES state that – IF the clothes were inspected (which is odd that they were not) – AND THEN IF the clothes contained powder burns – then this would be evidence of at least one shot from fairly close range.

            BUT – other than that caveat – this incomplete autopsy – DOES conclude that, from what it reviewed, the findings all indicate that the shots were all fired FROM A DISTANCE.

          • Mike

            No it doesn’t, at least not according to the NYT. They relate that the bullets do not appear to have been shot from a close distance, but that would chance with additional details. That isn’t equivalent to saying the autopsy shows the shots were fired from distance.

          • Charlie Grapski

            That IS what I have said. The autopsy – and the NYT story – both say that from the evidence in THAT autopsy – it appears that the shots were all fired at a distance – given the gunshot wounds and the absence of powder burns. AND that IF the clothes are examined (why they were not is still a question) – AND were found to have powder burns on them – then THAT FACT would ALTER those conclusions.

            BUT – the report and what has been said about it – does say, in its LIMITED statement (saying that other evidence COULD change that), that given what was presented as evidence, that evidence supports and suggests that the shots were fired from a distance.

          • Mike

            Just as it doesn’t support that he was charging at Wilson.

          • Charlie Grapski

            But you see Mike – we don’t disagree. You misread my post – which contained the “official” (the latest ad hoc justification) position – given by a troll who was here last night.

            My post does not speculate on any of that – or claim more than we know. It REFUTES – by logically deconstructing – that troll’s statement of the “official” justification.

          • Mike

            In that case I apologize, didn’t see the counter speculation that apparently ran rampant.

        • Mike

          There is also no evidence Brown was on drugs as suggested by the daft Fox News commentator.

    • Rail Car Fan

      Great post… really G R E A T post!

      Rail Car Fan

  • Gregor

    I’m the loudest voice of contempt when I see police have done something wrong. And they do wrong very often. But, I usually reserve my contempt for those situations where there’s evidence of wrongdoing. There is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing (so far) on this cop’s part. As a matter of fact, the only evidence of wrongdoing so far is on the part of Michael Brown. It seems he was an out of control character who finally went too far.
    Ferguson is just the latest overreaction-before-the-facts-are-in by the left who want to use it to advance the Inequality Agenda. This event had nothing to do with social justice or income inequality. It had to do with one cop and one young man who got shot. Burning down property, looting, and whining by the left will not get to the facts.
    For once, I would like to see the facts come in (when there is no video released immediately after) before the knee jerk reactionaries jump in to advance their organization or agenda.

    • Charlie Grapski

      That is simply not an accurate description of the known evidence and facts.

    • Rail Car Fan

      @ Gregor…

      “There is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing (so far) on this cop’s part.”

      There are others who think differently when a cop shoots a unarmed person.

      Rail Car Fan

      • Gregor

        A 6’4″ 300 pound “teenager” who is acting strangely? If he’s running at me, God help him. A person doesn’t have to be armed to be a deadly threat. Go back to Kumbaya and let the grown ups talk now.

        • Rail Car Fan

          First off “Gregor”…

          My statement of:

          “There are others who think differently when a cop shoots a unarmed person” is a FACTUAL one.

          With every cop shooting situation you can have one of 3 responses from the general public in which they…

          1.) Agree with the shooting
          2.) Disagree with the shooting
          3.) Have NO opinion at this time

          If you had taken the time to read what was posted, you would have noticed I did not say that my comment was specifically toward the Ferguson situation, but was a general overall cop shooting a unarmed PERSON incident… and in doing so did NOT mention it being a teenager or using Browns name

          Your posting of: “A 6’4” 300 pound “teenager” who is acting strangely? If he’s running at
          me, God help him. A person doesn’t have to be armed to be a deadly threat”, has absolutely NO bearing on my non-Ferguson generalized statement.

          As far as your last sentence of: “Go back to Kumbaya and let the grown ups talk now”, only shows your ignorance as to who I am and my status as a natural born American (along with many of my previous family generations).

          Rail Car Fan

  • Charlie Grapski

    The Brown Autopsy is pretty damning – if the law were respected and followed when police shoot (and kill). More likely than not (except for the added dimension of a national spotlight and a racially-tense stand off between the public and the state) the officer will not be charged. (More likely than not – if charged – he will not be found guilty).

    But that does not mean the public should NOT demand the charge and the trial – and take actions to TRY and overcome the institutional status-quo to seek actual JUSTICE in a corrupted system. It just means that WE must fight harder and smarter.

    Here is a story about the autopsy:


    • Fascist Slayer

      Regardless of what people may think of Brown, If the United States was interested in the rule of law and in easing tensions, and they are not, but if they were the very first thing they would have done is fire and arrest the police officers who arrested and detained the journalist in that McDonalds, the first time. They then would arrest and fire the police officers who gas bombed and shot rubber bullets at the news crews who were reporting from the side lines, and then they would arrest the police officers who were threatening to shoot and kill journalist last night. But I don’t guess Americans will be seeing anything like that anytime soon, now will they.

  • Boko Hos

    Great article.

  • Police Lie

    According to Carlos this is just “another black man gunned down by a white police officer”. Actually , this is another violent black criminal who was out victimizing the innocent members of society when he assaulted a white police officer.
    Race has nothing to do with this case unless you mean that blacks are far more likely to commit violent crimes than whites.
    Race has nothing to do with this case unless you mean that mainstream liberal media only reports on supposed police abuse if the “victim” is black, gay or illegal alien.
    Race has nothing to do with this case except for the professional race baiters like Al Sharpton and I guess people like Carlos Miller now.

    • JayBone

      >Race has nothing to do with this case…

      Racial profiling is certainly one aspect of this case. The black population of Ferguson is 63%, yet blacks represent 86% of all police stops and 92% of all police searches. Blacks in Ferguson are twice as likely to be arrested during a traffic stop.


    • Boko Hos

      Actually, it is nothing more than a cop murdering an unarmed asshole. I know the asshole part outweighs the murder part, in your statist view, but your inability or unwillingness to understand the real problem is precisely why you need to do more reading and less typing.

      • Police Lie

        I think more evidence is coming out to show that in fact the unarmed asshole attacked the cop. (after he committed strong armed robbery on an innocent person)

        • Charlie Grapski

          You “think” – but apparently not very well. Given your statement about Carlos above (“Because Carlos is a liberal who is biased against white Christians.”).

          And your continued use of phrases such as “unarmed asshole” only further show just how little credence ought to be given to your “thoughts.”

        • Boko Hos

          Thinking aside, we already know the guy took a bullet to the top of the head, that isn’t exactly a confirmation of an attack. More importantly, being an asshole shouldn’t carry a death sentence, unless you advocate shooting most of the cops in these videos.

    • Gregor

      There is no evidence that Brown assaulted this officer. Why can’t everyone wait for real data before jumping to a conclusion? Geez.

      • DocRambo

        Orbital blowout fracture = incontrovertible evidence of serious bodily injury on the part of Mr. Brown. GSW to top of head confirms (in my mind) he was rushing the officer with his head down. Your unconfirmed anecdotes do not constitute “data.” Many witnesses, and serendipitous audio on one of the videos, confirms Brown’s rushing the officer. Looks pretty damning to me, but, hey, you can go dig up his sixth grade school picture in his hoodie if you want to add even more fuel to the fire without any evidence.

    • Kerfuffulator

      The obvious troll is obvious


    Aug 18, 2014 Police Gas Residents of Ferguson For Over an Hour


  • Police Lie

    How come Carlos didn’t write an article about the Bundy Ranch being ground zero for police and government abuse ?
    Because Carlos is a liberal who is biased against white Christians.

    • Charlie Grapski

      How come Carlos didn’t write an article about Obama’s last press conference? Obviously (your logic not mine) because he is a Tea-Party “Republican” with an agenda who does not give Obama credit.

    • Charlie Grapski

      “Because Carlos is a liberal who is biased against white Christians.”

      Well with that sentence – we know what we are dealing with in this individual. Absolute IGNORANCE.

    • Carlos_Miller

      The Bundy Ranch didn’t spark protests in several cities throughout the country.

      • Police Lie

        It should have. The liberal media didn’t champion the cause of the Bundys like it champions the cause of black strong armed robbers.

        • Carlos_Miller

          You don’t need the media these days to back your cause. The Occupy movement spread throughout the country without the backing of the media.

          • Gregor

            Okay Carlos, sit back and think about that. Occupy was all I saw for days upon endless days on all media outlets.

          • Charlie Grapski

            AH – but what did it take to get the mainstream media to pay attention to and report on Occupy?

            It did not happen on its own.

  • 1shot1kill

    The Missouri National Guard is on it’s way? Welcome to FALLUJAH,MISSOURI boys.

    • Falutin Free

      Hopefully there isn’t a repeat of the Kent State University massacre.

      • MRAP

        Give them time.

  • Jbroyles

    Overall a great article. I agree with 99.9% of what was reported. As a matter of fact, I agree with 100% of what was reported beyond the shooting itself. It is still too soon to draw conclusions about exactly what happened because there are now conflicting witnesses and witnesses who have told stories but then admitted they arrived just after the shooting stopped. I still however think there is ample evidence that the police (at all levels) have handled this situation about as poorly as possible. From what I see, there is only one paragraph the merits a correction:

    “A private autopsy just determined Brown’s body was shot six times; four bullets in his right arm and two to the head, including one at the top of the head, indicating the 6’3″ teenager was on his knees with his head down as witnesses stated. The shots don’t appear to have been shot at close range either, debunking the current spin on some sites that Brown had charged at the cop.”

    Baden never stated that Brown was on his knees and specifically referenced that he may have been down in a position of surrender OR charging the officer.

    The witnesses differ on this fact so it’s not simply speculation that he may have been charging the officer. There are facts surrounding the actual shooting and whatever confrontation may have occurred around the car that still need to be cleared up. That being said, the current situation in Ferguson is as much about the police response after the shooting and for that, there is no confusion at all. This was simply handled horribly and if police didn’t routinely trample on people’s rights and commit numerous crimes including assault and murder and more importantly cover up for each other, then perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. They don’t get the benefit of my doubt, ever, and they made that bed themselves.

  • http://cynicalinny.blogspot.com/ Cynic in New York

    While the anti-brutatily movement gaining more support I question the actual merit of many. The track records of both liberals and conservatives show otherwise. Their track records show that they have no problem calling foul when their group of statists are targeted by government thugs but cheer them on when they go after their enemies.

    Don’t know if anyone here follows Radley Balko on twitter, liberals have been flamming him on twitter for being silent on the issue. (anyone know even knows what Balko is all about knows thats full of shit). Liberals who have no problems with government violence are now all of a sudden try to say that they believe in peace and libertarians are for the status quo? Thats quite the long leap.

    Then there are conservatives who famous phrase to squawk out when anyone dares criticize government thugs; “law and order”. I’m all of a sudden supposed to believe that these badge lickers are all of sudden against coproach abuse? LOL These conservatives remind me so much of the anti-war left which wasn’t anti-war just anti-Bush. The anti-government thug abuse conservative is really just anti-Obama. Like the left, liberty is not a high priority (if it ever was) for them. Also I’m sure many here know who William Grigg is. Grigg has to be one of the best voices in the libertarian movement in regards to coproach abuse. Grigg once worked for the paleoconservative (think Pat Buchanan) magazine The New American. Paleocons are obsessed with the central planning scheme known as immigration so when Grigg started to question the police state (which paleocons are for), the magazine fired him.

    • Charlie Grapski

      That is the fundamental problem with partisan politics. That is why the founders of this country saw that problem as the “mortal disease” to which all good forms, and particularly “popular” forms, of government have succumbed. That is the reason I do not “belong to” any party.

      • http://cynicalinny.blogspot.com/ Cynic in New York

        Im not talking about party I’m talking about ideology. Political parties are just vehicles for the ideology. You cannot deny that conservatives and liberals cheer on government jackboots when they attack their enemies.

        • Charlie Grapski

          I also do not divide the world according to the false dichotomy of “liberal” vs. “conservative” – nor do I recognize 99% of the uses of those terms to refer to anything “real” – other than confused political agendas, not amounting even to an actual ideology, which are pushed forward, primarily, within the context of two political parties (each which does not have a real ideology – much less a philosophy – other than “what can we do to get and keep power in our hands”).

      • Rail Car Fan

        @ “Charlie Grapski” who said in part…

        “That is the reason I do not “belong to” any party.”

        Wouldn’t that mean you’re in the “party” that doesn’t believe in belonging to any party?

        The above is like asking someone a question that requires a yes or no answer… but the only answer the person gives is silence (none), which means that that is really their answer?

        Rail Car Fan

        • Charlie Grapski

          No. A party is a formal or semi-formal institution (and tends to be the former in current usage). That is different from the larger class of “faction” – which contains but is not limited to such “parties.”

          You can say i am in the “class” of persons who do not belong to a party (or do not support a party) – distinguished from the “class” of persons who DO belong to/support a party.

          So no – I do not answer with NO answer. And no – that is not really MY answer (nor is that a logically sound statement – in your last sentence).

          • Rail Car Fan

            @ “Charlie Grapski” said in part…

            “…nor is that a logically sound statement – in your last sentence.”

            Of course it is. A non-answer (one of silence) IS a answer. It may not be verbal, written, or a yes nod of the head in a up and down, or no side to side motion, but it is STILL a answer.

            It’s no difference than the Miranda Warning’s first sentence of “You have the right to remain SILENT”… and then afterwords the cops start to interrograte and ask you questions.

            It doesn’t matter if they ask you 10, 100 or a thousand questions. If you don’t say a thing, then your SILENCE is your answer to their questions.

            I don’t understand why you’re unable to see this… thus your comment of “it’s not a logically sound statement “.

            Rail Car Fan

          • Charlie Grapski

            A ‘non-answer’ may be a response – and so you could perhaps call it “an” answer – but you cannot logically conclude that it is necessarily “that” answer.

          • Charlie Grapski

            The Miranda example is not analogous.

            First – you will almost never be read your Miranda rights when arrested any longer.

            Second – saying “you have the right to remain silent” – does not mean they necessarily can’t ask you a question (even though that IS inappropriate policing) – but it DOES mean that you have a right NOT to answer.

          • Charlie Grapski

            And your “silence” may be again – a RESPONSE (by an absence of a verbal response) to their questioning – and you can use a broader sense of “answer” that contains mere “responses” within that category. But it is NOT an “answer” to the question.

            So, for example, if you DO answer – and have effectively, in what was said to you and what you do in response, waived your right to silence – then the answer CAN be used against you in court. BUT – if you DON’T answer – they cannot even raise the QUESTION as having been asked – in Court.

          • Charlie Grapski

            That is what I meant by pointing out that there is a logical flaw in your saying:

            I ask QUESTION “Did you X”;

            You REFUSE to ANSWER “Did you X;

            Therefore your ANSWER is the clause that was included in the interrogatory form of the question as X. So you ADMIT to X by NON-RESPONSE to Question “Did you X?”

          • Charlie Grapski

            Let me try and even further simplify my point on the logic:

            You claim that if you ask a YES/NO question – and you get NO RESPONSE – the non-response is EQUIVALENT TO a NO answer.

            That is simply logically unsound.

          • Rail Car Fan

            I didn’t say a non-response was equivalent to “A” no answer, but rather a non-response (silence) is how you answered the question.

            As one of the Dalia Lamas most quoted remarks state…

            “Remember that SILENCE is sometimes the best ANSWER”

            I guess you could always try to persuade The Dalia Lama that he’s all wrong with his above quote.

            Rail Car Fan

          • Charlie Grapski

            Well – actually – this is exactly what was entailed in what you did say.

            You said it was a question that should have a yes/no answer.

            You said if you did not answer (but remained silent – saying that i would not answer – which is not what I did) – the answer would be YES (whereas I answered NO).

  • IceTrey

    You can’t rule out Brown charging at this point. He probably didn’t but there’s not enough evidence either way to say.

  • steveo

    I saw that other video from one of the female witnesses and remarked that the cop walking around the body looked like the pictures of the leo. He certainly doesn’t look too distraught in these recordings and photos. He should have sat down on his patrol car and faked a distraught cop, like putting his head in his hands and shaking his head.

    Also, maybe some photo geniuses can get some close ups of the leos face to see if he sustained any injury, doesn’t look like it here. Maybe he had some body punch him real hard in the face before the leos took pictures.

  • http://bullpasturechronicles.blogspot.com/ BullPasture

    I am 100% against the militarization of the police. I am 100% opposed to submitting to their arbitrary and illegal closing of commercial establishments and ordering reporters to leave when they had no lawful authority to do so. However, I urge caution and sober consideration before making such inflammatory statements such as saying the autopsy indicates he was on his knees when he was shot in the head. The autopsy reveals no such thing. That position is one possible explanation. It is also possible that the previous shot to his eyes cause him to fall forward putting his head down for the last shot. It will take more than an autopsy to determine the angle at which the shots struck him. The responsible thing to do is demand a thorough and impartial investigation and see what the evidence can tells us.

    All we know for sure is that an 18 year old was killed by a police officer which was used as an excuse for some idiots to riot and loot which was used as an excuse by the police to bring out their new military hardware so they can pretend they are badass “operators.”

    • Rail Car Fan

      @ “Bull Pasture” who said in part…

      “The responsible thing to do is demand a thorough and impartial investigation…”

      If it’s like anything that’s been done in the past by the cops agency we already know the verdict will be handed down as “justified”!

      Rail Car Fan

      • http://bullpasturechronicles.blogspot.com/ BullPasture

        Hence the need for an impartial investigation. Really can’t trust the Ferguson PD to do it and damn sure can’t trust Holder’s Department of Racial Justice to do it.

  • fergusonCivilrights

    The claim by LEOs that their profession is one of the most dangerous line-of-work is an exaggerated myth, helped in part by Police Unions and also by Hollywood action movies. See

  • DocRambo

    Continuing to ignore the dozens of immediate witnesses that say the victim rushed the officer only demeans this entire depiction of events. Ignoring the facts of the pictures of the strong armed robbery, the assault of the store owner, the injuries of the police officer (orbital blow out fracture) from the altercation with the victim, further shows how this thread is being used as a bully pulpit to attack the officer before all the facts are in. Why don’t you guys just go up to Ferguson with Mr. Holder, and demand that the officer be lynched? Responsible journalism, my a$$! Carlos, you’re a big dude, why don’t you go one on one with some 6’4″ 290+#, not so gentle giant? All of these comments are part of the problem, not the solution.

    • Carlos_Miller

      The mythical dozens from “police sources”? Lol.

  • Gregor