No indictment in the mike brown case

You know what? Here's what I constantly tell my (white) son:

If you are being stopped by the police, do what they say. Don't argue, don't contradict them, don't think to yourself "He can't tell me that" - particularly if there is any reason to suspect that the cop thinks you or the situation poses danger. De-escalate first by doing exactly what he/she says. Make sure the officer sees you complying and, if necessary tell him what you are doing and how you are intending to do it and then ask him for permission. Make no sudden moves!! If the officer says not to do something, then don't do it - even it means standing there and pissing your pants.

The officer has a badge, a gun, and the inherent right to be confrontational - you do not!!

I don't care if he insults your manhood and calls you every dirty name in the book (Which by the way, happened to me in my teen years - more than once. I grew up in PG County in the 70's/80's - need I say more?). No matter how he provokes you, say and do nothing that could be deemed an aggressive action. Shut up, take it, and return indignity with civility. Do everything in your power to get to the end of the tunnel until you can call me, a lawyer or peacefully appeal to a judge. Until then, the officer has complete, unchallengable authority - act accordingly.

BTW - When I was 16, my dad told me the same damn thing after I got picked up and taken to the station for not doing exactly what the cop told me to do, the second he told me to do it. [Picking up litter I dropped as the officer happened to be driving by - I did or said something to piss him off, don't even remember what, just know my first response was nothing akin to "Yes Sir!"]

Every parent needs to have this conversation with their kids. Period. I KNOW that there are bad cops - particularly, bad beat cops. I get that there are racist cops out there. With that said, it's the bad cops to whom you need to "Listen & Obey" the most because they are the ones looking for an excuse to abuse you AND will be the ones most experienced at covering it up.

Obey first, seek redress later. AND, recognize you may never get the redress to which you believe you are entitled. It's not right, it's not fair but it's life. At the appropriate time, and in the appropriate manner, try to change it.


Well said ,you need to go on tour .

You know what? Here's what I constantly tell my (white) son:



If you are being stopped by the police, do what they say. Don't argue, don't contradict them, don't think to yourself "He can't tell me that" - particularly if there is any reason to suspect that the cop thinks you or the situation something, then don't do it - even it means standing there and pissing your pants.



The officer has a badge, a gun, and the inherent right to be confrontational - you do not!!






So you tell your son he should sit there and piss his pants because the officer had the inherent right to be confrontational? Sorry but that doesn't fly. No one has the inherent right to be confrontational and that's the main problem in my eyes.

My belief is that at the end of the day these are kids, and it is up to the officer of the law to be responsible for keeping control of the situation. After all that is what their job is all about. It's to protect and serve, not harass and embarrass.

With this situation in Ferguson I think the officer failed his job when he got into the initial confrontation with Brown. He felt the need to establish dominance over the younger Brown. Brown being young and not really understanding the totality of his actions decided he wasn't going to be "punked" by some cop.

Both parties acted poorly in this instance, but I believe it's the officers responsibility to maintain his emotions and not let the situation get the better of him. He failed to do so and thus here we are, another youth shot dead from a simple misunderstanding and miscommunication.

I hope at the end of the day some good comes from this and the Brown's family wishes come true and all police officers are mandated to wear a camera on their person.

So you tell your son he should sit there and piss his pants because the officer had the inherent right to be confrontational? Sorry but that doesn't fly. No one has the inherent right to be confrontational and that's the main problem in my eyes.

My belief is that at the end of the day these are kids, and it is up to the officer of the law to be responsible for keeping control of the situation. After all that is what their job is all about. It's to protect and serve, not harass and embarrass.

With this situation in Ferguson I think the officer failed his job when he got into the initial confrontation with Brown. He felt the need to establish dominance over the younger Brown. Brown being young and not really understanding the totality of his actions decided he wasn't going to be "punked" by some cop.

Both parties acted poorly in this instance, but I believe it's the officers responsibility to maintain his emotions and not let the situation get the better of him. He failed to do so and thus here we are, another youth shot dead from a simple misunderstanding and miscommunication.

I hope at the end of the day some good comes from this and the Brown's family wishes come true and all police officers are mandated to wear a camera on their person.what the heck? Being non-confrontational = pissing pants? Attitudes like not wanting to get "punked" when confronted by someone, are childish and may have gotten Brown killed. What you describe is Brown's fault. Not the officer.

Cant stand being harrassed and embarrased, and not mature enough to handle it without getting physical? Thats troubled child in elementary school behavior, not average high school or older behavior.

Agreed on one thing: GoPros. Protect the good cops and expose the bad cops.

So you tell your son he should sit there and piss his pants because the officer had the inherent right to be confrontational? Sorry but that doesn't fly. No one has the inherent right to be confrontational and that's the main problem in my eyes.

My belief is that at the end of the day these are kids, and it is up to the officer of the law to be responsible for keeping control of the situation. After all that is what their job is all about. It's to protect and serve, not harass and embarrass.

With this situation in Ferguson I think the officer failed his job when he got into the initial confrontation with Brown. He felt the need to establish dominance over the younger Brown. Brown being young and not really understanding the totality of his actions decided he wasn't going to be "punked" by some cop.

Both parties acted poorly in this instance, but I believe it's the officers responsixbility to maintain his emotions and not let the situation get the better of him. He failed to do so and thus here we are, another youth shot dead from a simple misunderstanding and miscommunication.

I hope at the end of the day some good comes from this and the Brown's family wishes come true and all police officers are mandated to wear a camera on their person.

This. Well said

And another thing, Micheal Brown was 18. Are people saying he's not mature enough to refrain from shoplifting (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/28/1339820/-What-Mike-Brown-did-and-did-not-do-inside-of-the-Ferguson-convenience-store) and getting into a fight with a cop afterwards (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/)?

The poor kid shot by the police is on the left, the shop clerk is on the right.
http://i.imgur.com/D3fgDIB.jpg

I understand not bringing charges, but I am surprised. I expected them to consider the mixed testimony enough to take this to trial, if not just to appease the people. I understand not wanting that circus around. Not taking a stance on right or wrong, just a thought.

Joe, when it comes down to your advice in dealing with officers given to your son, I have one issue. Being a lawyer, I'd think you'd also make sure he understood his rights and when to refuse officers. Never let them search your car. Never tell them anything more than basic information. Never give them your phone passwords and I'd recommend encrypting and powering off your device.
(Note: The police can force a biometric (e.g. fingerprint) out of you for your phone, but cannot force a passcode. Additionally, if you use an android phone Google can provide law enforcement the pattern you use, even if encrypted. Go with the numeric pin.)

Lastly, I hope that this case is still the impetus for some real changes to our police force. Personally, it scares me that their word is always taken as the truth in a court of law. I want to see body cameras on every officer with hefty penalties for the device being "broken" or "malfunctioning" during a controversial stop. These cameras quell the crazy on both sides of it. It'll help the officers keep their cool during stressful situations and will reduce citizens being aggressive towards police officers. We've been spending decades militarizing our police force - it's time to bring them back to being public servants.

I understand not bringing charges, but I am surprised. I expected them to consider the mixed testimony enough to take this to trial, if not just to appease the people. I understand not wanting that circus around. Not taking a stance on right or wrong, just a thought.
s.


If you understand why they are not bringing charges ,then why take it to court , just to sacrifice a police officer to keep the others happy ?

So you would be fine if the kid had gotten the cops gun and shot him ?

If you understand why they are not bringing charges ,then why take it to court , just to sacrifice a police officer to keep the others happy ?

So you would be fine if the kid had gotten the cops gun and shot him ?

GiantOne - First of all, stop making huge jumps. He didn't get his gun. He didn't shoot him. Hopefully we can all agree that no one should die in these situations.

Second of all, I understand that there was evidence showing that perhaps the officer may have actually felt in legitimate fear for his life, however, there are other pieces of evidence that show perhaps he overstepped his bounds. I understand why they didn't, but could also see them bringing charges. I feel if there are two potential stories it's best to send it to court and allow the evidence to be viewed and questioned by both parties.

I don't trust eye witness accounts unless 85% of them are all consistent with each other. I also do not trust the officers word one lick. He's in self-preservation mode and we've shown a clear precedent for not going after officers that perjure themselves.

GiantOne - First of all, stop making huge jumps. He didn't get his gun. He didn't shoot him. Hopefully we can all agree that no one should die in these situations.

Second of all, I understand that there was evidence showing that perhaps the officer may have actually felt in legitimate fear for his life, however, there are other pieces of evidence that show perhaps he overstepped his bounds. I understand why they didn't, but could also see them bringing charges. I feel if there are two potential stories it's best to send it to court and allow the evidence to be viewed and questioned by both parties.

I don't trust eye witness accounts unless 85% of them are all consistent with each other. I also do not trust the officers word one lick. He's in self-preservation mode and we've shown a clear precedent for not going after officers that perjure themselves.


So a man ,6'4 300 ,reaches into a police car and struggles with the Police Officer for his gun(there is no question about this) and proof that the gun was fired in the car (no question) you think there "might be a legitimate fear" for his life ?My question to you is if the cop was dead would you care or would you be talking about this right now .You say you don't trust eyewitness accounts all but one pretty much match the "physical evidence" ,do you trust that ?

So a man ,6'4 300 ,reaches into a police car and struggles with the Police Officer for his gun(there is no question about this) and proof that the gun was fired in the car (no question) you think there "might be a legitimate fear" for his life ?My question to you is if the cop was dead would you care or would you be talking about this right now .You say you don't trust eyewitness accounts all but one pretty much match the "physical evidence" ,do you trust that ?

I have two points. One, I think there was enough to go to trial. I think the officer is let free on trial, but would have liked to see the opportunity for both sides to review and question the evidence at hand. We clearly don't agree there - that's okay.

Second. I want to use this as an impetus for change. I want every cop wearing a camera that's running at all times with a microphone. I want massive penalties to either the cop or his superiors if the cameras are not working or disabled at the time of any action. These are the types of technologies we have at our disposal and are generally pretty cheap. Stop buying assault vehicles for no-knock raids - and buy things to protect the vast majority of Americans. Our police forces are being militarized and they need to be brought back to being public defenders.

If the officer was shot, yes, I would feel bad for him and it wouldn't change my stance on changing oversight and documenting their actions. As I said, point one and point two are not directly related in this case. However, the more we see cases with differing eye witness reviews it would have easily shown the conflict through the eyes of the officer eliminating any potential issues with what happened.