Go to qualitypolicing.com

Tag: Ferguson

  • DOJ: Blaming the Cops

    [My other posts on the DOJ reports, 1 & 2.]

    I have read (most of) the incredibly damning DOJ’s report on the Ferguson P.D. I tried to read it a bit as Thomas Jefferson edited the Bible. Thomas Jefferson thought that even if Jesus isn’t the son of God, even if there are no supernatural events, there’s still something good to be learned from Jesus’s life and ethics. So Jefferson edited out all the “special” bits from the Bible. And what was left was still a good book.

    I mentally did the same with this DOJ report. I don’t think the authors “get” policing. So their criticism of specific policing incidents runs shallow at times. Others I think are wrongly interpreted. Some details are probably not true (know from their Wilson/Brown report that witnesses sometimes make shit up). But just as one can cut the miracles and supernatural out of the New Testament and believe Jesus was still a pretty cool dude, a skeptic can excise huge parts of this DOJ report and still clearly see Ferguson is a deeply — deeply — fucked-up place. And that will be the next post.

    But first, here are my quibbles:

    An officer broke up an altercation between two [girls] and sent them back to their homes. The officer ordered one to stay inside her residence and the other not to return to the first’s residence.

    That seems like good policing to me. At first he doesn’t give a ticket. He doesn’t make an arrest. But these fighting fools don’t know when to call it a night. Girl Two goes back to Girl One’s place to restart the fight. Girl One goes to the street to fight.

    Later that day, the two minors again engaged in an altercation outside the first minor’s residence. The officer arrested both for Failure to Comply with the earlier orders.

    Well now they should get locked up. Still seems like good policing. This officer chooses “Failure to Obey.” Maybe a bad choice of charges, since you can’t order somebody to stay in their house. But so what? Call it disorderly conduct or loitering or a minor assault or loitering. It doesn’t matter because these charges are going to get dropped regardless. The arrest is the punishment. But the report makes the officer’s actions seem downright sinister: “The officer’s arrest of the two minors for Failure to Comply without probable cause of all elements of the offense violated the Fourth Amendment.”

    So the cop should have charged the girls with something more serious? Or charge their mother’s with neglect? Or is the answer is to just let them fight it out until you can get them for felony assault? I don’t like this emphasis on procedural justice (also seen on the Presidential Report) as somehow more important than moral justice. The two sometimes conflict. And I’d prefer to go with what is right that the letter of the law. (Often the law demands you lock somebody up when morally it’s the wrong thing to do.)

    Later the report criticizes an officer, who, in a similar case of fighting girls, is too quick to make an arrest. Two 15-year-old girls are fighting in class. School staff separate the girls in a hallway. An officer shows up and tells the girls to walk to the principal’s office. Instead, one girl rushes the other girl, “trying to push past staff toward the other girl. The officer pushed her backward toward a row of lockers and then announced that she was under arrest for Failure to Comply.” Seems fair enough. She restarted a fight and had to be physically restrained, which is no small deal. What if she keeps charging the other girl? When is it OK to arrest somebody? The report doesn’t answer that.

    A third officer is criticized for arresting a person who, after being free to go, decides not to leave the scene of his (very minor) crime, and instead responds to the officer:

    with profanities. When the officer told him to watch his language and reminded him that he was not being arrested, the man continued using profanity and was arrested for Manner of Walking in Roadway.

    The DOJ blames the officer for “Retaliating against individuals for using language that, while disrespectful, is protected by the Constitution.”

    Say what? If I exercise discretion and don’t arrest you, and then you then thank me by getting in my face and saying, “fuck you,” of course I’m going to lock you up. Don’t believe me? Next time a cop pulls you over and gives you a warning instead of a ticket (which doesn’t happen in Ferguson) and says “drive safe and have a nice day” say “fuck you” instead of “thank you” and see what happens. Cops can legally change their mind. (The legally dubious arrest is for saying “fuck you” when you’re not committing another crime.)

    So the report blames one officer for telling fighting girls to go home, another officer for not doing so, and a third for a discretionary arrest. One might conclude that the best policing in no policing.

    The report also criticizes cops for using a statute (§ 29-19) that is “likely unconstitutionally.” Well thank you for your legal interpretation, Mr. I-haz-graduated-from-law-school. But until the courts actually say otherwise, cops can use the laws that are on the books.

    Another curious assertion in the report (citing Brown v. City of Golden Valley and Mattos v. Agarano) is the claim that police cannot use tasers against minor criminals in non-threatening non-compliance situations. I hope this is true, but I don’t think it is. I know the courts have been chipping back at wanton taser use. But is the DOJ correct here in this report? What is the law of the land on this matter?

    All that said — even if one doesn’t accept some/many/all of the criticisms of the police presented — this Ferguson report is still a shocking indictment what is business as usual (emphasis on business) in Ferguson.

  • DOJ on Michael Brown Shooting: Justified

    So many reports. So little time. [My other two posts on the DOJ reports: 2 & 3.]

    First the easy one: the DOJ report on Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown. The press seems more interested in the other DOJ report, the one that reams the whole criminal justice system in Ferguson a new one (more on that, later). But what about Darren Wilson and Michael Brown: the shooting that started it all.

    This DOJ report really is a complete vindicate of Police Officer Wilson. 100 percent. And you can’t really say that this is some racist white-wash from Eric Holder’s rah-rah pro-police Department of Justice.

    Now you may say the protests were about so much more. OK. You may say that Ferguson Police overreacted with too much force against protests. Sure. I agree. None of that means Ferguson isn’t a fucked-up place, racially and institutionally. And maybe it’s good that now we know about the business of racial injustice in Ferguson (that’s the other report).

    But let’s not change the subject. Darren Wilson was legally and morally justified in shooting Michael Brown. The whole “shot while surrendering” part? It simply did not happen. To say otherwise approaches the wacky level of Creationists, climate-change deniers, and the anti-vaccine camp.

    After I read the grand jury testimony, I was convinced: Darren Wilson’s version rings true. The DOJ agrees. If you don’t believe me, read the whole report. But the bottom line is this:

    The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were ‘objectively unreasonable’ under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly… it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.

    The end. Now that might not sound like huge statement in support of Officer Wilson. But the devil is in the details. The purpose of this report was not to exonerate Darren Wilson but to see if there was any reason to charge him federally. There isn’t. But the details of the DOJ’s report, based on all the evidence, presents a pretty unambiguous picture. These are now the facts:

    Brown stole several packages of cigarillos. … An FPD dispatch call went out over the police radio for a “stealing in progress.” Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown.

    …

    Wilson … told the two men to walk on the sidewalk…. Wilson then called for backup, stating, “Put me on Canfield with two and send me another car.” Wilson backed up his SUV…. stopping Brown and [Dorian Johnson] from walking any further. Wilson attempted to open the driver’s door of the SUV to exit his vehicle, but as he swung it open, the door came into contact with Brown’s body and either rebounded closed or Brown pushed it closed.

    Wilson and other witnesses stated that Brown then reached into the SUV through the open driver’s window and punched and grabbed Wilson. This is corroborated by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm.

    …

    Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand…. Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun…. Brown’s hand was within inches of the muzzle of Wilson’s gun when it was fired. The location of the recovered bullet in the side panel of the driver’s door… also corroborates Wilson’s account.

    …

    There is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s account of what occurred inside the SUV.

    …

    The autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away.

    …

    Brown ran at least 180 feet away from the SUV…. Brown then turned around and came back toward Wilson, falling to his death approximately 21.6 feet west of the blood in the roadway.

    …

    Several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson…. Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground.

    …

    While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson … they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him.

    As to witnesses who said things that contract these facts:

    As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media.

    That’s it. So you can keep whatever world view you want. [I am the only person on the Venn Diagram who was convinced that George Zimmerman was guilty and Darren Wilson was innocent?] If you thought Michael Brown was executed in cold blood by a racist cop, you were misinformed about the facts. Now you should change your opinion.

    [In an otherwise informative piece, Ta-Nahasi Coates admits Wilson’s innocence as charged but says, “Darren Wilson is not the first gang member to be publicly accused of a crime he did not commit.” Oh, snap. But Wilson may be the first innocent person in the 21st century to inspire mass public protests assured of his guilt.]

    What about Police Officer Darren Wilson? The mob of public opinion declares him guilty. As far as I know he’s still in hiding. He’s innocent. Is he really an agent of a criminal operation? Or does he get his life and job back?

  • It’s a Dirty Job…

    I’ve always been a big fan of Mike Rowe and his TV show, “Dirty Jobs” (now on a different channel and called, “Somebody’s Gotta Do It”).

    Here Rowe talks about recent police events. As always, he approaches issues with a certain degree of kindness and empathy. Also, he’s nobody’s fool. (I suspect he would make a very good police officer.) Read the full version. But here’s a part:

    Within moments, everyone was talking about Garner and Brown, and the conversation got very political very quickly. A liberal guest said, ‘Look, I wasn’t there, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive had they been white.’ A conservative guest replied, ‘I wasn’t there either, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive if they hadn’t resisted arrest.’

    This annoyed the liberal, who asked the conservative why Republicans wanted a ‘police state.’ This annoyed the conservative, who asked the liberal why Democrats wanted ‘total anarchy.’ Things continued to escalate, and within moments, fingers were pointing, veins were bulging, and logical fallacies were filling the air. Ho! ho! ho!

    For once, I kept my mouth shut and listened as a roomful of decent people tore each others throats out. It was remarkable, because no one disagreed on the big points. No one disagreed that black lives mattered just as much as white lives. No one disputed that racial bias in law enforcement should be exposed and eliminated. In fact, no one disagreed about the basic facts surrounding each case. The breakdown happened over relevance and context.

    The one thing I’ll add is that I do think there’s great disagreement about the basic facts. Either Michael Brown was fighting to get Officer Wilson’s gun and then charged the cop or Brown had his hands up in surrender and was executed in cold blood. Either Eric Garner was murdered by a cop using a chokehold while Garner was trying to surrender or Garner resisting arrest and died after after physical struggle.

    And the other one thing I’ll add is that I’m often in situations where everybody wants to talk to me about recent events. I’ve been forced to say, “Can we please talk about something else?” Maybe I can just hand out Rowe’s article and get another drink.

    And the final one thing I have to say is that it’s actually not often that I or you will be in room with divergent views. Holiday parties are one of the few events that bring together people of different political persuasions.

    Happy New Year!

  • The real Michael Brown

    Yesterday I had a nice walk and dinner with a good group of cops who were to appear on CNN’s Cops Under Fire about cops who have been involved in shootings. I also met Darren Wilson’s lawyer. So I asked him a few things about Officer Wilson and Michael Brown.

    The decisive evidence? Brown’s actual skin on the slide and hammer of Wilson’s gun — pretty damning — and blood on the street showing that Brown did indeed charge Wilson where Wilson said.

    I also asked the lawyer about a picture and a video floating around the web that purport to show Michael Brown doing bad things. The picture is of Michael Brown with guns, drugs, and money. That *is* Michael Brown. [Correction, that is *not* Michael Brown.] The video of “Michael Brown” beating down a defenseless person is *not* Michael Brown.

  • “To say it’s all the fault of racist cops is letting the system off the hook”

    A quote from me in an interesting article by James Reinl in Al Jazeera. I go on to say:

    “Some people honestly believe that cops don’t shoot white people and don’t give tickets to white people for minor issues. This view is demonstrably false,” Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore lawman and academic at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told Al Jazeera. “Let’s get the facts right and then talk about injustice – because there’s plenty [of injustice] out there, but police provide a [too] easy scapegoat.”

  • Would a Grand Jury Really Indict a Ham Sandwich?

    My man Gene O’Donnell (former police officer and prosecutor and current colleague of mine at John Jay College of Criminal Justice) on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show. Well worth listening to. Unless, of course, you fully understand what a grand jury is and how it works… which you, like I, don’t.

    Also, if you click through that link, there’s a great chart from the NewsHour that summarizes the witness testimony. For what it’s worth, based on my experience (and much academic research), I don’t put much credence in eyewitness testimony.

  • Racial progress, nicer white people, and black-on-black crime (Or: Why don’t white people care about justice?)

    There is a great interview with Chris Rock in New York Magazine. What stuck with me was his insight that “black progress” is a misnomer. What America has seen over the years (in fits and starts) is “white progress”:

    So, to say Obama is [black] progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, “Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.” It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t.

    The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.

    This got me thinking about the common refrain (at least among some people) that blacks don’t care about black-on-black crime. Just because you (and some in the media) keep saying so doesn’t make it true. In fact, the idea that black people don’t care about crime (and its corollary that blacks only care injustice at the hands of police) is so demonstrably false it’s almost absurd to even point out instances of blacks caring about black-on-black crime.

    But I will.

    As this link points out, “You may not have noticed black protests against crime, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t happened.” And even better this and this, which shows specific incidents of protest in Chicago, Harlem, Newark, Saginaw, Gary, and Brooklyn. I’ll also add Baltimore. Coates concludes:

    There is a kind of sincere black person who really would like to see even more outrage about violence in black communities. I don’t think outrage will do it at this point, but I respect the sincere feeling.

    And then there are pundits who write more than they read, and talk more than they listen, and prefer an easy creationism to a Google search.

    Now there is a caveat. People care less, as is reasonable, when one criminal kills another criminal than when an innocent person is killed. But there are plenty of killings to cover all the bases.

    And this is worth watching, this, if you haven’t already:

    (And no, that woman does not have flowers growing out of her head. She’s just standing in front of it.)

    In dealing with black-on-black crime, society has a system to deal with criminals. You kill somebody and (at least in theory) you get found, arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. That is our justice system at work. It may not be the system, but it’s the system we have.

    But things are different when killings are sanctioned by the state. That’s why so many opponents of the death penalty focus on the fact that we sometimes execute innocent people. Do you think it’s never happened… or does it just not bother you?

    So people are upset about crime. But they’re also upset about justice. The Rodney King riots didn’t happen just because Rodney King got his ass beat. The riots started when the police officers got away with it (at least at first). The protests are about the whole damn system being rigged. Of course people were upset when Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. But the real outrage was that Zimmerman got away with it. Justice shouldn’t be something only Al Sharpton shouts about. It’s a basic American value. Especially, I should add, to a group to which it has been historically denied. (And how did conservatives get away with co-opting “freedom” and liberals with co-opting “justice”? It makes no sense.)

    When police officers get away with murder, it’s not only about crime. It’s about justice. Police officers are backed by the state. Police are the law. So yes, it is worse when a police officer kills an innocent person. (And notice I said “innocent” and not “unarmed.”)

    You could ask — especially if you think black people don’t care about crime — why don’t white people care about justice? Where was the uproar over the police-involved killing (and judicial exoneration) of the Reverend Jonathan Ayers? And there are countless other questionable police-involved shootings. And I don’t mean “countless” figuratively as in “a lot”. I mean “countless” literally as in we don’t count them! What’s up with that?!

    All this said, I do think it’s a shame that the whole Ferguson uproar seems to involve an incident in which a police officer probably acted correctly. Especially since there are any number of cases to pick from in which police have killed an innocent person. I also think people are misguided when they see bad police-involved shootings only in terms of race. I also know people are simply ignorant if they actually believe that police don’t shoot unarmed white people (or give them tickets for seatbelt violations)!

    But everybody is upset about crime. Why don’t white people care about justice?

  • “Professor” who assisted in Mike Brown autopsy revealed as “fraud, con artist”

    From BoingBoing (whatever that is… but backed up by many other sources). You can’t make this shit up!

    I don’t actually think this changes anything in terms of the actual shooting… but it still seems newsworthy.

  • “Finished him off”

    A good article AP article by Holbrook Mohr, David Lieb, and Phillip Lucas about something every cop knows: witnesses make up a lot of shit.

    Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson “finished him off.” Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all.

    An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back. [emphasis added]

    Ah, those pesky facts. What’s interesting to me is that so many people who read “witness” statements that aren’t true don’t change their opinion after the facts they based their opinion on turn out not to have happened. This is called being blinded by ideology.

  • Who do you believe?

    Let me start by saying we’ll never know for certain what happened when Officer Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown.

    [Update: but we not do have a much better idea based on a DOJ report.]

    No. Seriously. Think about it. You don’t know what happened. I don’t know what happened. So whatever you think, whatever I think… the only thing I can guarantee is that it’s probably not true.

    And this is the problem I have with these situations. Nobody knows what happened, but everybody fills in their ideological world view. “Racist cop shot a black kid down for no reason” vs. “cop attacked by vicious criminal defends himself.”

    Now there are other issues, very real and serious issues related to injustice in America in general. I’m talking about 2.3 million prisoners. And in suburban St. Louis in particular I’m talking about towns that seem to exist largely for the feudal financial purpose of exploiting the residents who live there. I’m talking about towns — majority black, mostly — that bring in 30, 50, 70 percent of their budged on municipal and police issued fines. This is wrong. But those issues don’t actually directly concern the reality of what happened with Police Officer Darren Wilson killed Michael “Big Mike” Brown.

    [But boy would it be nice if we could seriously address and rectify the problems in America without some violent spark? But we as a country don’t seem capable of that.]

    Back to the shooting. Now that we’ve admitted that we don’t know exactly what happened and we never will, let’s stop being so righteous, smug, or disparaging of those who don’t have your same world-view.

    So now let’s get to what we do know.

    When the shooting first happened, I was presented a liberal narrative by a TV producer who stated that an “another innocent black kid, college bound, was walking down the street when he was stopped by police and shot while he was surrendering while his hands were in the air.”

    I responded, “I don’t believe that, but go on.”

    Today we know that narrative I was first presented with wasn’t true. Some say that doesn’t matter. I think it does. If you want a martyred victim, pick a better martyr (and I hate to say it, but there are plenty: Ayers and Diallo jump to mind.)

    Dorian Johnson wasn’t the only witness, but he was there. And since Michael Brown is dead, he’s the only one with a front row seat other than the cop who killed Brown. So Johnson is a pretty good source to have. But Dorian’s version of what happened has changed. I think that matters. If you don’t tell the truth the first time, I’m much less willing to believe you the second time.

    When I was a cop and would ask somebody’s name and date of birth after I pulled them over for some traffic violation, often they would have no ID. Maybe, just maybe, they actually did just forget their valid license. Maybe. Once in a blue moon it happened. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. So I would call in their name and date of birth. And wait. And then nothing would come back. They were not in Maryland’s DMV system. So then they would try again and tell me a second name and/or date of birth. Like I was supposed to believe them the second time? Moskos don’t play that game.

    Anyway, they would get locked up for a violation and failure to have ID. But they were really locked up because they committed a traffic violation, and I couldn’t write them a ticket because I had no idea who they were. And they lied to me about that. CBIF (jail) could sort out their ID. Not my problem. I had other calls to answer.

    Anyway, when Brown was killed many people bought the only narrative then at first presented: college-bound angel shot by racist cop for no reason. Many still do. And it might be true… but it probably isn’t. There actually is evidence that shows this narrative isn’t true. And then of course the narrative changes to match the new evidence. But, like I said, Moskos don’t play that game.

    So we have two narratives. And for the record I have not yet read all the testimony, but I have read all the testimony of Officer Darren Wilson and Dorian Johnson. Have you?

    So here is what they agree on.

    [Before I get into all of this let me say that we also know that the Ferguson Police Department handled this and pretty much everything after this just about as horribly as as police department could. Why didn’t they say anything? Why didn’t they make any attempt to control the narrative? Even if they don’t have a PR person, don’t they at least have friggin’ lawyer?! Why couldn’t they get a crime lab there faster? Why didn’t they handle the valid feelings of outrage more responsibly? Why didn’t they do anything right?! But that is all for another post.]

    1) Johnson and Michael Brown go to a corner store and Brown steals a bunch of 79-cent Cigarillos. These are “blunts” used to smoke marijuana in. This is an unarmed robbery. A yoking, as they say in Baltimore. Now Brown is dead so we don’t actually know this, but Johnson claims he wasn’t expecting this. Maybe he wasn’t. But he doesn’t seem to think it’s a huge deal. He stays with Brown as they walk away.

    2) Walking in the middle of the street, they get stopped by Officer Wilson. By all accounts he curses at the two of them. (Though Johnson says Wilson starts with saying “fuck” and Wilson says he doesn’t till “fuck” till a bit later. Whatever. I’ve seen a lot of cops yell at people in the ghetto walking in the street, and it often involves the police cursing.)

    Officer Wilson tells them to get on the sidewalk. They don’t. For some weird reason they ignore the police officer’s request to not walk in the middle of the street.

    3) Wilson backs up his police vehicle to block/confront them. This quickly escalates into a struggle between Wilson and Brown. But the nature of this struggle is in dispute. Johnson says Brown is trying to get away and being held by Wilson. Wilson says Brown is attacking him in his police car.

    4) Brown, for some reason, is still holding the stolen Cigarillos in his hand and passes them to Johnson.

    5) Brown gets shot at by Wilson while Brown is still at the car.

    6) Brown and Johnson run away, Wilson pursues. Brown gets shot at again.

    7) Brown is shot many times and dies. His body lays in the street far too long.

    Those facts are not in dispute. Much of the rest is. Johnson says Wilson treated them disrespectfully by almost backing into them with Wilson’s marked police vehicle after Johnson and Brown disobeyed Wilson’s order to get on the sidewalk. (Though like Rashomon, much of their seemingly contradictory views can actually be mutually possible… but now I’m getting too deep).

    So now it comes down to who you believe. Yes, I tend to believe police officers because I worked with police officers who told the truth (“within the bounds of reason,” as H.L. Mencken said). This is hard for many people to believe. It’s like people project their own shadiness on police. Lying gets you fired (if you get caught). But the average cop is more honest than the average student or professor.

    So I basically believe Officer Wilson because based on my experience, my training, and my having been a police officer, what he says basically rings true. Now you may think he’s a lying bastard — and you may be right — but, well, I doubt it.

    I’m going to tell you why you should believe Officer Wilson over Dorian Johnson. And yes, this involves relativism, character judgment, moral subjectivity, and all that. But seriously, we’re talking about trust and honesty.

    Here’s what we know about Dorian Johnson, based on his own testimony.

    Dorian grew up around violence and has been shot. I don’t know why. That’s neither here nor there. I’m just putting it out there because that’s a major life event.

    Now he’s got a serious girlfriend and a kid and shares a two bedroom apartment. He wakes up around 7 – 7:30am (much earlier than I do, I should add).

    This is his typical morning:

    I start my morning, I wake up, I take a shower, and ask my girl does she like breakfast, what would she like for breakfast. I head out to go get it. Upon getting breakfast I get me some Cigarillos. I smoke marijuana in my morning when I start my day off, so I was going headed to the store.

    Dorian, to put it mildly, is “not real pressed on time.” “Because like I said, I was still on the verge of looking for new work.”

    So he’s like a Shaggywho can’t cook. I’m not judging. I have no problem with that lifestyle. Seriously. Honestly I’m kind of jealous. To each his own.

    So he goes out in his pajama shorts to buy his girl breakfast and meets up with Big Mike. They decide to “match” (“it is just smoking together basically”). OK.

    They got to a store and Big Mike, to Dorian’s surprise, robs the store. By now it’s close to noon and, can I just mention it’s five hours later and while he says he’s still not stoned he still hasn’t gotten his girlfriend’s breakfast!

    Here’s an interesting exchange with the grand jury:

    Q: Again, I’m not judging you, but somebody just stole something?

    A: Right.

    Q: On the video that we watched, he grabbed ahold of the man?

    A: Right.

    Q: He said something to him and he lunged at him, OK, you are walking down the street?

    A: Yes, Ma’am.

    Q: The police tell you to “get the fuck on the sidewalk”?

    A: Correct.

    Q: And you say “I’m almost home.” You are thinking to yourself we are not doing anything wrong, didn’t you? Somebody did just do something wrong, so that still begs the question why you did not listen to the police?

    Dorian doesn’t really answer that one, but goes on to say they weren’t stressed because he didn’t think they were being stopped for the robbery. See in the criminal’s mind, you’re only dirty while committing the criminal act. In the cop’s mind, the criminal is always dirty.

    So on one hand we have a police officer with a good record and a believable story. He also has evidence of being attacked that fully supports his version of the story .

    On the other hand we have a stoned if charming unemployed slacker who willingly hangs out with a guy who just robbed a store and then ignore a reasonably lawful order from a police officer. Also, he told his girl he’s getting breakfast but failed at this rather simple goal. Also, he seems to see nothing particularly odd with his life style choices.

    Look there is a chance that Johnson’s version of events is true. But really? Odds are slim. There is contradictory evidence. There is strong evidence that Michael Brown did punch Officer Wilson. There is strong evidence that Michael Brown was partially in the police car when Wilson shot him. There is strong evidence that Brown’s hands were not hands-up in surrender when he was shot. Now you can believe what you want. But the factual evidence we have really is, as they say, “consistent with” Wilson’s testimony.

    So no, I don’t believe Johnson’s version that Officer Wilson — unthreatened except for his ego — fought to hold Brown close to himself, and then shot Brown for no reason, and then chased Brown down and killed him.

    Why would you think that is true unless your world view that says society is unjust and all cops are cold-blooded racists?

    I think it’s much more likely that, as Wilson testified, Wilson realized he was dealing with a guy who just robbed a store, Wilson was attacked by said robber, Wilson fought for his life, and Wilson won. It’s happened before.

    So what I’m saying is I don’t know what happened, but it is totally possible that Officer Wilson is a good police officer who, while doing his job, was threatened by a man who did indeed attack him, and reacted accordingly. Why is it so inconceivable that a criminal who just committed a crime would attack a police officer? Is that less likely that a cop killing a black man for no reason? If so, the world really has gone mad.

    Who do you believe?

    I remember late one night I pulled over a respectable middle-aged black woman over because her head lights were not on. She called me racist and then called 911 saying she was being harassed and threatened by a cop: me. She was convinced her head lights were on (her parking lights were on). But they weren’t. Had they been, I wouldn’t have pulled her over. I wasn’t even planning on giving her a ticket (but I had to once she complained, which is a whole other story). Anyway, the call comes out for a cop harassing a driver on Broadway. My sergeant comes over to figure things out. He deals with the situation.

    So it goes to traffic court. I’m there. She’s there. And she’s looking as middle-class church-going 50-year-old hat-wearing respectable as any woman can. I give the boilerplate summary of a traffic stop. She calmly tells a story about how her lights were on and she knew it and she has no idea why she was pulled over by a racist cop. The judge wakes up, because this isn’t normal for traffic court. He asks if I have anything to add. I do. I tell him this was the oddest traffic stop I even had. I go on a bit more, but it comes down to this: I say her headlights were not on; she says they were. I’m sure as snow that that woman believed she was right (after all, she could see the lights on her dashboard). But her headlights were not on.

    It was literally he-said she-said. Now the judge wasn’t there when I stopped her. He couldn’t know for sure. But he believed me. He paused for a moment and actually banged his gavel (not well used in traffic court) and said, “guilty.” I thanked him. She huffed off.

    This is the way our justice system works. We need to believe the word of police officers over the word of criminals. (Or else we need to get rid of police). My word as a police officer was trusted over an honest woman because I was a paid civil servant sworn under oath to uphold the law and constitution. Now you may not believe me. But the judge did. As he should.

    So in the Darren Wilson case the grand jury did not believe there was probably cause to indict the officer. And they were right. Or at least read more testimony than I did before you disagree.

    [Admittedly, the questioning in the testimony wasn’t very aggressive. But then while it may be rare a grand jury doesn’t indict, it’s also even rarer that a grand jury deals with an innocent person! So despite the softball nature of the grand jury, evidence was presented. And, unlike at a trial, and you only needed 9 of 12 to bring charges. They didn’t get that. Why? Because and — do consider at least this possibility that this may be true — Darren Wilson might, just might be a police officer who was doing his job and had to protect his own life.]

    This is where cops and conservatives think Ferguson protesters are crazy. Now *I* don’t think that. Because I think there are lots things worth protesting about in this country. It’s how we make a better country. And there is injustice in America! I even wrote a book about racial injustice and incarceration (no, not Cop in the Hood. In Defense of Flogging is the one you didn’t buy)!

    But none of that means Darren Wilson is guilty of anything. As I said, we don’t know for sure what happened and we probably never will. But do we as society — or do you, individually — really believe Dorian Johnson’s version more than Police Officer Darren Wilson’s?