Michael Brown’s Parents Go Rogue

Why wait for U.S. Justice to work, when we can be dictated to by representatives of Chile, Senegal, Georgia, and Mauritius?

Why wait for U.S. justice to work, when we can be dictated to by representatives of Chile, Senegal, Georgia, and Mauritius?

Wherever the line lies where grief and anger no longer excuse irresponsible, irrational and destructive conduct, the parents of slain police shooting victim Michale Brown have charged over it.

On Veterans Day, Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. addressed the United Nations Committee Against Torture  in Geneva, Switzerland. The Committee supposedly works to address brutality by governments around the world, but based on this stunt, and stunt it is, the panel is just one more U.N. sham entity with an anti-American agenda. Whatever is going through the minds of Brown’s parents, their willingness to be part of this transparent attack on the U.S. is in the spirit of treason.

“We need answers and we need action. And we have to bring it to the U.N. so they can expose it to the rest of the world, what’s going on in small town Ferguson,” McSpadden told CNN. It should be obvious that neither parent has any direct knowledge of what happened to their son, and would not be allowed to testify in any court proceeding held to determine the truth. That the United Nations would behave otherwise is proof positive of bad will and nasty intent, and for McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. to participate in this despicable effort makes them accessories to a plot devised by their own nation’s enemies.

The U.S. Human Rights Network, which arranged the trip—place that name on the elite “Let’s smear America for cheap publicity” list— explained the couple would testify behind closed doors, reading from a statement, presumably drafted with the assistance of their lawyers, on behalf of the Brown family, HandsUpUnited, the Organization for Black Struggle, and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.

The document asserts that Brown’s death and the excessive force used by police officers during protests (and riots)  that followed the killing “represent violations of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”  It invites the international community to dictate U.S. policy, police procedures, and the prosecution of the Brown case itself. It asks the U.N. panel to recommend the immediate arrest of Officer Darren Wilson,  as well as an end to “racial profiling and racially-biased police harassment across the jurisdictions surrounding Ferguson.” The document itself is not evidence, but an advocacy piece that invited international interference into such matters as who often the Justice Department issues indictments when it investigates a case, and whether an officer like Darren Wilson  should get paid while he is on leave awaiting an official  determination regarding his culpability, if any.

Of course he should. Of course this is none of the international community’s business. Of course neither Brown’s parents and the organizations joining them have any reliable, unbiased evidence to offer the panel, and of course for them to take this disgraceful action in defiance and disrespect of the U.S. Justice system is loathsome and hostile, and no less.

This is a collective act of vengeance, anger, and political opportunism. A President who could discern the best interests of the nation would condemn it directly and immediately, and warn the U.N that any effort to interfere in the U.S. justice system, the government of Missouri, or the law enforcement apparatus of the United States will be met with tangible and serious consequences. We do not have such a President—you can add another “of course.”

Media sympathy for and benign public attention to McSpadden and Brown’s grieving process need to cease. They have declared themselves enemies of the United States, and willingly accepted employment as pawns in the campaign to weaken America’s influence abroad. They have lost a son, and that is tragic. Other parents lose children , however, without turning like rabid dogs on their country that has given them much.

Cindy Sheehan was bad; Brown’s parents are worse. We will discover in the days ahead, as we note who rationalizes their conduct and who condemns it for what it is, which public figures and pundits know where the line has to be drawn. The are some things that grief can’t excuse.


Pointer: Daily Beast

Facts: CNN

136 thoughts on “Michael Brown’s Parents Go Rogue

    • Cindy Sheehan was a traitor, plain and simple. The only things that might make her not quite as bad as these folks are that she kept on protesting after GWB was out of office against Obama, and that she was probably mentally ill to some degree. Not that any of this excuses grief pimping or becoming a pawn against your own country. What’s worse are the enablers who cheer on this idiocy and call it “speaking truth to power” or some other bs progressive slogan.

      • Huh? How so?!? By that metric, those who protested the Vietnam War were also traitors. But history has proven them to have been absolutely right.

        And she was “mentally ill to some degree”? Evidence, please.

        • I think she often spoke and acted as if she was deranged. Millions of mothers have lost their sons in service of their country and not vowed a vendetta against the Commander in Chief. I don’t see the traitor angle, but she was completely irrational, and unfair. Eventually even her supporters in the ant-war movement and the media decided she was impossible.

          • No sale! Some might even say that about you or me, Jack. “Crazy” has become Internet-speak for “s/he doesn’t agree with me.”

            I don’t recall anything she ever said that was manifestly irrational, and it is a matter of historical fact that the Bush administration lied us into the Iraq War. Governments that start offensive wars always lie to rally the people behind them (ask Goebbels; remember the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Iraqi soldiers allegedly removing preemies from incubators in Kuwait?), and over the centuries, ours has not been an exception. She was right there.

            Sheehan called Bush a murderer. Vincent Bugliosi proved it up. On what basis do you call that legendary prosecutor a loon?

            I dug this Sheehan quote out from the archives:

            The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

            However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of “right or left”, but “right and wrong.”

            I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on.


            That statement should qualify her as one of your “Ethics Heroes.” She must be crazy, for holding the Left to the same ethical standard she used to bash the Right. And her remarks about Party loyalty can also be found in Washington’s Farewell Address. On what basis do you call the Father of our Country a loon?

            • I don’t recall anything she ever said that was manifestly irrational, and it is a matter of historical fact that the Bush administration lied us into the Iraq War

              It was not a lie, because they sincerely believed it to be true.

            • “…it is a matter of historical fact that the Bush administration lied us into the Iraq War” No, it isn’t. He was mistaken about Iraq’s actual WMD capability. A mistake is not the same as a lie.

              “Sheehan called Bush a murderer. Vincent Bugliosi proved it up” No, he didn’t. As I understand it, he called it an instance of felony murder, based on the claim that Bush lied to get us into war, and that doing so was some sort of felony, making him responsible for all the soldier deaths. I only scanned the blurb for his book on amazon, so maybe I’m not presenting it correctly, but it looks like nonsense to me.

        • Nope, that’s too general… Some people protested Vietnam War because they loved communism and hated America. Those people weren’t proven right by anything. Another group protested because they hate war. Another group because they hate futile wars…(this group was partially proven right if only because it became a self fulfilling prophecy).

            • History has judged otherwise. It was prosecuted on a false pretense, and that there was no reason for us to be fighting there. The protestors were right.

              • https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.politics.misc/ZlqrXvVsK5E/pgIK229WzrUJ

                Let’s put things in their proper context, for starters. You’re
                talking about an authoritarian communist regime which, during the
                1950s, was murdering many tens of thousands of North Vietnamese
                civilians, stealing the property of everyone else, and using terror
                tactics to subject the whole population of North Vietnam to a total
                destruction of rational social order. None of the usual excuses
                from historical revisionsists like you apply here: this wasn’t self
                defense because the French were gone; the US was not in North
                Vietnam during that decade.

                This was not a spontaneous uprising or well-intentioned attempt to
                make a “better society”. Ho Chi Minh founded the Indochinese
                Communist Party in 1930 (in exile in China). Before that, he was
                trained by the Soviets while in the USSR. These murderous thugs
                planned to conquer and enslave their own countrymen before moving
                on to their neighbors. They did both. Thirty years later, the
                people in Vietnam are STILL oppressed by their government and
                living in a failed economy, ruined by the denial of their freedom.

                Case made

              • Just idle curiosity…how does responding to the leader of an allied countries request for help qualify as “false pretenses”?

  1. Is there something about the concepts of “due process”, “innocent until proven guilty”, “double jeopardy” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” that eludes a large section of the black community?

    What is it about our justice system that they are missing? Is this not covered in a basic high school government class? Are they being swayed by uber-liberal activists who should know better? Is it just about the fame and sympathy?

    • It is certainly not race-based. The confusion has been exacerbated by racial issues, however. What I read on the progressive blogs and hear from the more shameful partisans is a “Since white people abused blacks for so long, there is a presumption of guilt, not innocence, whenever a white/”white Hispanic” individual kills a black one. This was the discussion that got me constructively banned at “ALAS!”, Barry Deutch’s blog ( I almost wrote “bog”—Freudian slip), when his commenters were justifying attacks on the Zimmerman jury verdict, which was unattackable on the facts. No, they said, blacks feel like Zimmerman must be guilty, so he should prove that he was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. That strain on non-thought—it’s bias, that’s all—seeps into the brains of vulnerable people like Brown’s parents (you know, if nothing else, it would be simpler to talk about them if African American parents got married…yes, they wouldn’t end up nurturing as many thugs like Mike Brown who get themselves killed, but also we could just say “the Browns,” like it was, you know, a family, like the unit that tends to raise the best citizens and human beings. I wonder if the UN has a panel on THAT. But I digress…)and they end up inviting international bodies that empower dictators to order the U.S. around.

  2. It seems to me that this is just another example of the utter lack of understanding of the legal system, due process, etc. among many, many citizens of this country. I tend to have a skepticism toward the legal system because it is run by flawed human beings who make mistakes. But I also believe in giving the process the chance to be right. It’s the only way to avoid chaos. The fact that so many Americans don’t seem to embrace “innocent until proven guilty” is a frightening reality.

    I guess it wouldn’t be ethical to make folks pass a citizenship test in order to be eligible to vote, would it?

    • Ethical? Not sure, but it would never pass into legislation. People don’t want to get a Photo ID to vote – something almost everyone has anyway for other purposes – they certainly won’t agree to pass a test to do it.

      Can you imagine the arguments? I can just hear them now: citizenship tests discriminate against the illiterate, the non-English-speaking population (unless, of course, you give the test in multiple languages, but which ones, and people would still say it’s discriminatory) and might include trick questions designed to prevent minorities from voting. Another example of White Privilege. It’s another poll tax. It’s not really a good measure of citizenship. Etc, etc, etc.

      I’d love to see a bunch of government-sponsored PSAs on television educating the population about the Constitution and the justice system. Good luck getting bipartisan support for that.

    • No, I’d say not. You are a citizen, and being one comes with the right to vote, even if you are ignorant, moronic, or evil. Think of a family. You don’t have to take a family literacy test to come to Thanksgiving dinner… or the beentitled to unconditional love from your parents.

        • It’s a right you can and should be able to lose, though, if you break the law (at least in some states). Neal Boortz once stated that he believed anyone on welfare (“the moocher class” as he put it) should lose the right to vote because at that point they are invested in voting for whoever promises to keep the checks coming. I don’t think that’s a bad idea, since it might give people on welfare an incentive to get OFF it.

          • Steve, see Alexis D’Tocqueville:

            “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

            Simple solution: institute a requirement to become a citizen other than being born here.

          • Yep, the challenge is in avoiding voters who vote only out of material or other self-interest. Vote buying a clear abuse by politicians that appeals to exactly the kind of voter a Republic cannot survive.

      • Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down pretty quickly. Most families don’t control extremely powerful armed forces, nuclear arsenals and the ability to control all or part of 350 million lives. The extreme lack of knowledge, the entitlement mentality and the victim mind-set make some sort of requirement to EARN the right to vote almost a requirement. But one unlikely to ever pass, just like a Congressional pay-cut is unlikely to pass. The public is as unlikely to vote to curtail its irresponsible behavior as it is to curtail its unearned entitlements.

        • This is why I really liked Ron Paul, I don’t know that I’d actually want him to take office, but more than anything else, he used his platform as an opportunity to educate the population about their process.

        • Just fractals, and differences of scale, not substance. The principle is the same. If you are a member of a group, you need not have to qualify yourself to have the privileges that are indistinguishable from that group.

          • And I would contend that it depends on how you became a member of that group. Specifically, did you do something in order to become a member, or was it an accident of birth that gave you membership? In this particular group, an accident of birth should not necessarily give you 1) membership or; 2) all the rights and privileges thereunto pertaining.

      • But but but…
        People who, by mere accident of birth, were not born in the U.S. must take a citizenship test in order to become citizens, and therefore eligible to vote. I’ve never understood why people who, by mere accident of birth, are born in the U.S. are not so equally required. Seems like American born people must be magically imbued with the knowledge they need to make good voting decisions?

        • You might love Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. He presented an entire discourse on the “accident of birth” luck.

          I’m almost convinced that at age 18, people should take a test similar to that of the immigrants. (but not quite- because the idea of testing immigrants to be assured that they don’t think things run in America the way things run in whatever Mother-Country they are coming from).

        • Funny, I don’t recall Nicole’s family going to the UN to demand that we lock up O.J.

          “Innocent until proven guilty” as I have explained here oh, 100 times? Means that we respect the construct that the GOVERNMENT and the SYSTEM can only regard an individual as guilty, and thus punish him (or her), if the legitimate, confirmed, reliable evidence proves to a jury that the accused could not be innocent by any reasonable and plausible interpretation of the facts, and that the system operated according to due process and the law. That does NOT mean that it is necessarily wrong to conclude, in some cases, that the accused was guilty (O.J. and Casey are good examples), but that the system correctly allowed them to be free, and officially “innocent”, because they could not be convicted under the evidence”

          “Innocent until proven guilty”.is almost completely misunderstood in the respect you are using it, in that it does not mean that a person we see with our own eyes (say, Jack Ruby) kill someone “didn’t do it” if by some botch he is found “not guilty.” Of course he did it, and of course he is guilty (like O.J.). But the government can’t treat him as if he was found guilty…and neither can the United Nations.

          • So its ok for people who didn’t witness the Nicole Brown killing to believe that OJ is guilty, but it isn’t ok for Michael Brown’s parent to believe that Wilson is guilty?

            Brown’s parents are trying to be proactive, to advocate for charges, as they believe they will get no justice from the Ferguson officials, who they think are in collusion with the police department. I see nothing wrong with asking more neutral parties to exam in evidence.

            This is not even to gloss over their statements regarding police conduct after the killing, which even the police department itself acknowledges was egregious.

            • We have enough evidence to conclude O.J is guilty. We have a video that proves Jack Ruby was guilty. Everyone in Ford’s theater saw a famous actor jump to the state after Lincoln was shot, and he had a diary outlining his plans, and his conspirators implicated him—he wasn’t found guilty, but it is fair to conclude he was. There was, you know, I trial, and I watched all of it, every bit.

              Nobody, at this point, has any justification concluding that Wilson is guilty OR innocent. Certainly not his parents.

              • Nobody, at this point, has any justification concluding that Wilson is guilty OR innocent.

                All the witnesses who actually saw the shooting that occurred in the middle of the street in broad daylight can certainly conclude things, correct? And the people that talk to them and know them and can evaluate their veracity?

                So we are allowed to come to our own conclusions only if there is a trial, even if the outcome of the trial is different than what we might have come up with? And if there is no trial? Then it’s ok if other people implicate you ( a la Booth)…which leads us back to the witnesses.

                Alrighty then.

                • You have no idea what “all the witnesses” saw. Eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable…people see what they want to see.Did Babe Ruth point to the stands and call his home run? In front of thousands, and reporters?

                  Confirmation bias makes the kinds of evaluations you talk about by the likes of Brown’s parents impossible and unreliable. In knew women who wore “I believe Anita Hill” buttons. They didn’t know her, or what happened. They didn’t like Clarence Thomas and his philosophy. Oddly, they didn’t believe Paula Jones.

                  If other people implicate you who were involved in the same act, you confessed as you died, were a celebrity and did your crime in plain sight…uh, not the best example to challenge, deery.

                  Sure, you can make a badly reasoned, biased decision based on inadequate information. Go ahead. It’s unfair, unreliable and dumb to do it, but go ahead. In the case of O.J., there was sufficient known evidence—motive, DNA, the shoes, Nicole’s blood in the car. Until there is similar evidence in the Brown shooting, nobody but Wilson may ever be able to fairly say what really happened.

                  • So if most of the witnesses agree, we should still discount it? With OJ as I’ve pointed out before, there was reasonable doubt enough to drive a truck through, when the key witness and lead detective takes the 5th on whether he planted any of the evidence in the case.

                    But going by unreliability, even Wilson may not be able to say for sure what happened, if he had all the adrenaline pumping from the earlier fight in the car. Bias all over the place, without video (and even video can be misleading). I think, like most people, Brown’s parents are dealing in probabilities, rather than certainty. No one will ever really have certainty, especially not in a case like this.

                    • Oh, please. There was reasonable doubt to what the jury was allowed to see: the stupid gloves fiasco supplied reasonable doubt. The evidence planting argument never made sense—the cops would have had to plant evidence before they knew whether O.J. had an alibi. The shoe tracks linking to a size and style that almost nobody else owned would have been enough to survive a guilty verdict appeal. He did it. We know it now, if we didn’t know it then, after O.J.’s “book” “If I did It.”

                      Brown’s parents have nothing but hearsay evidence. Testimony doesn’t indicate anything until it is under oath and cross examination. You sound desperate and naive. Why is it so important to you that Brown be shown to have been murdered?

                    • The cops knew that there had been multiple reports of domestic violence between OJ and his wife, and that in cases such as these, the husband was very likely to have done it.

                      Also, the LAPD, was (and is) notoriously known for planting evidence. See the Rampart scandal, for example. The defense had Furham on tape boasting about planting evidence in other cases. It was not hard to get reasonable doubt in that case.

                      As far as Brown goes, the parents do have more than hearsay evidence, they have direct eyewitness accounts. While I have no personal skin in the game, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to draw their own conclusions in the case, and why their conclusions would be anymore biased than people who access to the same information. But I do think, at the very least, once the grand jury is concluded, all the evidence should be released to the public.

                    • What? They can draw whatever conclusions they want, but they have no evidence themselves to give—it’s all hearsay when they are talking about it in Geneva. And unless they have interviewed all of the witnesses, they have received such evidence as hearsay. Newspaper accounts are hearsay.

                    • I don’t think they are conducting, or participating in a trial. The U.N. often asks people to give summations of things they heard about from other people, as well as reports that are aggregations of many people. As a general rule, the U.N. conducts very few trials. If they find Brown’s parents accounts compelling enough, they will send their own people in to investigate and issue formal reports and recommendations of action.

                      Brown’s parents are offering their thoughts on the American justice police system. They also have some first-hand testimony regarding police conduct during the protest that they can also give as well. It isn’t just about Brown’s killing, but prior and subsequent police action as well.

                    • ARGGH! I didn’t say they were participating in a trial I said that they personally have no evidence—that would be admissible IN a trial, because they have no direct evidence— to offer, thus their testimony before a panel and their “request” based on the testimony is W-O-R-T-H-L-E-S-S—a stunt proving nothing and convincing nobody who doesn’t have an agenda or who hasn’t made up their minds anyway.

                    • They can raise up enough questions that a UN panel might feel it it is worth investigating further. I don’t think it is necessarily worthless, plus you didn’t address the direct testimony that they could offer regarding the protests, and the way the police conducted themselves toward the protesters.

                    • There are films of the protests/riots. They have only one perspective, if that. No fair and credible determination could be reached without interviewing the police as well, and they won’t. It’s ridiculous. A kangaroo tribunal.

                    • I don’t think the UN panel is reaching a determination, except perhaps to investigate further. At which point they will send their own investigators and observers to examine all the available evidence.

            • “I see nothing wrong with asking more neutral parties to exam in evidence.”

              The proper recourse is to take it up to higher authorities one step at a time. The UN is 1) Not a higher authority, 2) Not neutral towards the American system.

              Their behavior borders, but barely on treason, tiptoeing ever so close without stepping over the line. The cowardly race hucksters who’ve put them up to this, be they American are tiptoeing on sedition, be they foreign, on subversion or espionage…

          • I may be arguing semantics, here, and if I am, I apologize. But I heard a Judge whom I respect a great deal once say “There is a tremendous difference between being ‘innocent’ and being ‘not guilty.'” From that I took innocent = didn’t do it; not guilty = not enough evidence to prove you DID do it.

            • Yep. You aren’t found “innocent”, you are found “not guilty”. And actually, I emailed Jack awhile back about it, is it more proper to say “found not guilty” or “not found guilty”. Logically they are the same, yet there’s a subtle difference. I still don’t know the answer.

            • “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t a law, and it isn’t in the Constitution. It is a construct, and yes, “non guilty” does not mean “innocent.” But the LAW is required to treat you as innocent until you have been found GUILTY. We don’t.

              • Now that I did not know (and I should have). I thought that innocent until proven guilty was Constitutional. And I agree that we should treat that way but we do not. The point I was trying to make is that a jury finding you ‘Not Guilty’ does not mean that you are innocent, even though the law has to treat you that way, and every body else should (but they don’t, sadly).

                • From the online legal dictionary (there are million versions of this):

                  Presumption of Innocence

                  A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.

                  The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant’s innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

                  In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

                  The Supreme Court has ruled that, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Taylor v. Kentucky). A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.

                  The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.

                  Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

                  Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

          • This is a pattern I notice amongst Leftists. TGT fell into this trap on the justice system before also. Since the average Leftist views the Government as the final arbiter of Truth and Objectivity, then in their eyes, Innocent (per the government) IS innocent, regardless of what any other individual may be able to glean from the facts.

      • Any man-on-woman offense, any offense involving children, and, these days, any crime with a white-on-black component the public, or a big chunk of it, seems to leap to “guilty as charged.” There’s a reason I don’t date and I don’t even nod to the kids next door. One slip, and you’re done as an upstanding citizen.

      • In actual fact, it depends on the college campus and who (or what) the perp is. If he is a BMOC, good luck getting anybody to take the charge seriously. As an aside, the spell-checker knows what a BMOC is, but not a perp. Somewhat scary, that.

  3. So, what about the civil rights groups that appealed to the UN about Detroit’s attempt to make people pay for city water? The UN Commission on Human Rights declared it a human rights violation for Detroit to charge for city water. That’s right, we can’t charge for city water or we are violating civil rights. I guess everyone at the water department is working for free now. All water purification and equipment must be delivered for free. OK, I know, they just decided that Oakland county residents will have to pay for the water that Detroit’s Wayne county residents use. So, I guess the UN’s decision is that you can’t charge blacks for city water? Seem pretty racist.

    For those who think this problems is because Detroit’s water rates are outrageous, check out the comparison.

    Click to access detroit_retail_water_rate_comparison.pdf

  4. “Wherever the line lies where grief and anger no longer excuse irresponsible, irrational and destructive conduct, the parents of slain police shooting victim Michale Brown have charged over it.”

    I’d say the line lies exactly on end of the pole. I don’t think anger and grief EVER excuse irresponsible, irrational or destructive conduct. It may make it understandable, but never excuses it.

  5. By all means, let us get the facts. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum! Let us see all of the evidence presented to the grand jury, and let us judge fairly. It sounds as if our Jack has prejudged based on his own personal biases, which can still be trumped by the Ace of Facts. I will express no opinion on the Michael Brown affair until all precincts have been heard from.

    Jack: “The [U.N. Committee Against Torture] supposedly works to address brutality by government around the world, but based on this stunt, and stunt it is, the panel is just one more U.N. sham entity with an anti-American agenda. Whatever is going through the minds of Brown’s parents, their willingness to be part of this transparent attack on the U.S. is in the spirit of treason.”

    We are signatories to the treaty which created that body, which means we are subject to its jurisdiction. Their duty is to investigate complaints, even against America. The list of nations represented on its ten-member board include Denmark, Italy, Mauritius, and the U.S. (on the other hand, China has a seat at the table). On its face, there is no evidence that that entity is necessarily anti-American, and that they are doing anything other than the job we entrusted to them. But if you are a closet John Bircher, everything the UN does is anti-American and treasonous per se and accordingly, your mileage may vary.

    America is not immune to official brutality. The U.S. Human Rights Network is what it purports to be: a network of ordinary citizens, striving to hold our government accountable for its wrongful actions. The fascists and statists hate them, just because. I say, let all voices be heard! Let us hear — and skeptically assay — what they have to say.

    AMG: “Is there something about the concepts of “due process”, “innocent until proven guilty”, “double jeopardy” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” that eludes a large section of the black community?”

    Apparently, that criticism cuts both ways.

    I have refused to judge what happened in Ferguson, though I understand the anger pervasive in the black community. If you had been treated like black men (ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson), you would feel the same way. I no longer trust the police implicitly, and I am not alone. Rather, I concur with President Reagan: “Trust, but verify!” A lot of people no longer trust the process any more, and that is far more corrosive than its handling of one incident. And this is what this entire brouhaha is all about.

    Jack: “Of course this is none of the international community’s business.”

    If what happens elsewhere is “our business” — and we have a long history of MAKING IT our business (e.g., Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Grenada, and our own advocacy of the Convention Against Torture) — then it logically follows that what happens here is their business. We signed on to the treaty, and as an inexorable result, we MADE IT “their business.”

    Jack: “Of course neither Brown’s parents and the organizations joining them have any reliable, unbiased evidence to offer the panel, and of course for them to take this disgraceful action in defiance and disrespect of the U.S. Justice system is loathsome and hostile, and no less.”

    And you know this for a fact precisely how, Jack? Have you reviewed their autopsy report, and are you also a medical doctor?

    The U.S. justice system is no longer deserving of blanket respect, and that is the exclusive fault of those who have maladministered it. The Browns have other remedies, and are availing themselves of them. Where is the problem?

    On this basis, I question the entire premise of this article.

    • The next to last paragraph is pretty much self-indicting.

      “The U.S. justice system is no longer deserving of blanket respect, and that is the exclusive fault of those who have maladministered it. The Browns have other remedies, and are availing themselves of them. Where is the problem?”

      1. Utter crap. The U.S. Justice system, with all its flaws, is the fairest and most just in the world. no other system makes it so hard to take away an individual’s freedom, or has such a high bar for establishing guilt.
      2. Remedies to WHAT? The determination is not complete. They are angry and want vengeance. Is the next remedy putting out a hit on Wilson? That would make as much sense.
      3. The problem is that this is about attacking the U.S., and only that. Nothing in the appearance can possibly have any effect of the case whatsoever. Maybe the parents are being duped, maybe they are ignorant. I really don’t care. They should shut up and wait, and accept the verdict.
      4. “If what happens elsewhere is “our business” — and we have a long history of MAKING IT our business (e.g., Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Grenada, and our own advocacy of the Convention Against Torture) — then it logically follows that what happens here is their business. We signed on to the treaty, and as an inexorable result, we MADE IT “their business.”

      That’s right, the U.N., which exists because of the U.S., is overwhelmingly funded by the U.S., and has no power without teh U.S., has no business intervening in our law and government. And the United States, which has saved the world from multiple totalitarian scourges at great cost in lives and treasure, interferes in self-interest and altruism, and the most powerful government dedicated to human rights and freedom can and must to avoid world chaos.

      That was the most fatuous agitprop I’ve read in a very long time. What’s the matter with you? Get an exorcist.

      • And as for saying that I have a dog in this hunt, back off. If the kid charged the cop after being told to stop, it was good kill. If he had stopped and had his hands up, it was murder. If he had sort of stopped, but had scared Wilson so badly and hyped him up in the fight that he wasn’t think straight and was in fear of his life, it’s manslaughter. Unless they can show racial animus, and I haven’t seen such proof, it’s not racist.

        I don’t care which is true, but it’s our case, not that of some phony UN panel. The U.S. signs such things because we have to if the UN is going to have any influence at all, but no, they do not order this country when to imprison citizens…are you out of your mind? That would be instantly blocked under the Constitution.

      • Jack: “Utter crap. The U.S. Justice system, with all its flaws, is the fairest and most just in the world.”

        Some smart people disagree with you. http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/Top-10-Countries-with-Best-Civil-Justice-nid-135444-cid-1.html We didn’t even make the Top Ten.

        As for our criminal justice system, a lawyer writes:

        “It would appear that despite these remarkable safeguards to protect the accused, the system seems to be resulting in far more guilty verdicts than justified. In the last section of this article we will discuss the economic aspects of the American criminal law system that may explain the perhaps inappropriate level of guilty verdicts: put simply, the system runs on money and the average accused is poor, thus unable to effectively utilize the various safeguards available. A wag put it well: “if you have money, it is the fairest system in the world.”

        http [usual]stimmel-law [dot] com [backslash] criminaljustice_us [dot]html

        The poor understand this well. The DA often over-charges, forcing them to cop a plea, even when innocent. As one criminal defense lawyer once told me, “I’d plead my mother out to a misdemeanor.” When that is your only experience, you can be forgiven for not trusting the system.

        The Browns are doing what any large corporation would do: go on a PR offensive.

        And if you are going to make the rules, you have to abide by them. We didn’t have to create the U.N., but we did. And if the pit-bull you brought home bites you, it is your fault.

        • Right. An American corporation that went on a PR offensive using foreign powers against the U.S. would be ruined. And the UN is not a marketing device.

          Appeal to authority—and what’s so smart about “SiliconIndia?”—is not an argument. I work in the system. I have been dispatched abroad to work with other systems. We are not talking about sentencing, or the death penalty. The US is more careful about protecting the rights of accused, and more determined to address civil wrongs, than any other system.

          You are ridiculous.

          • I must say, as was listening to a financial planning presentation this evening, it occurred to me that “big corporations do it” is the funniest and most unexpected variation on “the Golden Rationalization” I’ve ever heard. Bravo.

        • A Forbes article on the top ten justice systems as judged by the World Justice Project gives us a very different list. On whose opinion is the SiliconIndia article based? I started checking because I thought it very odd that Japan was included. Amnesty International, for one, condemns aspects of Japan’s justice system and I’ve never seen Japan on one of these lists, namely because the method of executing prisoners is still hanging*, judged as cruel and unusual by other industrialized nations, and they still use leather restraints for unruly prisoners. Also under fire by many prisoner’s rights groups is the policy that prisoners are not allowed to speak to other prisoners while working or during meals, and that police may hold you without charges or access to legal council for up to 23 days after arrest. I therefore found it interesting that Japan was included on your list, Justin.

          * although usually you have to commit multiple murders to get the death penalty.

              • My point was that considering the problems that Japan has in its justice and prison system , it was odd that it was designated by anyone as an exemplary system. I didn’t have time to do a great deal of research…I had to be out all day. Sorry about that.

                  • I see! Hard to tell sometimes. I’m sorry I misinterpreted your comment.

                    I live in Japan, and read the horror stories in the local papers (online). The fact that Japan is on the list Justin is touting made it suspect. Pick 10 lists and you’ll get…10 different lists, with no two having the same group of countries listed, was what I was thinking.

          • crella stated “A Forbes article on the top ten justice systems as judged by the World Justice Project gives us a very different list. On whose opinion is the SiliconIndia article based?”

            The Forbes article’s Justice rankings are based on the ‘WJP’s total overall ranking based on eight separate categories while ‘SiliconIndia’s ranking is based on only one of those categories, i.e. ‘Civil Justice’ so that is why there are different rankings.

            From the Forbes Magazine “This week, the World Justice Project released its annual Rule of Law index. It’s base don a survey of 1,000 people in three major cities in 99 countries, each asked identical questions about the limits of government powers, corruption, civil liberties and crime.
            The criminal justice system in the U.S. is what pulls the rug out from higher rankings here. The general public view it as discriminatory, and stories like the murder of Trayvon Martin in central Florida in 2012 help perpetuate that negative perception.”

            As the Treyvon Martin case showed, peoples perceptions of justice do not necessarily reflect the true situation, so this index can only be taken as a rough guide as to the level of justice in each country.

            • The Trayvon Martin case shows what is good about the U.S. justice system. Stunts like what Brown’s parents are doing embed misconceptions. When people use an incident that demonstrates the strength of the justice system to downgrade it, I really couldn’t care less what they think.

              • I think he was suggesting that the difference between public opinion and reality regarding Trayvon Martin illustrate the unreliability of using a survey to compare countries justice systems. The less fair system will get higher ratings because the obviously guilty person is always punished…

    • This pretty much answers my suspicions.

      I believe we have the 4th Incarnation…

      (the 3rd Incarnation was known as “Art Hawley”…I’ve forgotten the names of the previous 2 Incarnations that all bore this exact same flavor of commentary and all were banned before the follow-on incarnation made appearances).

      Hopefully my suspicions are wrong though…

      • Wouldn’t count on it. The evidence supports you: same writing style, same dependence of untranslated latin…well, the list is a long one. Wouldn’t be the first time somebody changed a handle in order to argue endlessly and pointlessly.

    • Justin: please check you e-mail. There is a growing suspicion that you are Art Hawley in disguise, and he has been banned for trolling. I am not convinced, but I do need your real name (I need everyone’s real name), and also an assurance that you are not, in fact, Art. I have made an official request, and I need an answer, or I will assume one.

  6. Maybe I am just a stickler for organizational hierarchy but I would exhaust all resources in the US criminal justice system before deciding to throw the baby out with the bath water.

  7. ALERT!!!! I just spammed/banned “Justin.” Either Justin is Art Hawley, as many of you have already surmised, or he’s been possessed by Art Hawley, or he is the result of an evil plot to clone Art Hawley and scatter thousands of them across the globe.

    The reference to Vincent Bugliosi’s screed against George W. Bush was the smoking gun—I had missed that comment (Thanks to Phlinn for referencing it.) All of the stylistic Artisms from “Justin” were suspicious, but since “Justin/Art” insisted that he was not dishonestly posting here under false pretenses after being justly banned, I was willing to provide the benefit of the doubt and trust in the good faith and motives of one posting on an ethics blog.

    Well, silly, Pollyanna me.

    I am heartened in a way, as I was originally sorry that I had to ban Art since when he wasn’t ranting on about his vendetta against judges and attacking me personally, he was capable of interesting commentary. Now I know that his character is such that he can only pollute the environment here. Good riddance.

    What a jerk. I wonder how many of them they cloned?

    One of the Art clones...

    • I didn’t realize that book was significant to Art. Let me guess, he treats it like Christians treat the bible?

      What’s sad is I may have agreed with him on some points. I’m not at all convinced that Judicial Immunity as currently implemented is a good idea… but I’m not irrationally obsessed with the idea of getting rid of it either.

      • Art had argued the brilliance of Vincent B.’s book before, so when Justin rushed to do the same, the jig was up. I admire Bugliosi, but that book was political hit piece, and that’s all it was.

  8. I doubt that you will be reading this, but you really should not try to argue Vietnam War issues with a ‘Nam vet. The attack that was acknowledged NOT to have happened did not happen on August 4, 1964, and was attributed to radar ghosts. The attack that started the whole thing happened on August 2nd and involved a US destroyer (The Maddox) and 3 North Vietnamese Patrol boats. Later, 4 F-8 Crusaders got involved. The only casualties were North Vietnamese.
    However, all of this occurred AFTER the South Vietnamese President (a virtual dictator) asked for and received assistance from Kennedy, who was having second thoughts and was beginning to disengage when assassinated. Democratic Liberal President Johnson then used the Aug 2 attack to escalate the war, which Republican President Richard Nixon ended.

  9. There is no evidence that they knew that Hussein was in compliance with the ceasefire. The king of Jordan had personally told General Franks that Iraq had WMD’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.