Published on October 20th, 2014 | by Cliff Kincaid0
The War on Police, Revisited
The justified police killing of black thug Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was used by the media to accuse the police of being “militarized” when they brought out the heavy equipment to cope with rioters. At the same time, Brown was portrayed as an innocent black man shot with his hands up. All of this was false, and it has now been proven to be false.
Anti-police protesters, joined by outside agitators, some of them communists, were said by CNN and other media to be opposed to racist “police violence” against black people. That was the story we were told.
Now, The New York Times has disclosed the evidence presented to a grand jury in the case. Police Officer Darren Wilson was attacked by Brown—after Brown robbed a convenience store—and the officer fired in self-defense.
This conclusion, reported by the Times in an October 17 story, should not come as a surprise. We’ve known that the shooting followed Brown’s robbery of a local convenience store, where he pushed the store manager around. In addition, the police said from the beginning that Wilson fired at Brown inside the police car, showing the officer was attacked there.
The idea of Brown throwing up his hands in a surrender pose has been shown to be utterly false.
The Times reported, “The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.”
In a follow-up, The Washington Post confirmed the account, saying, “Officials who spoke to The Washington Post on Saturday said the forensic evidence supports Wilson’s account that a scuffle occurred at the police vehicle, that Wilson feared for his life and that Brown went for, or lunged for, his gun.”
The Post added:
“From the earliest days police have said that Brown scuffled with Wilson and that a shot was fired in the vehicle.
“In those first police accounts, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said that Brown ‘allegedly pushed’ Wilson back into the car after Wilson tried to open the door. Brown, police said, then ‘physically assaulted’ Wilson and went for the gun. Wilson fired inside the vehicle, they said. Wilson then got out and killed Brown, Belmar said. Police said Wilson feared for his life because Brown charged him on the sidewalk.”
In other words, the police have been telling the truth all along. And this is now admitted by officials familiar with Attorney General Eric Holder’s effort to bring trumped-up charges against Wilson for murder. The forensic evidence makes Holder’s efforts impossible.
The Post said that some “protest organizers” were “unmoved by the forensic details…”
These “protest organizers” are racial agitators and communists. Why doesn’t the Congress investigate them?
Instead, as we have reported, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Rand Paul (R-KY) held a hearing to complain about the “militarization” of the police, with Paul received sympathetic media attention for his “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” display, one similar to the protesters egged on by the racial agitators.
But those protesters were part of the campaign to bring the trumped-up charges against Wilson. Despite their best efforts, the evidence is still against them.
In another case in the St. Louis area involving a police killing of an armed black thug, Vonderitt D. Myers Jr., the forensic evidence shows he had a stolen gun and “fired at least three shots at an off-duty police officer before the officer returned fire” and killed him. But a pastor who represents the thug’s family “rejected the claims by police” and insisted they had planted the weapon. The family had claimed that Myers “was holding a sandwich, not a gun, when he was shot.”
However, the king of whoppers is Radley Balko, The Washington Post blogger behind the false anti-police narrative that carried the day in the wake of the Ferguson controversy. He made police conduct, not the criminal activity, into the big issue for the media. He is responsible for much of the disinformation.
Balko has since moved on from condemning the police in Ferguson to a defense of writer John Grisham’s initial comments regarding the alleged harmlessness of possessing child pornography.
In an interview with the British newspaper, The Telegraph, Grisham had referred to 60-year-old white men in prison “who’ve never harmed anybody, would never touch a child,” but “they got online one night and started surfing around, probably had too much to drink or whatever, and pushed the wrong buttons, went too far and got into child porn.” One individual who went to prison was a “good buddy from law school,” Grisham said.
“Today, nine in 10 federal child porn prosecutions are of people never charged with the initial exploitation, only of making or trading the images,” Balko said in his erudite commentary on the controversy.
Of course, the legal basis for imprisoning those who possess child porn is that it encourages the sexual abuse of children. “I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all,” Grisham now says.
Although Grisham has apologized for his remarks, Balko seemed to think that Grisham’s point of view was somehow legitimate because Grisham has been critical in the past of how the criminal justice system operates. Balko quibbled about the ages of the young girls in the child porn videos.
Not surprisingly, Balko is a hero to the ACLU and is one of those “criminal justice reform” advocates.
The ACLU believes in legalizing the possession of child pornography and “reforming” the criminal justice system, too. The ACLU says it supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography because they abuse children. But once the material is produced and circulated, the ACLU believes Grisham’s “buddy” has the right to possess and use it for his own sexual gratification, whether he is drunk, stoned, or whatever.
Grisham, the Telegraph reported, “is a self-declared Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in her failed 2008 bid to win the White House.”
Balko is a libertarian once financed by the Koch Brothers through the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation.
In an update, Balko noted that the Telegraph disclosed that Grisham’s friend “was convicted of swapping photos of children, some younger than 12. That’s certainly a different story than what Grisham initially told the reporter.”
So, once again, Balko goes with a false narrative. This time, he had to backtrack. It is reminiscent of the “Warrior Cop” story he wrote for The Wall Street Journal that required a 200-word correction.
New Post owner Jeff Bezos ought to relieve Balko of his position. He has become too embarrassing to keep on the payroll.