It wouldn’t surprise anyone to find out that the Fox News Channel‘s coverage of Michael Brown killing was awful. But the night of the announcement of the grand jury decision (11/25/14), it was especially bad.
Sean Hannity could hardly contain his excitement–because this represented a defeat for Barack Obama. After playing clips of Obama discussing Ferguson, the killing of Trayvon Martin and the bizarre 2009 arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates outside his own house, Hannity explained the link between all three cases:
Zero for three, a three-time loser. President Obama on high-profile race cases.
It’s not really clear what Obama “lost” in any of the cases; the charges against Gates were dropped. Martin and Brown are dead. But Obama is the “loser.”
Other Fox News personalities took a different approach. Fox star Bill O’Reilly mused on Obama’s ideas about “racial crime,” which he says remain a mystery. “I’m not sure about Barack Obama’s point of view on racial crime,” he explained. “He has not been outspoken about the tremendous crime and violence perpetrated by black youth, of which Michael Brown was a part.”
Actually, Obama has spoken frequently on the subject (Media Matters, 12/1/14), including delivering a fairly well-known speech back in 2008 (reported in the New York Times —6/15/08–under the headline, “Obama Sharply Assails Absent Black Fathers”). Obama’s rhetoric on these issue has drawn criticism for being tailored to appeal to conservative white audiences (Black Agenda Report, 6/17/08).
Let’s keep in mind that this confrontation occurred because Michael Brown took a shot at a cop who was sitting in his cop car and reached for his gun…. Where is the responsibility for what Michael Brown did? Where is the responsibility? He committed a crime that night. That’s clear…. You’re treating Michael Brown like he was a squeaky clean kid minding his own business. He had just committed a robbery, the witness testimony is that he attacked a police officer.
That was the same message that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered on Kelly’s show:
I think the racial arsonists in this country have worked these people up so much with propaganda that facts don’t matter. Every time that Mr. Brown is described as a young man, and people forget he had committed a robbery. In fact, the police officer in his testimony says that Brown took some of the cigarillos and pushed them in the car, and said, you know, take these, actually proving that he was the robber that the police officer was looking for.
Actually, Wilson said that Brown handed the cigarillos to his friend Dorian Johnson—no one said he pushed them into the car to “prove” he was a robber.
One of the more revealing exchanges that night came during the O’Reilly Factor, when the host and Fox regular Bernie Goldberg traded insights on the meaning of the case. Here’s Goldberg:
More than a few journalists, especially on television, are trying to turn this into a civil rights story. But you know what? Ferguson, Missouri, is not Selma, Alabama. 2014 is not 1965. And Michael Brown is not Emmett Till and Medgar Evers or any other black person who was shot by a white bigot.
Michael Brown, that day, stole stuff from a little convenience store and then roughed up the owner who was half his size. Michael Brown then thought he would get away with, according to the grand jury, with roughing up a cop. He brought about his own demise. It’s a tragedy when any 18- year-old kid is killed. And especially for the parents. We certainly sympathize with that. But Michael Brown was the bad guy in this case and, please, America, let’s not turn this kid into some kind of civil rights martyr, because that he is not.
O’Reilly congratulated his guest for being so brave: “That’s not the narrative that the national media has embraced, that Michael Brown, as you put it, brought about his own demise.”
The two went on:
GOLDBERG: The bad person in this case, the villain in this case–and I know, I still have sympathy for the tragedy involved–but the bad person in this case was Michael Brown. And that’s something you will not hear from most reporters, because it’s politically not correct and they never feel comfortable. They always say they want an honest discussion about race. They don’t. They want a politically correct discussion about race.
O’REILLY: That’s an excellent point. I don’t think they want an honest discussion about race either. If they did, we would get into the whole fabric of the family and the —
GOLDBERG: Exactly.
O’REILLY: –and all of that.
GOLDBERG: You are absolutely correct.
Perhaps the discussion about race that O’Reilly thinks most reporters are not honest enough to have is the one he contributed to on his January 17, 2000 TV show (Extra!, 7/8/01):
I don’t understand why in the year 2000, with all of the media that we have, that a certain segment of the African-American community does not understand that they must aggressively pursue their child’s welfare. That is they have to stop drinking, they have to stop taking drugs and boozing, and–and whites do it, too! Whites do it, too!
I don’t understand why in the year 2000, with all of the media that we have, that a certain segment of the African-American community does not understand that they must aggressively pursue their child’s welfare. That is they have to stop drinking, they have to stop taking drugs and boozing, and–and whites do it, too! Whites do it, too!
The Point of View of some one who needs Rectal-corneal surgery, to remove the shitty outlook on life in general, and specifically on “non-whites”
Although it’s the height of hypocrisy coming from the likes of O’Reilly and Goldberg, it is true that the complexities of Michael Brown, Jr.’s life have been missing from the rhetoric of those decrying his death.
And that’s problematic to my mind, because you don’t have to paint him as the boy next door to be justified in condemning yet another police killing of a black person.
This is ultimately about whether lethal force was justified under the circumstances. The preponderance of the evidence points to that not being the case here, and there have been countless other similar situations where it plainly was not.
Michael Brown didn’t have to be Jesus to not have deserved to die, and I think that point has been lost in the understandable grief that his loss has engendered among so many.
Michael Brown was lucky the shop owner that he robbed didn’t have a gun or he may have died sooner. What chance did this kid have as his childhood was probably a nightmare with no supervision, etc. However the black leaders like Al Sharpton need to preach education and family rather than blame everything on whitey. What would you do if a 300lb person was coming at you (high on pot) and wanting to dismantle your face?
If it wasn’t for FOX News you would never get a straight story based on facts. Democrats hate the facts and ignore them unless it’s convenient to do otherwise.
You know nothing, you stooge. You know nothing about Brown, or his parents. Al Sharpton has nothing to do with anything. Filching some Swisher Sweets aint a “robbery,” dummy. And if I’m an armed cop and a “300 hundred pound person” is approaching me from over 20 feet away and I know he’s un-armed and wounded I get back in my car, lock the door, and call for backup. I don’t go all OK Corral on the kid because I’m scared and I think black teenagers are enemy combatants. Jesus Christ, get your head outta your ass and think.
Hey Paul, you sound like the kind of fella who has a lot of time on his hands, so do provide us some examples of “facts” that Democrats ignore. Take your time.
Reporting on politics as war, it used to be said that journalists watched until the battle was over and then descended from the hills and shot the wounded.
Faux News has updated this. Faux operatives in armoured cars accompany the troops and take pot shots. Then the trolls (Kravitz, Sheplin et al.) come down and shoot the wounded. Luckily, the trolls are usually blithering idiots, easily exposed.
Time will tell…
” “Paul.A.Sheplin 20 hours If it wasn’t for FOX News you would never get a straight story based on facts. Democrats hate the facts and ignore them unless it’s convenient to do otherwise. ” ”
Fox News – the furthest departure from reality that can be achieved by a human, without the use of Pharmaceuticals. And Fux Snooze Nitwork Trolls are the farthest out from the level of reality of any living creature. They must be the fabled Lotus Eaters of Greek Mythology, because they live in a dream world of their own making.
However I must point that obviously Mssr Sheplin is a comedic act, but Mssr Sheplin this is not Comedy Central, you missed the website by a significant amount. Head on back to the Faux Snooze Nitwork,
Doug, you are correct about the issue being “was lethal force justified”, but your conclusion confuses me. Have you reviewed all released documentation concerning the incident? The documentation provided there WAS an absolute preponderance of evidence to justify the shoot and I agree with the panel’s determination. For physical evidence, FBI blood spatter analysis showed Mr. Brown turned around and travelled approximately 21 feet towards the officer, while shell casings showed the officer was moving backwards as he fired; additionally, three separate autopsies showed Mr. Brown had not been shot in the back. Testimonial evidence was more split, but many of the witnesses accounts saying the officer acted wrongly were proven fictitious by physical evidence. For example, the majority of witnesses (11) still testified the office was shooting Mr. Brown in the back as Mr. Brown was running away – which we know, by physical evidence (no entry wounds to back), did not happen. Many witnesses (5) testified Mr. Brown never turned around or never moved towards the officer – which we know, by physical evidence (blood spatter), is not true. Some witnesses also testified seeing the officer repeatedly shoot Mr. Brown execution style as he was down, which we know by physical evidence, did not happen.
After you take out all the “witnesses” whose testimony proved to be false, you have physical evidence and many other credible witnesses, who have accounts supported by the physical evidence. The fact that many news organizations, after the release and review of this information, are making very pretty looking graphs saying “majority of witnesses said xxxxx”, without stipulating that the majority of witnesses were proven to have been lying. This is severely disturbing to me that the press would continue to circulate a false narrative, especially since it was the press who turned this into the explosive racial issue it is today through widespread initial coverage that “a white cop stood behind a black teen (who was on his knees with his hands up) and shoot him in the back repeatedly execution style”. In truth, the situation is that a cop stopped two individuals walking down the center of the street disturbing traffic. Whether the individuals were white, black, green, or purple, the cop still would have stopped and dealt with the situation – it was not racially motivated. After the stop, Mr. Brown decided to assault the officer and the situation escalated. It is a very tragic situation, but that is the truth of it.
Many ask “why did the officer not retreat or hide”? That is not what police are trained to do and neither should it be. Police are trained to confront threats, not run away from them. Consider this, what if you called the police for assistance but they would not respond or help because they were afraid? What if someone broke into your house and attacked you or hurt your family, but a policeman arrived and willingly let that person escape because that policeman was afraid of confronting and stopping that person. You would be upset, and rightfully so. If an officer runs or hides from a dangerous situation or person, and that situation or person then caused others to be harmed, that officer would be fired and or sued, and should be. 15 to 20 minutes before being stopped by the officer, Mr. Brown had robbed and choked a local store owner. If the officer had hid and Mr. Brown had left to commit more crimes, or hurt anyone else, that would be the officer’s fault. He selfishly failed his duty to confront and stop a threat and others paid the cost for it. That should never happen. We call police and expect them to deal with the situation, as they should.
Many ask “why did the officer shoot him so many times”? It is extremely rare (and even more so difficult) to incapacitate a person with one shot – unless you’re watching tv or movies. Even if a person is shot through their heart and will die, they still have about 15 to 20 seconds left of blood circulation to move, think, and act against you. This is why police and military are trained to keep firing until the threat is stopped. In this situation, the officer only continued to fire because Mr. Brown continued to advance on him. The autopsies confirmed that all shots previous to the last, would not have killed Mr. Brown and he would have been able to advance on the officer.
Again, this is an extremely sad and tragic situation, but it is not the racist travesty we were led to believe it was, or still being led to believe. The officer’s actions would have been the same no matter the race of Mr. Brown. Had Mr. Brown been a 300 lb. white man who decided to block traffic and then attack the officer, he still would have killed. To continue to call this situation racially motivated only cheapens and weakens others situation that actually are.
But back to your main point, the principal determining legal factor for “was the lethal force justified” is “would a reasonable person believe the officer was in fear for his life when he fired the shots”. Credible witnesses related the officer was stunned and wobbly after first being assaulted by Mr. Brown. Also, that the officer was moving backwards as Mr. Brown advanced on him would also lead a reasonable person to believe he was fearful of the situation. I believe it is extremely credible the officer, believing Mr. Brown could physically overpower and possibly kill him (it does happen – http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/04/01/Upstate-New-York-police-officer-killed-with-own-gun/7741396370514/ ) , was in fear for his life. By law, the threshold has been met and the shoot justifiable. Again, a tragic situation, but that is the truth.
I have been following FoxNews and CNN coverage on this. Bill O Reilly has been very thorough, impartial and realistic. I think if one sees things from the optics of an educated middle class American, FoxNews has been the best. If one is a racist, pro-crime and agitator, CNN has been Great.
@Tragic Incident – You did a wonderful of picking one or two cherries out of the pile and pointing out that in fact, they were “bad”, blaming them for the entire mess. The Lame Stream Media didn’t help much either, in getting out the facts.
However, if you had bothered to read the story and looked around you would have noticed the fact that that not only the tree, but the whole bloody Orchard and the farm land around it, is in extreme need of work.
The fact one ‘Black man’ gets shot and killed is not the issue here AND you know it. Hence the whole screed about the evidence. What is the issue is the fact that the community itself is being systematically abused, and marginalized as is happening in many communities all over the U.S. It is interesting that when it is ‘ White Cop Shooting Black or Poor Person’, the evidence ‘found’ is nearly always “on the side of the police’ in justifying the actions. The factors that cause that are of course, always far more complex than anyone single person or event, but somehow the ‘lame stream media’ (and you) seem to miss or marginalize that.
One or two ‘cherries’ picked and declared as the culprits for spoiling the “perfect pie”, while the rest of the orchard rots in neglect is not fact finding, it is fact ignoring.
Padremellryn –
I do not know if the “entire community itself is being systemically abused”; though, there is a federal investigation on-going right now concerning those very allegations. If this is the case, and that is the determination, based upon facts and evidence, something needs to been done about the situation.
However, we are dealing with two distinct and separate investigations, the single-scope investigation of “Officer Wilson v. Michael Brown” and the all-inclusive investigation of “Is the Ferguson community being systemically abused by the Ferguson Police”. Even though the determination of this (or any) single-scope investigation could (and should) be used in the all-inclusive investigation, the single-scope investigation must be independently investigated first.
I’m not cherry-picking, as I was commenting only on the “Officer Wilson v. Michael Brown” investigation, based upon the released documentation I personally reviewed. I know nothing of the official findings of the federal “Is the Ferguson community being systemically abused by the Ferguson Police” investigation and will withhold any personal opinion of it until I can personally review any official findings on that. Everyone throwing out un-informed personal opinions based only on hearsay and emotion, without any actual review of facts, is what makes these situations get as bad as they do.
Everything I related concerning the “Officer Wilson v. Michael Brown” investigation was true. Actual physical evidence and testimonial witness evidence proved the shoot was justified. There were many witnesses who said it wasn’t (i.e. – said cop shot Mr. Brown in back as he ran away, cop stood over Mr. Brown and shot him execution style, Mr. Brown never advanced towards the cop), but physical evidence and the other witnesses proved they were lying (and some even admitted it, when challenged).
If there is racial bias in Ferguson, it is not within this incident. Any police officer, of any color, in any town, would have stopped any individuals, of any color, walking down the center of the road disturbing traffic. After that happened, Mr. Brown attacked the officer and things went very bad. If Mr. Brown had been white and attacked the officer, he still would have been shot. This incident is a very bad example of racial bias, because there is none here.
I do agree with you about the “lame-stream media” being bad, though. They were the ones who pushed a false story that got everyone so upset. However, we now know what they initially told us is not true. The officer did not come up behind Mr. Brown (kneeling with hands up) and shoot him repeatedly in the back execution style. The officer made a legal stop that any policeman of any color would have, and was attacked. I think we should be very upset with the media for this situation. They profit over controversial stories and are falsely creating controversy that is dividing us as a people causing further harm, destruction, and death.
Edward Kravitz: What would you do if a 300lb person was coming at you (high on pot) and wanting to dismantle your face?
__________________________________________________
Dude, the only thing I’ve even seen someone high on weed wanna dismantle is a bag of Doritos.
Attorney General Holder called Americans “cowards” for not talking honestly about race and Al Sharpton professes to be extremely concerned about race relations and also wants to talk about it. However, if we are to discuss this issue, we have to be honest and examine the entire issue – but these men consistently only present one perspective. These men are creating a crisis where none exists. Sharpton has visited the White House over 80 times. He appears to be working on making this a crisis so that Americans will readily accept federal action on the issue. These men cannot execute their plans without help from the media and the media readily assists them by their extremely biased reporting. The reports of attacks on blacks by whites are covered constantly and intensely – but the reverse is mostly never reported and if it is, then only briefly and in no detail. We all know how much the media covered and continues to cover the Michael Brown case, but how much have you seen in the media about the following people? 1) Kevin Quick, a white police officer who was kidnapped and killed by 6 blacks in January 2014. Attorney General Holder stepped in to protect the perpetrators from the death penalty. 2) Steve Utash, a 54 year old white male who was attacked (April 2014) by approximately 20 black males after he accidently hit a 10 year old boy who was running in the street. The boy was not injured, but Mr. Utash who stopped to check on the boy was beaten so badly he had to be placed in a drugged induced coma for 10 days. All of the attackers (only 4 were identified and arrested) received light sentences; one got 6 months with the possibility of having his record erased in the future. 3) David Knighten who was seriously beaten by a black mob that was unhappy with the Michael Brown Verdict. 4) The white couple attacked by 6 young black men in Springfield. The video is currently available online to view. The list goes on and on – but no media reports. Also, these people, unlike Michael Brown and others were not breaking the law, but no outrage, none at all.
How can we address this issue and talk about it like Obama, Holder, and Sharpton want unless we think about it critically which requires examining the entire issue?
Some frank questions that need to be asked:
Why do Blacks Americans, so often, respond by looting, arson, and attacking innocent people?
Why is there such a disparity in the media reporting on the attacks on blacks versus the attacks on races other than blacks?
Why do Black Americans, who compose 13% of the population (census bureau 2013), commit 49% of the murders, 33% of the rapes, 55% of the robberies, (FBI stats 2012) etc.?
There are good and bad people of every race. Certainly socioeconomics play a role, among other things. The discussion has to be honest and, so far, it is has not been.
So… What some of you “commenters” are saying is if your an old white conservative fart(as I am) I’m a blithering racist?
Did I get that right??
Well, apparently the trolls have found this website; perhaps the vaunted Fox has directed them here.
In any case, nothing I’ve read has explained why there shouldn’t have been a TRIAL. The grand jury is NOT a trial. In this case, there was absolutely no prosecution, just a defense with no hint of a charge.
It takes real trial lawyers (and I know you hate them until you need them) to know how to cross examine, not just jury members asking random questions.
And, please, don’t try to persuade anyone here that only Fox has the truth. They have none, and posters here are smart enough to know what you fail to see.
The list goes on and on – but no media reports.
__________________________________________
Yeah, no media reports at all. Except for the numerous media reports for every one of the instances you list.
Tragic Incident is someone I know, and I wish he’d identify himself and his financial interests in law enforcement. I’m using my real name, but he won’t use his. Charitably, I won’t out him. He hogs a lot of space while imparting few truths.
First, he makes you think Brown was dangerous. If that were true, then why didn’t the police do Police 101 and fingerprint the weapon that Wilson swore Brown grabbed? Because after the event, 3 of the brass instead swooped down on Wilson and took him to the ER, where the docs looked at a few scuff marks on his face; nothing, you see, looked like he’d been hit twice by a 300 pound man. If Brown had really grabbed that gun, you bet the police would have fingerprinted it, just like they do any homicide weapon. Tragic Incident and I both know that this is a first in Ferguson: The homicide weapon in a major case goes un-fingerprinted. The brass knew Brown didn’t really grab Wilson’s gun.
So next they let Wilson wash away the blood evidence on his hands and arms, again steering him away from the evidence lab and instead toward the ER for a condition for which no one but a guilty man would seek treatment.
Remember that Brown ran from the scene, with Wilson chasing after him. At that time, Wilson knew Brown had not grabbed his gun and had left only superficial scuff marks on his face during the encounter. His pride injured, Wilson resorted to deadly force against someone who was not an imminent and deadly danger to him or others. Thus, he could not legally threaten or use deadly force against Wilson under the SCOTUS standard set forth in the 1986 Garner case.
Wilson fired several times at Brown as Brown was running away from him with his back turned, but did not hit him. We know this because Wilson fired a total 12 bullets, 2 during the scuffle while Brown was outside the car, 4 hitting Brown in the chest after he had turned around to surrender, and at least 6 more that missed or are not accounted for. Of course, Wilson would tell you Brown “reached for his waistband”, which is a totally implausible excuse for killing someone who had not used a gun earlier in a direct confrontation and was in full flight before obeying Wilson’s orders to stop. Most witnesses say Brown didn’t “bum-rush” Wilson, which is again implausible since Brown had already sustained four wounds to his chest and arms before Wilson shot him twice in the head as he was falling. Tragic Incident knows that when an officer gets four direct hits on body mass, he’s out of imminent danger.
The physical evidence TI points to is evidence entrusted to the same people who wouldn’t fingerprint the homicide weapon, so they are not to be believed. Also, Wilson was known as a bit of a physical coward who couldn’t use normal force. He caught hell from teasing co-workers when he was whipped up on by a 50 year old fireman who caught the then 23 year old Wilson with his wife in the couple’s house, their sleeping child in an adjacent room. Wilson, 76 inches tall and 208 pounds of slack musculature, simply became enraged when Brown scuffed up his face, though Wilson initiated everything by cursing Brown, ordering him off the street and onto the sidewalks, and then skidding to a stop right in Brown’s path after Brown refused to comply.
The Grand Jury was a farce, as Tragic Incident knows. There was enough evidence to convict Wilson of manslaughter before a regular jury, so the indictment should have issued. Conflicts in evidence are never a reason not to indict, but do serve as a reason for the jury trial where peers in an open setting can resolve those disputed questions of fact. And since Wilson carried no Taser but a pistol on his right hip, are we supposed to believe that Brown reached all the way across Wilson’s body and grabbed his pistol? And what side of Wilson’s face is scuffed?
Hate is not the answer but the cause of the problem, how can it be peace between race or authority when police kill the community and the community kill police. Let see the trigger of the problem. Michael brown have a criminal pattern and the police also had a abuse of power pattern. First what happened with the pepper spray the tazer gun and police training, because as I know and understood, Michael brown was not arm, no weapon what so ever. So with that said, where is the foul; obiously the police fail to proceed with the right tool for the situation.( killer, anarchist, sycophants, kkk, take this as an opportunity to create chaos for their pleasure. There is a lot more good people in this country then bad
Also keep in mind that this hate crime in Ferguson are a opened door for isis to recruit people all over the country. So it means that if Ferguson justice is not apply to the ones who pulled the trigger on the community; isis will keep on growing, because many people see it as terror believe or not. Don’t let this wrong actions take roots and grow, because it fruit will be bitter and unpleasant for all of us. The people has grown and his power with it, fixed the problem before it becomes a domino effect