The Four Color Media Monitor

I find it interesting how these days a man can be called a "protester" as he's burning down a building, robbing a liquor store, or bashing a McDonalds window into a thousand pieces with a baseball bat.

For that matter, Muslims attacking a US installation with rocket launchers and machine guns (and killing four Americans) are "protesters," while a rancher who gets into a dispute with the government over grazing fees (a dispute in which no one is killed or injured) is a "terrorist."

Dude, that Boko Haram thing was, like, you know, six months ago. The "#Free Our Girls" fad has passed. So now we're doing, like, justice for somebody named Michael Brown, whoever that is. And a few months from now, we'll forget all about him and campaign for, like, you know, whatever is the next trendy cause.

Simone: "Why are the protesters and the victims' always under the microscope? Why not the perpetrators?" WTF? Wilson and the police department have been "under the microscope" ever since this mess started. The "victim's" parents and the "protesters" (i.e., rioters) have been portrayed as saintly martyrs by the media. The same thing happened with Trayvon Martin and his parents.

And, if Brown had killed Wilson, and the case against him got dismissed for lack of evidence, would she still refer to him as a "perpetrator"?

Kaliban: "Fear, hate, bigotry, and police corruption won." If he wants to talk about bigotry, how about assuming a person is guilty without knowing all of the facts?

Kaliban: "Urge Justice Dept. to ban racial profiling by law enforcement." There is no evidence of racial profiling in this case. Brown was jaywalking when the officer stopped him. Then the cop noticed that Brown fit the description of the suspect in a robbery (and, as it turns out, Brown was the robber). When the cop called for backup, Brown attacked him.

Kelly Sue DeConnick: "Can a civil case be brought against Wilson?" Yes. But the family will probably sue the city instead, because the city has deeper pockets.

Capullo: "Lots of guilty people go free." Sometimes. But, in a trial, the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a grand jury hearing, the bar is much lower. If a grand jury does not indict, it means not only was there room for a reasonable doubt, but that there was not even enough evidence to justify a trial.

Capullo: "There should have been a trial." If there was not enough evidence to indict, then there was obviously not enough evidence to convict, so a fair trial would have acquitted the cop. Then Capullo, Kaliban, et al would have been whining about the trial verdict, just as they are now whining about the grand jury decision.

Zircher asks why Wilson didn't use a Taser, and also says that police should use rubber bullets, "with a switch to real ones IF necessary." Right. Is the cop supposed to ask his assailant to wait while the cop removes the rubber bullets from the weapon and replaces them with live ammunition?

Mike McDaniel's article at The Truth About Guns.com (Aug. 28, 2014) debunks the myths about "non-lethal" weapons like Tasers and rubber bullets.

If Wilson had used a non-lethal weapon (stun gun, pepper spray, billy club) would the protesters be satisfied that he used the appropriate amount of force? And if the officer had been tried and acquitted, would they accept the possibility that an impartial jury had rendered a fair verdict?

In the early 1990's, four LAPD cops were tried for beating Rodney King on the arms and shoulders with lightweight aluminum batons. (After he attacked one of the cops, and after a Taser failed to stop him.) The cops' acquittal triggered a riot.

In 1965, there were riots in Los Angeles after a black motorist was allegedly beaten up by California Highway Patrol officers. (It turned out the rumor was false; the drunk driver did not resist arrest, and the CHP cops did not use any force to restrain him.)

Rioters gonna riot, no matter what. And limousine liberals gonna make excuses for them, no matter what.

The Social Justice Warriors have already made up their minds, and they have no intention of being confused by facts.

G. Willow Wilson converted to Islam, so I guess she doesn't believe that #JewishLivesMatter.

Remember too: "Progressives" supposedly believe in SCIENCE. You know, like the "settled" science of global warming, er, um, climate change for which ANY skepticism is absolute and complete HERESY.

Oh, but all the SCIENTIFIC evidence that only -- ONLY -- the grand jury was privy to ... well that doesn't mean a blessed thing, especially when it comes to deeply ingrained dogma.

Wait, Ron Marz said that this article is racist? I do not see the naked racism he was tweeting about. I guess anything he does not agree with is now racist.

Ron Marz grow up.

Blood trail behind body=he was coming back at Wilson. Blood inside car=he was reaching in there. You can only be a racist, idiot, or willfully ignorant if you don't look at basic facts.

Mike Brown's own inhumane behavior got him killed.

It's a sign of the times (and of convoluted Leftist "logic") that "#BlackLivesMatter" (i.e., the lives of members of a favored group matter more than others) is politically correct and socially acceptable, but saying, "All Lives Matter" is considered "racist."