Michael Brown’s kin: Ferguson cops ‘assassinated him. they're trying to assassinate his character’

The family of the unarmed black teenager killed by a Missouri cop accused their town’s police chief of trying to “assassinate” the victim’s character.

But Jackson also revealed that Wilson was responding to 911 reports of a “strong-arm” robbery at a convenience store Saturday when he fatally shot 18-year-old Brown. The timing of Jackson’s revelation outraged Brown’s parents and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been advising them, branded it a “smear campaign.”

“It’s bad enough they assassinated him, and now they’re trying to assassinate his character,” Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/darren-wilson-identified-killed-18-year-old-michael-brown-article-1.1904539#ixzz3AU2vGlch

I’m a former law man, a federal agent, and it is not “understandable” nor authorized. The law enforcement agent in our country, regardless of level and jurisdiction, has one common charge: Act under the laws (statutes) that authorize. And, the LEA must *know* such statutes. And, the LEA must be able to state any of such statutes in response to questions.

In several situations, the LEA must -— in advance of exercising action -— state the statutes that apply and may apply.

It is unfortunate, that department leaders are lazy about making sure that the men and women in their charge, *do that.*

We, as federal agents, *must do that.* It is something that you rarely see, as a practice, portrayed in any media. It is something that also way too many judges *now* fail to require of an LEA; but still, when finally in court, there are some good judges who *require* that the LEA properly followed due process.

Due Process includes, *that* < - - you *must,* both properly ID yourself as an LEA and cite the statutes.

The biggest reason that there are bad cops, is because their are bad leaders of them ... and that includes the all too many lazy, and some bad, judges ... who “don’t give a damn.”

The exercise of law enforcement, is about taking *only* authorized actions. “Departmental policy” means *NOTHING* in the face of the statutes; and policies are not substitutes for statutes.

A police department is not a department of government; a police department is a *department* within the common law - it is an arm, an extension, for the local justice of the peace. When you are arrested, it is *the judge* who is arresting you, *thru* the LEA(s).

Getting it right, requires discipline, training, but especially a determination in both the mind and heart of the LEA, to respect the above due process and statutes ... and it is *that* which makes us safe *from* abuse.

Otherwise, there is more and more abuse as the department “leaders” and bad judges make themselves semi-gods and “the law.”

There is no room in any of it, for a thug, a brute, a bully, a screwup who abuses their authority. The worst people on the planet, are the people in whom we authorize to act in our stead, to enforce laws, because we are busy and therefore must hire somebody from among us ... but the hired law man / law woman abuses the powers and authority and our trust in them.

Excellent points, all. I wish there were more law men in your mold.

By "understandable", I did not mean justifiable. I simply meant it is understandable why some law men operate outside the boundaries of the law when they see the media cheerleading for criminals who constantly get excused for doing much worse.

In an ideal world, all law men would have an attitude comparable to Tom Selleck on Blue Bloods. Even in today's world, they should strive for that same attitude. I'm just saying that people like you and Selleck's character will be increasingly harder to find, recruit and train given the wanton corruption in the law which is not only tolerated but celebrated by far too many of those entrusted to protect it.

Thank you. I was a maverick; meaning, I was a strict observer of due process. That is shunned by some, but it was invaluable to me, because I know what it means to lose your freedom - and I had many close, personal ties to *that* line of work.

I disdained abuses of authority, unlike some distant colleagues of modernity who do not understand how close to losing freedom, they could be - ie how “life trips you up.” I was much more informal, I refused to particpate in the compromising and abuse of authority. It’s a real uncomfortable feeling when a colleague goes even slightly rogue, if you’re a person who cares.

I preferred the company of the old guard, which were still around. A fellow, a really decent USSS, was also strict about due process. I asked him to run through the ID drill, and he complied exactly as he should. (I later saw him on Reagan’s detail before the 1980 November election.)

A proper ID display procedure by a fed, is to present two photo ID’s plus your shield. The formal USSS ID was, way back then, a splend array of almost all the requirements. It was all arranged within a small diploma-like booklet that you opened up -— I’ve never seen it portrayed in any movie. The shield, the statutes, and a good photo. The statutes state at least the authority to operate in the capacity of federal agent - the general scope of your duties. A second ID could be a federal drivers license ID.

I’ve completely forgotten all the statutes, it was so long ago (though for some reason, USC 1872 rings a bell). But I have not forgotten, that we were required to respond to questions from citizens. If a citizen stopped us and inquired, we *dutifully* ID’d ourselves and would explain some things.

The idea there, was that people relaxed when they realized, that they were in touch with the law ... instead of being bullied around or pushed around by some federal strumpet, Hollywood wannabe. It turns out, that people *like* knowing more about the law.

You had to be able to tell the *good* judge, that you saw in the countenance of the person, an acknowledgement of the authority that you represented. But usually before that, and always in my case, an explanation of things would get a person to *see the law* and do the right thing. I refused to bait or to nudge anybody toward the wrong direction. Instead, it was, “This statute says this, and then if you go to _____ then the consequence is _______” and the citizen did the math.

BTW, we were *required* to wear sunglasses. That is so, somebody has a bit more difficulty trying to claim that you oggled his daughter while seizing his contraband.

BTW2, I double check the procedures once in a while; I compared notes last, with a fellow who was on the protection detail for U.S. Senator “Pete” Domenici. An intriguing former deputy U.S. Marshal who had retired and then was asked to be on that detail; and then retired again; but returned to be a U.S. Air Marshal on U.S. < - > Central America flights for Delta Airlines.

BTW3, I made no career out of it, and my time was short, but instructive ... and in some cases, hard lessons learned: I was glad to get away from the bad eggs. I had been spoiled in a previous life (is how I have to put it), by men of greater integrity who risked much for our freedom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.