washingtonpost.com:

ST. LOUIS — A grand jury has declined to indict Darren Wilson, the white Ferguson, Mo. police officer whose fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager sparked days of turbulent protests and a national conversation about race and police interactions with African Americans, prosecutors said Monday.

The decision means that Wilson, 28, will face no state charges in the August shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Although a parallel federal civil rights investigation of the shooting is continuing, federal investigators have all but concluded they do not have a case against Wilson, either, law enforcement officials have said.

A separate federal probe of the Ferguson Police Department is underway. But the prospect that Wilson will face no direct legal consequences for Brown’s death was expected to trigger protests in the St. Louis area, and in the hours before the announcement, scores of demonstrators gathered near the area where Brown was killed.

Protests are going on nationwide.  In Ferguson,  some businesses are going up in flames.  Gun shots have been heard.   I am not sure what protests will do.  Would the behavior be the same if Wilson were not white?  I am not sure.   I have never felt that Officer Wilson was guilty, from what I read.  However, I wasn’t there.  Neither were most of the people out in the streets rioting.

As you comment, please attempt to be judicious in your comments.  None of us were there.   A set of parents have lost their son and a community has lost one of its young.  Those things hurt.  Michael Brown has become an icon, rightly or wrongly, for police brutality, especially in communities of color.

196 Thoughts to “Darren Wilson not indicted for death of Michael Brown”

  1. Wolve

    Rick Bentley :
    “decided that witnesses were lying or telling the truth or just mistaken”
    That’s not what they decided. It would be very interesting to hear from any of the jury members as to whether they did decide that. It would also be intreresting to know whether the vote broke down on racial lines.
    We do have to respect the Grand Jury’s decision. We don’t have to respect the way McCullough prosecuted witnesses rather than Wilson, seems interested in closing off investigation rather than having an open mind, and gave a surreal and disgusting presentation on television as if he were judge and jury. And I DEFINITELY don’t respect the way I see a lot of (white) people using that as a framework to pretend they know what happened with Wilson and Brown, despite Wilson’s story straining credulity.

    Mr. Bentley, that is precisely what the grand jury decided: Were the witnesses credible and was the hard evidence strong enough to merit sending Wilson to trial on any of the possible criminal charges. The jury said no. And they said “no” in an explosive situation where a “yes” response would have gotten them off the hook — personal conscience not considered.

    I am very curious about the blog complaints against the St. Louis County prosecutor. It seems this fellow had his personal integrity attacked by innuendo and subjective accusations even before the grand jury convened. Post-trial he is coming under attack for being biased and having led the grand jury by the nose toward a positive result for Wilson. Just how do bloggers come to such conclusions? Were they somehow on the inside of the prosecution team? Did they sit through every session of the grand jury and read the entire transcript? Are they clairvoyant? Do they read minds?

    Or are they just repeating what some other “expert” said on a blog or in the media, even though that “expert” wasn’t there either?

  2. Rick Bentley

    I don’t agree that they are declaring witnesses not credible. There are credible sounding witnesses claiming completely different scenarios.

    Personally, I’m coming to conclusions from independent review of evidence, and thought. That Daily Koz summary seems well done.

  3. Wolve

    Mr. Bentley, I would posit that much of it is how the witnesses respond in front of the grand jury to a verbal examination of their claims. You cannot get that by simply reading their written statements outside of the jury room.

  4. Cargosquid

    Ed Myers :
    @Cargo: Schools go into lockdown. First responders cannot get into the locked school quickly or in the right places without help and direction from someone knowledgeable about the campus and in direct communication with them. Also someone who can identify the assailant and help determine if there are accomplices thereby speeding arrival of medical help to the wounded.
    We also need someone the teachers know and trust. Someone in SWAT uniform with a gun could be the perp. It was in the Colorado Theatre shootings.
    The armed guard at the Navy yard was killed and his gun was used by the assailant to kill others. We don’t want that happening in schools.

    Sandy Hook was locked down. As you said…first responders cannot get into the building..except you have a first responder already there….the cop. Are you calling for armed people to come stop him? Those first responders that you are calling…. are THEY armed? Are they in SWAT gear? Based on your logic…how to the teachers know that they aren’t accomplices?

    The Aurora shooter was not mistaken for a cop. NOBODY thought that that man shooting at them was a cop. Any cops would be identifiable. The idea that the teachers would mistake a cop for the shooter is ludicrous. For one thing….they know the cops and second, perps would be shooting at them…so it would be obvious.

    Your unarmed cop….. please tell me how he
    a) prevents himself/herself from getting killed
    b) how they prevent the kids and teachers from getting killed while they wait for your “first responders

    There isn’t any problem identifying the assailant. He’s the one with the gun shooting innocent people. The first responders merely have to follow the sound of gun fire.

    Yes…the armed guard was killed at the Navy Yard. Thus you need more than one person armed. However, mass shooters do not normally seek out the guard first….. they go to “gun free” zones. There are usually no guards.

    You really are reaching.

    1. I think we call unarmed cops, “bobbies.”

  5. middleman

    So, according to some, anyone who sees the evidence as pointing to a possible problem shooting is a lilly-livered liberal who wants to hamstring the police and coddle criminals, and anyone who sees the evidence as pointing to a justified shooting is a tea-party racist extremist. I’m really getting tired of these labels that are used to shut down discussion and only serve the purposes of the crooked politicians and others who want to keep us divided and docile.

    It’s the duty of a free democratic population to always be wary of an over powerful police state. That doesn’t mean one wants to coddle criminals or hamstring the police. I’ve heard from many on this blog that they fear gun control. Who do you think would come for your guns if it came to that- a militarized police controlled by the state, of a bunch of liberals?

    It’s our duty to be vigilant on the police. When the police in Fairfax County shoot a (white) man through the door and leave him to bleed to death, we need to get answers. When the police shoot a 12 year old with a BB gun, we need to get answers. When the police confiscate money from motorists without even charging them with a crime, we need to get answers. When they use that money to further militarize, we need to examine that. WE are supposed to have oversight on the police- if we don’t I don’t think you will like the result.

    Most police are great public servants with the best intentions. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to be ever-vigilant to be sure they serve us, and not the other way around. That’s our duty as citizens.

    1. I think you make several excellent points, middleman. I especially agree with you about attaching labels. This isn’t a black/white issue (I saw plenty of white people blocking the streets locally on TV) or a liberal/conservative issue. It also isn’t a racist/non-racist issue. Labels are unhelpful.

      I am even going to hand Second Alamo a crumb on this one and say that I think he makes a valid point about Darren Wilson’s civil rights. Many valid points have been made throughout the discussions on this blog. As I said over the weekend, the tone here has been much more civil than it was at my house on Thanksgiving eve. I think the fact that we are discussing the situation should give us a Blog Emmy because a lot of good points have been made by everyone in a fairly respectful tone.

      Thanks everyone. I think we might have the best exchange of ideas going here of any place. Kudos. Keep up the great work. (don’t I sound like a den mother?)

  6. Rick Bentley

    That’s true that Wilson’s rights got violated. His identity shouldn’t have been revealed. No good reason for that.

  7. Ed Myers

    @cargo
    If a school is locked and guns aren’t allowed then the easiest way to get inside with guns to commit a terrorist act is to dress like a policeman. You have a much faster identification of a security problem if anyone with a gun who is attempting to enter a school building is immediately flagged as a suspect and the school implements safety protocols. Waiting until someone with a gun starts shooting to figure out if they are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy is dangerous because it requires a lot of critical thinking during a crises. (Is this guy shooting to eliminate a threat or are they the threat themselves?) Keep it simple; if they have a gun they are dangerous and should be avoided.

    How does an unarmed cop keep himself from getting killed? The same way an armed cop does…by wearing body armor. A gun doesn’t keep you alive in a firefight unless you fire first and are a better or luckier shot. I am amazed at how so many people think that a gun puts a magical safety bubble around the owner. Besides, having a gun encourages risky behavior…such as pursuing or engaging an armed adversary when retreat and waiting for backup would be more prudent.

    Once you have an active shooter situation you want to minimize the shooters movements. The unarmed cop is not an immediate threat to an assailant and not the first target and thus has time to think and implement the checklist designed previously to save lives in such situations. Engaging in a firefight especially with two or more assailants is a sure way to be killed quickly and not be helpful to any of the future victims.

  8. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    The fastest way in is by shooting through glass doors. Like Sandy Hook.

    You have a magical belief in body armor. Have you ever worn body armor? I have. The gun keeps you alive by deterring the assailant and possibly stopping him. Your idea of firing first and having to be “lucky” instead of accurate is demonstrably false. Guns do not put a safety bubble around the owner. Guns allow you to defend yourself.

    Sometimes, pursuing the armed adversary is what is necessary. THAT IS what cops are for. The alternative is to allow those adversaries free rein.

    You want the unarmed cops to implement a check list to save lives…… Really? While the shooter is shooting at people? Including him? Unless the buildings are designed for rapid egress from the classrooms and the occupants can flee, there will be no movement of people.

    But lets go with your scenario. School is locked down. Cop in FULL BODY ARMOR, including ceramic plate, including arms, legs, and head, just happened to be at the school for paper work. Shooter enters the school through violent means…or sneaks in… doesn’t matter.

    Begins shooting the nearest people.

    Now what….. Your turn.

    I ask, because I am truly interested to see how your security ideas work.
    You see….I’m going to be one of those people. And I happen to like my county’s use of resource officers. I want to see how you improve this, which they have implemented for over 15 years and have actually taught to OTHER states systems.

  9. Ed Myers

    Making sure the building has harden doors that can’t be quickly shot through and opened from the outside is the sort of safety expertise we expect from police embedded in the schools instead of sitting around doing paperwork and waiting for a chance to fire their gun. An assailant that can’t get in the building or in any of the locked classroom doors doesn’t have an opportunity to shoot people.

    If the assailant is also in body armor then good luck having much impact with a handgun.

    I’m not dismissing that guns aren’t helpful in certain situations. I just think there is too much reliance on a crude violent device instead of using defensive means that wouldn’t kill anyone (even the assailant when it is almost certain that the assailant is intent on killing others). Start with the assumption that no one should die and you won’t have to go through tortured logic to decide if a shooting is justified homicide. I read too many gun rights advocates who advocate white power via guns…that isn’t civil or right or justified.

    I’ll give you another defensive idea: Schools should have mobile defensive shields in strategic locations throughout the building. Several people advancing on an assailant behind shields could neutralize or trap him while providing safe passage for others to escape. The shields couldn’t be misused to kill people like the officer’s gun can. Once the assailant fears being captured and unable to continue to kill he will likely kill himself.

  10. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    I’ve already talked to the police about those doors. They cannot do it for safety reasons. Firefighters need to be able to break down necessary doors.

    “instead of sitting around doing paperwork and waiting for a chance to fire their gun.”
    This is absolutely insulting to our police and resource officers.

    Internal doors are not armored. Are you saying that they should armor the doors? Many schools have doors that open to the outside.

    No bad guys wore armor. Getting bullet resistant armor is hard to do even for Class II armor. If they can buy that expensive stuff, its still not a magic shield. And even then, it only covers the torso.

    Rifle resistant armor is available only to the cops and military. Unless you go that route, everything but the torso is vulnerable to handgun fire and soft armor does not stop rifle rounds.

    The last time any criminal wore effective armor was the North Hollywood shootout.
    The cops couldn’t shoot through the armor with pistols and had to requisition rifles from a local gun store. The problem was not, however, their arms…but their training. The continually shot the bad guys in the chest. None tried for a head shot, until SWAT was able to get one. The other shooter was wounded and bled out.

    Your decision that NO ONE should die presupposes that you have a say in the matter. There is no tortured logic. If your life or someone else’s life is in danger…. its justified.
    Bringing up racists is irrelevant to this discussion.

    How do you neutralize or trap him? The shields are a good idea for pure defense. But..again….how will he be captured? You have to come out from behind the shield or he will merely attack you physically until you are vulnerable. What would happen is that he would kill a shield holder and then take the shield….now he’s armed and armored.

    The only response to an active shooter is a response….the LEAST of which should be a taser. Tasers, however, are less than optimum when facing a deadly threat with more firepower and that out ranges you.

  11. middleman

    This is amazing. We have police killing a 12 year old with a BB gun and an unarmed guy inside his own home and leaving him to bleed to death and our concern is with Darren Wilson’s civil rights because he was named as the shooter in a killing?

    1. What does that have to do with Darren Wilson? They are separate issues. The point is, Darren Wilson does have civil rights the same as everyone else. We can’t throw them out the window just because some people want him executed.

  12. Ed Myers

    @cargo, do I get consulting fees if I solve the problems?

    The shields would have several non-lethal disrupters built in. Perhaps the front has a stun plate so if the perp gets close enough he disables himself. A fire extinguisher and a high pressure water cannon could be added to repulse an assailant from commandeering the shield. The wheels would auto lock and require a quick but not intuitive action that only a trained person would know (same idea as firearm retention devices in law enforcement holsters.) This prevents the shield from being used by an assailant. Of course the school resource officer should have a Taser and other incapacitating tools in lieu of a gun.

    There are no potential victims in the hallways so the perp is going to go into a classroom. The shield allows the doorway to be blocked preventing the assailant from escaping. It also allows the staff to block large assembly areas like gyms, libraries and cafeterias where there are many students and few safe places to shelter in place.

    Ultimately the response is going to be armed reinforcements and the strategy is to buy time and reduce casualties until swat arrives. But, by building a purely defensive device you prevent the perp from initially killing the guard and taking his weapon to continue the killing spree. Also, you don’t have offensive weapons like guns in a school creating the potential for kids to be killed because someone grabs for the police officer’s gun after an impolite exchange of words and a bit of punching and tussling in the hallway.

    Oh, don’t expect assailants not to learn from previous villains. The head shot isn’t going to work if the perp expects and plans for it.

    The tortured logic comes in deciding what a reasonable person would consider a threat that warrants a lethal response. Racism comes up because reasonable whites only need a very small threat by someone black to feel genuinely fearful and the law allows that racism to justify killing a black person in self defense. I want someone to have tried to flee and couldn’t before they expect to justify a lethal shooting. I see the grey area between a justified shooting and murder constantly expanding. I see training programs on the internet pitching the need for police officers to learn to shoot to kill at even minor safety threats and stand your ground advocates that insist that retreat is sissy stuff. The comments by internet trolls that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim and all young black men are gangster thugs lowers the bar on what constitutes reasonable fear. The only way to maintain a civilized society is to reject the notion that self defense shootings are justified in all but the most extenuating circumstances.

  13. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    Stun plates? What would those be?
    High pressure hoses? So you have fire hoses attached?
    Okay…shooter goes into a class. Blocked from exiting. Proceeds to shoot one person at a time in front of the shield person until they let him out. Or worse….. which I won’t describe here.

    Since cops have been patrolling Henrico schools for 17 years now…and no one has “grabbed for the cop’s gun”, where does that come from?

    A reasonable person considers the fact that a person threatening someone with deadly force, such as pointing a gun or threatening with a knife, warrants a lethal response.
    Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. You didn’t read that link on deadly force, did you? I was thinking of you when I posted it.

    http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/11/25/the-legalities-of-shooting-people/

    Racism allows NO ONE to kill another. ANY shooter needs to demonstrate that they were under a threat. In fact, black people benefit most from strong self defense laws. You cannot kill someone because you are merely afraid of them or hate them.

    I would love to see a link to some of these “training programs,” as you have demonstrated, and I do not mean this as an insult, complete ignorance of anything related to defense, police work, tactics, or guns.
    Here’s some knowledge for you. From the link:
    _____________

    Lethal Force is exercising an action against someone which may potentially take their life. If you shoot somebody and they don’t die, you still exercised Lethal Force. If you shoot somebody in the leg or arm, legally that is still Lethal Force, and contrary to the movies, you can still die if get shot in the arm or the leg (but we train to shoot for center of mass, more on why later).

    Serious Bodily Harm (often called Grievous Bodily Harm) is any injury that is potentially life altering or life threatening. Rape is serious bodily harm. A beating is serious bodily harm. Anything that may render you unconscious is serious bodily harm.

    Reasonable Man – I will often refer to this. The question isn’t whether the shooter perceives themselves to be justified, but whether a “reasonable man” would perceive you to be justified. Contrary to popular opinion, you can’t just say “he was coming right at me!” and be justified in shooting somebody. The evidence will be examined and the question will be if you made the assumptions a reasonable man would make, and acted in a manner which seems reasonable based on that evidence. This is where the jury comes in, because they are a group of reasonable people who are going to look at your actions and your situation and make a call. Basically, do your actions make sense to them? Would they believe similar things in the same situation?

    To be legally justified in using lethal force against somebody you need to meet the following criteria.

    They have the Ability to cause you serious bodily harm.
    They have the Opportunity to cause you serious bodily harm.
    They are acting in a manner which suggests they are an Immediate Threat of serious bodily harm.

    If your encounter fits these three criteria, then you are usually legally justified in using lethal force.
    ___________________________________________

    NOWHERE in there is a an allowance for racism, fear, or anything like that.
    ” I see the grey area between a justified shooting and murder constantly expanding.”

    See the rules described above. More at the link…. NOTHING has changed…so there is no expanding grey area.

    You want someone to try and flee. So…in the seconds of discovering that they are under threat, they must decide the legal ramifications of fleeing instead of the tactical reasons. Because tactics should be the ONLY thing you are thinking about. Fleeing can be MORE dangerous in some cases. And Stand Your Ground appeared because ambitious prosecutors were second guessing split second, life or death decisions of defenders, from the comfort of their office…..with 20/20 hindsight and any biases that they might have.

    A LOT of black people were prosecuted that way. Now…they actually benefit from Stand Your Ground laws at a greater rate than white people.

    Also…even if a perp is expecting a head shot…… how is that perp going to prevent it? Even our combat troops can only protect most of their head. Is the perp getting a military helmet?

    You see, I’ve spent the last few years examining this very problem.
    You either harden the school so that it is prison-like, with a perimeter fence, a guard, and VERY limited access, or provide armed security. Or both. Or allow the staff to be armed in some way.

    The first is not going to happen, for a variety of reasons. I’ve actually studied my daughter’s middle school for points of vulnerability and addressed it with the resource officer. He told me that he has conversations like this with LEO and military parents about once a year. I was it for that year. The second we have in Henrico. The third has problems, but is workable.

  14. Cargosquid

    Sometimes, the law won’t even allow stun guns. Funny… I don’t see any qualifications on WHERE you are allowed to defend yourself or what type of arms are “allowed” to do so in the 2nd amendment.
    So even Ed Myers would be out of luck. No less lethal weapons allowed either.

    Massachusetts:
    The Supreme Judicial Court is being asked to decide whether a state law that prohibits private citizens from possessing stun guns infringes on their right to keep and bear arms. In an unusual twist, the court is also being asked to examine whether the Second Amendment right to defend yourself in your own home applies in the case of a homeless person.

    Arguments before the court are scheduled Tuesday.

    Police found Caetano’s stun gun in her purse during a shoplifting investigation at a supermarket in 2011. She told police she needed it to defend herself against her violent ex-boyfriend, against whom she had obtained multiple restraining orders.

    During her trial, Caetano, 32, testified that her ex-boyfriend repeatedly came to her workplace and threatened her. One night, she showed him the stun gun and he “got scared and left me alone,” she said.

    She was found guilty of violating the state law that bans private possession of stun guns, devices that deliver an electric shock when pressed against an attacker.

    In her appeal, her lawyer, Benjamin Keehn, argues that a stun gun falls within the meaning of “arms” under the Second Amendment. Keehn wrote in a legal brief that the state’s ban “cannot be squared with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” He also argues that self-defense outside the home is part of the core right provided by the Second Amendment.

  15. Ed Myers

    Sigh,
    1) The Brown situation was all about a high school kid who “reached for an officers gun” making it a justified shooting so the risk is not zero that it is going to happen in a school setting.
    2) The black male as a savage threat meme is pretty strongly woven through the American psychic and to say that it wasn’t present in the grand jury room as justification for Wilson’s last few shots at Brown is naïve. Thus the reasonable man test embeds societal bias that is based on prejudice about the relative danger of encountering a threat from a preppie white teenager versus a gansta-dressed big black dude. There is wide latitude given to the police officer’s split-second threat assessment (based on bias) and the time between incident and trial allows for him to hone the story to fit nearly every reasonable man criteria. The Ferguson unrest is because many blacks didn’t see the shooting as reasonable but those (whites) in power did.
    3)”A reasonable person considers the fact that a person threatening someone with deadly force, such as pointing a gun or threatening with a knife, warrants a lethal response.” I disagree. I do not think that lethal response is ever warranted. Sometimes people die because of non-lethal force application but any action that intends to kill someone (as apposed to intending to subdue them or stop them) is homicide. It is offensive to say I’m being unreasonable because I am taking a pro-life position.

    I’ll look for the police training video that I found disturbing.

  16. blue

    @Ed Myers

    Its clear that you have never been on the other side. Your penchant for allowing the police to take the risk and that its ok if they do not go home to their wife and kids makes clear that you really have no idea. The old line that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged applies here and its clear that you have no experience whatsoever with that either. Congratulations, not everyone has had that sheltered experience. Were it that your utopian world existed.

    I suggest that you contact the police and sign upfor the PWC Citizens Police Academy – if for no other reason than to understand what these folks face every day and the rules they already operate under.

  17. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    Please review the FBI crime tables on crimes and race. You will see why there is such a perception on black males. Facts are facts. Risk assessment is based on facts. Your idea seems to declare that all whites are racist and that all cops are shooting people because of racism. That is insulting. Also, you are spinning. Brown ATTACKED Wilson. He did not merely “reach” for the gun. As I said, your scenario keeps NOT happening.

    Furthermore, I’m sorry that you find it offensive that we don’t find your ideas reasonable. If you are the only one with those positions, that tends to negate that they fulfill the “reasonable man” idea. You have yet to provide a more reasonable, as in workable, idea than deadly force to stop a deadly threat. In each case, your ideas put MORE people at risk.

    You are ignoring that many blacks saw the shooting a reasonable and that many whites did not…thus blowing your racist theory out of the water.

  18. Ed Myers

    “Brown ATTACKED Wilson”

    Wilson put Brown’s life in jeopardy by backing the car up recklessly and grazing him. Many police shootings include the excuse that a car was being used as a deadly weapon to justify shooting at the driver. (The woman with the baby in the car killed near the capital, for example, because she drove past and grazed a plain clothed SS agent.)

    My argument is that Brown should have retreated sooner and when he finally did retreat Wilson continued to shoot although those early shots at a fleeing Brown all missed. However your argument is that someone under attack has the right to stand his ground and neutralize the attacker with whatever force is required. See how dangerous your philosophy is when someone like Brown follows it to try to neutralize Wilson’s unprovoked attack? (OK I’m ignoring the fighting words so I don’t know who called whom a pussy first, but Wilson threw the first punch so-to-speak by trying to run Brown down.) Brown died following your advice to meet force with force and he would have lived had he followed my advice.

    The only way forward in a civil society is to retreat or use non-lethal force in response to an attack. Anything else is just war warmed over and life on a battlefield is not a reasonable in any way.

    And yes, I have never experienced criminal violence: never been attacked, or robbed, or beat up. But I have been accidently shot at by gun owners handling their gun carelessly and had windows broken in my house by errant bullets so I’m more worried about my safety around gun owners than criminals. I’ve had cops point guns at me for what I considered reckless reasons at a traffic stop and multiple times had backup cops nervously keeping their hand on their gun while stationed at the rear of my vehicle during a traffic stop for burnt taillight or expired sticker. Frequent provocations like that do not make me feel safe interacting with police. Treat me like a felon who you are prepared to kill and I’ll treat you as a dangerous enemy.

  19. Cargosquid

    “Wilson put Brown’s life in jeopardy by backing the car up recklessly and grazing him.”

    Really? THIS is what you are reaching with.

    Wilson didn’t graze anyone. He blocked their path.

    Brown retreated, then turned and charged him. You keep forgetting that Brown was NOT shot while moving away from the cop. Your statement has absolutely NO basis in reality.

    Wilson’s unprovoked attack? Are you HONESTLY saying that a cop, stopping someone on the street, without any injury or contact, is an attack? You are inventing a scenario so that Brown is a defender? Really? NO witnesses for Brown say that the cop “was trying to run him down.” THAT is a ridiculous statement.

    Following YOUR advice…..means that we have NO law enforcement. Criminals have a field day. Which would mean that the average citizen would be forced to defend themselves more often, which would mean that they would arm themselves…oh…wait…. Let’s follow YOUR advice.

    You’ve had cops point guns at you for a traffic stop. What the heck was going on? What were you doing?

Comments are closed.