Category Archives: By The Book

Mindset of Michael Brown “[meant] everything” in confrontation with Officer Wilson

By Doug Book, editor

Last week, former St. Louis Police Chief Ed Delmore addressed an Open Letter to Captain Ron Johnson, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s choice to “direct all law enforcement operations” in Ferguson after the shooting death of Michael Brown. Chief Delmore revealed that he is not a fan of what another officer described as Capt. Johnson’s “hug a looter” attempts to bring criminals under control by directing St. Louis County Police to “remain uninvolved” on the night “the rioting and looting began again.”

The essence of Delmore’s criticism, however,  is directed at Capt. Johnson’s claim that “there was no reason to release” the video of Brown manhandling the comparatively pint-sized owner of the convenience store from which he and a friend had stolen cigars. According to Johnson, “the reported theft and the killing [were] entirely different events.”

But it’s in his response to this “entirely different events” claim that Delmore may have revealed the reason Officer Darren Wilson had to pull the trigger on Brown a short time later.

“The fact that Brown knew he had just committed a robbery before he was stopped by Officer Wilson speaks to Brown’s mindset,” wrote Delmore.  “And Captain, the mindset of a person being stopped by a police officer means everything, and you know it.

If Captain Johnson wanted to “get schooled” he came to the right window. For Chief Delmore made it clear that the release of a video is unimportant when compared with the mindset of a criminal who has foolishly confronted a cop just moments after the crime. Johnson was concerned with optics, Delmore with what a frightened and potentially desperate thug might attempt with an unprepared police officer.

Read Chief Delmore’s Open Letter below. It offers far more insight into the shooting of Michael Brown than any self-proclaimed, criminal law/police procedure “expert” in our national media.


“An Open Letter to Captain Ronald S. Johnson”

From a former St. Louis Metro Area police chief

I have to call you out.

I don’t care what the media says. I expect them to get it wrong and they often do. But I expect you as a veteran law enforcement commander—talking about law enforcement—to get it right.

Unfortunately, you blew it. After days of rioting and looting, last Thursday you were given command of all law enforcement operations in Ferguson by Governor Jay Nixon. St. Louis County PD was out, you were in. You played to the cameras, walked with the protestors and promised a kinder, gentler response. You were a media darling. And Thursday night things were better, much better.

But Friday, under significant pressure to do so, the Ferguson Police released the name of the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown. At the same time the Ferguson Police Chief released a video showing Brown committing a strong-arm robbery just 10 minutes before he was confronted by Officer Darren Wilson.

Many don’t like the timing of the release of the video. I don’t like that timing either. It should have been released sooner. It should have been released the moment FPD realized that Brown was the suspect.

Captain Johnson, your words during the day on Friday helped to fuel the anger that was still churning just below the surface. St. Louis County Police were told to remain uninvolved and that night the rioting and looting began again. For much too long it went on mostly unchecked. Retired St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch tweeted that your “hug-a-looter” policy had failed.

Boy did it.

And your words contributed to what happened Friday night and on into the wee hours of Saturday. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, you said the following regarding the release of the video: “There was no need to release it,” Johnson said calling the reported theft and the killing entirely different events.

Well Captain, this veteran police officer feels the need to respond. What you said is, in common police vernacular—bullshit. The fact that Brown knew he had just committed a robbery before he was stopped by Officer Wilson speaks to Brown’s mindset. And Captain, the mindset of a person being stopped by a police officer means everything, and you know it.

Let’s consider a few examples:
On February 15, 1978 Pensacola Police Officer David Lee conducted a vehicle check. He didn’t know what the sole occupant of the vehicle had recently done, but the occupant did. Who was he? Serial killer Ted Bundy. Bundy attempted to disarm Lee. Lee was able to retain his firearm and eventually took Bundy into custody.

On April 19, 1995 Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hangar stopped a vehicle for minor traffic violations. He didn’t know that 90 minutes earlier the traffic violator, Timothy McVeigh, killed 168 people with a truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building. But McVeigh sure knew it, didn’t he? Fortunately, given his training and experience Hangar was able to take McVeigh into custody for carrying a concealed firearm. It was days later before it was determined that McVeigh was responsible for the bombing.

On May 31, 2003 then-rookie North Carolina police officer, Jeff Postell, arrested a man digging in a trash bin on a grocery store parking lot—an infraction that would rise to about the level of jaywalking. Postell didn’t know that he had just captured Eric Rudolph, the man whom years earlier had killed and injured numerous people with bombs and was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.

So now, let’s consider Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson’s stop of Michael Brown. Apparently Wilson didn’t know that Brown had just committed a strong-arm robbery. But Brown did! And that Captain, is huge.

Allegedly, Brown pushed Wilson and attempted to take Wilson’s gun. We’re also being told that Officer Wilson has facial injuries suffered during the attempt by Brown to disarm him. Let’s assume for a moment those alleged acts by Brown actually occurred. Would Brown have responded violently to an officer confronting him about jaywalking? Maybe, but probably not.

Is it more likely that he would attack an officer believing that he was about to be taken into custody for a felony strong-arm robbery? Absolutely.

Officer Wilson survived the encounter with Brown as did Lee, Hangar, and Postell. Michael Brown didn’t survive and it’s too soon to say if Officer Wilson’s use of deadly force was justified and legal. You and I both know that not all officers survive such confrontations. Officers die in incidents like this Captain Johnson, including a couple that I remember from your own organization:

On April 15, 1985 Missouri Trooper Jimmie Linegar was shot and killed by a white supremacist he and his partner stopped at a checkpoint; neither Trooper Linegar nor his partner were aware that the man they had stopped had just been indicted by a federal grand jury for involvement in a neo-Nazi group accused of murder. The suspect immediately exited the vehicle and opened fire on him with an automatic weapon.

Just a month before, Missouri Trooper James M. Froemsdorf was shot and killed—with his own gun—after making a traffic stop. When the Trooper made that stop he didn’t know that the driver was wanted on four warrants out of Texas—But again the suspect knew it.

So Captain Johnson, I guess the mindset and recently committed crimes of the suspects that murdered those Missouri Troopers didn’t mean anything. The stops by the Troopers, as you have said, are entirely different events right?

St. Louis Police Chief Ed Delmore, retired


Eric Holder joins the coming railroading of Officer Darren Wilson

By Doug Book, editor

Last week, Captain Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol was chosen by Governor Jay Nixon to “coordinate law enforcement agencies” in their response to rioting and civil unrest after the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson.

“I’m a man first, a black man second, I’m a husband, I’m a father, I’m a son. A trooper? There’s a lot of things I am before I’m a trooper,” said Johnson to the assembled news networks. He sounded very much like AG Eric Holder who, upon arriving in Ferguson for no apparent reason other than political race baiting, made the statement that he “was both the highest law officer of the nation ‘and a black man.’”

Of course Holder also claimed to be a victim of racial harassment by law enforcement. What an extraordinary coincidence, especially as Holder said the federal government would be “looking for possible violations of federal civil rights statutes,” by Officer Darren Wilson.

Then again, perhaps the Attorney General intends to file those charges against Michael Brown for using Wilson as a punching bag while attempting to relieve the officer of his gun.

“My man! You are the man,” were the words with which Holder greeted Captain Johnson, later referring to him as “my brother.” “The eyes of the nation and the world are watching Ferguson right now,” said Holder, “because the issues raised by the shooting of Michael Brown predate this incident. This is something that has a history to it, and the history simmers beneath the surface in more communities than just Ferguson.”

Had a White attorney general made the blatantly race oriented, politically motivated statements spewed in Ferguson by America’s incomparably corrupt attorney general; in fact, had a White attorney general even BEEN in Ferguson to “investigate” the suspicious, clearly racially motivated killing of a White criminal by a Black cop, all Hell would have broken loose. Holder’s words were obviously meant to direct Black Police Chief Ron Johnson to arrive at the conclusions expected by the Black Regime in order to do the right thing for Blacks. “We need concrete action to change things in this country,” Holder told the Ferguson crowds. That “change” will no doubt begin with the railroading of Officer Wilson.

Neither Clarence Darrow nor Perry Mason will be available to represent Officer Wilson during the inevitable prosecution for having successfully defended his life.

Will AG Holder and the rest of the prosecution team ask for a change of venue in order to assure the Officer of a fair trial; say to  Downtown Detroit?


Liberal courts might award the powers of Congress to the Internal Revenue Service

By Doug Book, editor

In June of last year I wrote that the future of ObamaCare would depend upon the outcome of a small number of under-reported lawsuits filed to prevent the IRS illegally re-writing the Affordable Care Act.

At issue in the lawsuits:

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through exchanges that are run by “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state.” (2) By mid 2013 however, 33 states had refused to build an ObamaCare Exchange so necessary to the functioning of the law. And although the ACA made provision for recalcitrant governors and state legislators by permitting the federal government to build exchanges within their borders, it did NOT allow for federally run exchanges to provide the subsidies and tax credits without which healthcare plans would be unaffordable for a majority of businesses and individuals.

Section 1311 of ObamaCare allows for providing tax credits or subsidies to certain people who purchased qualified health plans “through AN EXCHANGE ESTABLISHED BY THE THE STATE.”  (5) Section 1321 – the section regulating federally run exchanges – makes it clear that neither tax credits nor subsidies may be offered through exchanges established by the federal government. (3)

In short:

“Congress did not authorize tax credits, subsidies to private insurance companies, or penalties on employers in states with a federal Exchange.”

“Nor did Congress grant the IRS authority to create such credits, subsidies, and penalties…”  (4)

However, in May of 2012, Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service decided to unilaterally change the language of the ACA and override the will of Congress by stating that the Service will have the authority to provide subsidies and tax credits to ObamaCare participants from federally run exchanges.  The IRS literally rewrote the law and rescued the president’s legislation by giving itself permission to spend an estimated $800 billion taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years—dollars which were NOT authorized by congress to be spent. (1)

How does the Obama Regime defend implementation of an IRS rule which ignores the clear language of the ACA?  By claiming that the new rule is “consistent with the intent of the law and our (Treasury Department’s) ability to interpret and implement it.”

But regardless of IRS assertions of intent, the text itself of the Affordable Care Act proves their claim to be an outright lie.

In response to the typically breathtaking contempt of the Obama Regime for both the law and the Constitution, 4 lawsuits were filed. Two have been decided: Halbig v Burwell (the new head of the HHS) and King v Burwell. In Halbig, the DC Circuit Court ruled the shenanigans of the IRS to be illegal. In King, the 4th Circuit Court decided that the language of the law was indeed “ambiguous,” making the IRS rewrite “a reasonable interpretation of the relevant text.”

Two lawsuits now remain each insisting HHS and the IRS overstepped their authority. They are Pruitt v Burwell and Indiana v IRS.

How may the American public expect them to be decided? Who can tell! The increasingly corrupt and pernicious purveyors of the legal system in the United States make predicting what should be the most straightforward of rulings virtually impossible. The unconditional appetite to further a politically inspired agenda has replaced the Constitution as the foundation of American jurisprudence.  

Imagine providing a federal bureaucracy the power to “borrow” tax dollars, determine their use and ignore the specific, written language of the law, all for the purpose of implementing a political fix for legislation which didn’t turn out quite the way its authors  had intended.  

That an American court could even consider a ruling which might endorse such an abuse of power is scary as Hell.




Additional reading:

Court rules Florida doctors may NOT harass patients about gun ownership

By Doug Book, editor

In 2011, the State of Florida passed a law popularly referred to as “Docs vs Glocks” which prevents doctors meddling in the gun ownership prerogatives of their patients. Why would such a statute be necessary?

The following is a portion of a policy statement included on the website of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

“Until handguns are banned, we recommend that handguns and handgun ammunition be regulated, that restrictions be placed on handgun ownership, and that the number of privately owned handguns be reduced. Firearms should be removed from the environments where children live and play …”

Uppermost in the AAP’s “Advice to Parents” column was:

“Never have a gun in the home. Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun. Remove all guns present in the home.”

Not widely known by the American public (principally because it was effectively concealed) is the fact that Barack Obama’s 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—or Stimulus slush fund–opened the private medical records of American citizens to some 1.5 million new organizations, companies, individuals and of course, federal bureaucracies. The Stimulus allocated thirty five billion dollars to finance the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) which made patient medical data available on ObamaCare’s State Exchanges. As a result, the supposedly PRIVATE, “it’s for the children” information collected by doctors about patient gun ownership may be legally accessed by 2.2 million government approved organizations, many of which have nothing whatever to do with healthcare.  

Agenda driven doctors are not practitioners of medicine but of medical espionage. And Florida’s doctors have been among the most persistent in ferreting out and reporting “medical information” about gun ownership to state and federal bureaucracies. Consider that a patient recommended to a psychologist by his GP for treatment of depression may well have his right to own a firearm rescinded by the government. After all, the patient’s volatile state of mind makes him a potential assassin. And Heaven forbid there be children in this dangerous individual’s home!
“We take our children to physicians for medical care, not moral judgment, political harassment and privacy intrusions,” writes Luke McCoy of the USA Carry website.

McCoy continues:

“The intent of some [physicians] may be to stop death from firearms accidents, but it is worth noting that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, doctors and medical staffs in Florida are responsible for six times more accidental deaths (called “Medical Misadventures”) than firearms accidents. Physicians have plenty of room to work in their own backyards to stop accidental deaths in keeping with their “first do no harm” medical oaths.”  

Clearly the intent of doctors who pass moral judgment on gun owners is NOT the prevention of accidents but rather the disarming of the American public. It was the numerous cases of Florida’s anti-gun doctors harassing patients, withholding treatment, even refusing to see the children of parents unwilling to answer questions about gun ownership that prompted the Doc’s v Glocks legislation.

On July 25th, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision which had found the Doc’s legislation unconstitutional. The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Academy of Family Physicians in Florida agreed with the dissenting 11th Circuit judge who called the law “an infringement of First Amendment rights.”  Does a pediatrician have a 1st Amendment right to demand parents leave an examining room so he might grill a 5 year old about whether or not his father owns a gun?

Doctor’s groups are certain to appeal the decision or ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit. Should either succeed, it’s my guess that gun owners will dump an agenda-driven doctor before they dump their guns.


Another D.C. gun law declared unconstitutional

By Doug Book, editor

According to District of Columbia, City Council member Phil Mendelson, gun ownership and the carrying of firearms “must be more heavily restricted [in D.C.] than any place else in the nation.”  After all, says Mendelson, “four U.S. presidents have been assassinated by gunfire”  “and there are frequent threats on the foreign diplomatic corps.” (1)

But Mendelson and the rest of D.C.’s gun grabbing, Democrat gentry were finally stripped of their ability to ignore the Constitution when the District’s longstanding ban on carrying a firearm for self-defense was declared illegal.

On July 26th, U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Scullin provided gun rights and 2nd Amendment advocates what plaintiff’s attorney Alan Gura called a “significant victory” when he ruled that: “In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny…” (2)

Judge Scullin sat on the case of Palmer vs D.C. for an incredible 4 years, resulting in the 2nd Amendment Foundation filing a petition in 2013 for a writ of Mandamus which asked the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals to direct Judge Scullin “to produce an appealable order” within 7 days.

But although the petition was apparently ignored and Judge Scullin labored another 8 months on a mere 19 page ruling, at least he got it right, directing that the District of Columbia and D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier “…are permanently enjoined from enforcing D.C. Code…to ban registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law-abiding citizens…” (2)

Not surprisingly, 2 days ago Judge Scullin granted the District a 90 day stay during which time D.C’s attorneys will either file an appeal or draft legislation to bring the District into compliance with the judge’s order.

For decades, residents of the District of Columbia were subjected to the most virulently anti-gun rights legislation in the country. Handgun ownership itself had been illegal prior to the 2008 Supreme Court decision in D.C. vs Heller.

But were D.C. residents actually obeying the unconstitutional restrictions placed on 2nd Amendment rights by their Democrat potentates? From the 2008 Heller decision which found the handgun ban unconstitutional until today, only 3000 firearms have been registered in D.C. Just 3000 registrations in an area with a total population of 600,000. It’s obvious that countless people refused to obey the District’s abusive gun laws in the past just as they continue to refuse to register their firearms today.

It will be interesting to watch the pattern of registrations when D.C. Democrats finally begin to obey the latest court order, probably years in the future.


(2)   Judge Scullin’s 19 page decision