• Source: Screenshot ABC News
  • Cop Assigned To Ferguson Protests Threatens Attorney General Holder

    "AG Holder is in St. Louis Today. I should go in early and punch him in the nose for so many different reasons." - Tweet by Sgt. Mike Weston, Velda City Police

    file_rmike_weston.jpgA Velda City Police sergeant assigned to the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, couldn't hold the hate inside.

    Sergeant Mike Weston took to Twitter this week, complaining about "libs", giving out false information, insulting Missouri Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson's approach to community policing and threatening to seek out visiting U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in order to "punch him in the nose."

    Asked by followers on Twitter why police had gassed a group of people who were in their own back yard, Sgt. Weston responded that gunshots had been fired from that location. The problem is, a Daily RFT reporter was in that back yard and caught the incident on video. No shots were fired; no one was armed and everyone had their hands up in protest. When presented with that information, Sgt. Weston admitted he was not even in the area when the gassing occurred.

    "I wasn't spreading misinformation." Sgt. Weston defended himself. "There were shots being fired some yards, maybe not this particular one."

    Too bad police didn't gas the "particular one" instead of the innocent people. 

    Sgt. Weston, who has since deleted his Twitter account, @officeranon2, also made a point of running down Missouri Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson. He called the Captain's interactions with the protesters "Hug a Thug" and accused him of a double standard based on skin color, posting this tweet: 




    twitter.jpegSgt. Weston also took it upon himself to post photos of Mike Brown, the teenager shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson, participating in a strong arm robbery. Sgt. Weston tweeted:

    "Happy to release this now. Here is the innocent Mike Brown moments before the shooting."

    He then mocked Mike Brown's death, tweeting:

    "what I learned today was Mike Brown was shot 625 times in the back by the grand wizard in ferguson."

    Sgt. Weston also shrugged off the gassing of the Al Jazeera news crew as collateral damage, and the fault of the journalists. But he outdid himself with his tweet about Attorney General's visit to Ferguson. (Photo above with Capt. Johnson.) He tweeted he was considering assaulting Eric Holder:




    I had the thought yesterday that we should change our relationship with police. If our elected officials gain their power through the consent of the governed, maybe we should use that model for police - they gain their power only through the consent of those policed. What we need is a mechanism that will enable that dynamic. 

    There has to be a workable way to get the Mike Westons off police forces everywhere. A referendum process? A public complaint forum? Some way for a community to force a judgement about an officer's fitness by some group not affiliated with the police.

    Any ideas?


    You can see more of Sgt. Weston's tweets preserved by RFT here.



    Mike Weston's photo in uniform via LinkedIn, in civilian clothes via Twitter

    Feature photo is a screenshot from ABC News

    Get weekly news & updates
    Support our work DONATE

    Register to VOTE

    Showing 22 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2014-08-30 12:09:14 -0400
      Sigh. Reasons I hated living in Velda City…
      Cops who hate people are as bad as teachers who hate kids. Makes no sense and those people need to be working from home, away from people. Some folks are probably saying this man was entitled to his own opinion (I won’t know what others are saying bc typically comments sections are full of cowards who wouldn’t speak their mind face to face if in front of that person). But this is a sign that every profession is not for everybody. He needs a new one asap because his lack of love for human beings is a detriment to the community he serves.

    • commented 2014-08-27 16:03:13 -0400
      The 1st amendment means he is free to say what he wants. However, being free to say what he wants also means taking responsibility for saying it, and when he is arrested for threatening a federal public official, he will find out exactly what his responsibility is: attending prison for breaking the law.

    • commented 2014-08-25 23:16:40 -0400
      This officer needs a visit from the FBI so he can fnd out that making a threat against a federal employee is a federal offense.

    • commented 2014-08-25 01:43:02 -0400
      What you are basically talking about is another form of what we already have. If you understand it from that perspective then we have to ask ourselves what can we do to build upon the principals that we already have without allowing all of the outside forces intervene the way that they already do. Imagine a public committee that is only made up of volunteers and they are only put into place through voting so while you would be able to vote on these people as to whether or not they can be in the committee they would not be susceptible to bias. Background checks into their personal lives would be totally fine because it would be volunteer based and anyone seeking a position on the committee would not be able to resist inquiry into their past. This is transparency free from manipulation. The committee function could be an overseer of police actions recorded from any legitimate source. The protocol could be written and there could be guidelines put into place on how these actions are gauged in terms of severity. There could be special hearings where chosen representatives that are free from the dangers of bribery, etc deal with these incidents and complaints. I am not going to flesh out the entire idea but it is a start. Things like numbers of recurring incidents could parallel severity, etc.

      The problem that we have is that discrepancies with police conduct are either handled in house with the blue code factor or on the streets with the red code factor. It is obvious that while groups like the ACLU do a great job once an injustice has happened but that isn’t a working solution to the problem itself. It is a tactic in dealing with the problem after it has happened. We need checks and balances on a local and individual level and considering the fact that the police interact with day to day people I think it only fair that that is who they are held accountable too. We have tried it the other way and allowed them to have every bit of control throughout the whole process minus the one or two figureheads like Sheriff, and Judge seat and it seems allowing them the possibility for conflict of interest isn’t working. Let’s say we try it in a new way. What if we allow the people of this country the slight advantage of perceived conflict of interest. Not that I really think there is a conflict of interest under the model that I presented but that would be the only argument they could make against this idea.

    • commented 2014-08-24 18:48:25 -0400
      Patrick D. I’m not a conservative. And I’m not a hypocrite. So stop the ad hominems and stick to the issues. I know it’s hard. It takes discipline. But try it anyway, because ad hominems are the tools of those with no argument. So technically, according to the rules of discourse, you have already lost and rendered your yourself irrelevant.

    • commented 2014-08-24 17:50:31 -0400
      Why don’t you do that you mindless ass. They will have a good place to put you.

    • commented 2014-08-24 14:15:36 -0400
      How can any person of color reasonably expect fair treatment from this racist idiot??

    • commented 2014-08-24 13:51:08 -0400
      Has anyone reported this to his boss?

    • commented 2014-08-24 10:42:17 -0400
      Anna Bishop – Why are conservatives such hypocrites? Why are you so hell bent on not taking responsibility for your actions? Is it something in your mentality? Genes? Some combination of both?

      And it’s not the liberals that are against the first amendment, or any rights in general. That’s the conservatives. Or have you forgotten that you people are trying to force everyone to conform to a Christian belief system, and deny people their rights based on that Christian belief system? Practice what you preach sister.

    • commented 2014-08-24 01:34:56 -0400
      Dictionaries don’t define threats, Penal Codes do. Have you looked it up in the MO Penal Code?

      Implied threads are not the same as Terrorist Threats, which is the crime. Look it up. Let me know if I’m wrong.

    • commented 2014-08-24 00:44:06 -0400
      That’s not a threat. A police sergeant would have much better knowledge of what a threat is than the liberal media. And why are liberals so against the first amendment? Or is it just when it doesn’t agree with you? That’s when the first amendment should be most defended. Lighten up. You’re turning your own people off.

    • commented 2014-08-23 23:41:24 -0400
      Cops need to be knocked down a few pegs.

    • commented 2014-08-23 22:36:31 -0400
      ok you can punch him if he gets to shoot you to death.

    • commented 2014-08-23 20:48:06 -0400
      Thanks Jamie Shelton for that post.

    • commented 2014-08-23 20:45:34 -0400
      Yeah,.. I’m thinking he needs to be at the least assigned elsewhere.
      I don’t want the type of police who blindly justifies everything they do, and then when faced with facts refuses to back down and makes excuses.

    • commented 2014-08-23 16:59:42 -0400
      Threatening the government officials of the United States is a serious crime under federal law. Threatening the President of the United States is a Class D felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When national boundaries are transcended by such a threat, it is considered a terrorist threat.1 When a threat is made against a judge, it can be considered obstruction of justice.2 Threatening federal officials’ family members is also a federal crime; in enacting the law, the Committee on the Judiciary stated that “Clearly it is a proper Federal function to respond to terrorists and other criminals who seek to influence the making of Federal policies and interfere with the administration of justice by attacking close relatives of those entrusted with these tasks.”3

      There are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.4 Threats can also sometimes be punished under the statutes criminalizing assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain United States Government officers or employees5 or assassinating, kidnapping, and assaulting the government officials of the United States.

      United States Sentencing Guidelines take a number of factors into consideration in determining the recommended penalty, including evidence of the person’s intent to carry out the threat; disruption to the government function; and the possibility of inciting others to violence.6 There is also a 6-level official victim enhancement, which makes the recommended penalty, per the sentencing table, approximately double that which would apply if an ordinary citizen were the victim.7 There can be many motives for making threats, including political motives or a desire to frame someone else for making the threat.8 The person’s intent can greatly affect the sentence.

    • commented 2014-08-23 15:58:23 -0400
      Petition asking cops to wear body cameras passes 100K. If they can do this than do a PETITION TO REMOVE THIS OFFICER. It needs to be done now! Do y’all agree?

    • commented 2014-08-23 14:15:58 -0400
      it’s cops like this that give the other .02% a bad name

    • commented 2014-08-23 13:58:34 -0400
      These types of cops need to be removed from the force. The mentality is dangerous not only to minorities, but to all of us.

    • commented 2014-08-23 13:54:55 -0400
      Perhaps regulations should start with making accountable the individual who directly offered these idiots a job, once these idiots show their true colors

    • commented 2014-08-23 13:27:20 -0400
      Another psychopathic cop, very dangerous.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: