Fischer: Michael Brown Was ‘Hyped Up on Marijuana’

From the Department of Utter Cluelessness: Bryan Fischer says it’s perfectly understandable that the police officer shot Michael Brown 6 times because Brown had marijuana in his system, so he was “hyped up” on it and probably looking to kill someone. Because that’s totally what pot does to you.

“We know now he did have marijuana in his system,” Fischer explained, “and we’ve had stories, remember, we’ve had stories from Colorado, people going berserk on marijuana and killing people, hyped up on marijuana. So it’s more dangerous than people think.”

Yes, we have stories! Stories, people! Not true ones, of course, but stories! Seriously, smoke a joint and relax, Bryan.

httpv://youtu.be/yqNuV0uVtcs

"So you'll need to state the proposition (accusation), you'll need to state what the appropriate ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
""I've got the best Mount. Mount Doom. Mount Doom. It's a terrific, tremendous mount. The ..."

Local School Has Another Proselytizing Teacher
"This is how I know you aren't arguing against my actual position.1. "But you're still ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"Wow, I didn't think the various defenses of Moore could get any creepier, but this ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.electricminstrel.com Brett McCoy

    At worst, he was probably trying to shoplift a bag of Chili Cheese Fritos and some doughnuts. Hardly something to be shot for.

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    Fischer must think “Reefer Madness” was a documentary.

  • cptdoom

    Clearly Fischer needs to get stoned. He has no clue about the effects of marijuana on the vast majority of the population.

    When I was buying my house in DC, a DC native gave me the best possible advice – before putting in an offer on a house, check out the neighborhood on a Saturday night. If there are guys hanging around on the corner drinking, don’t buy the house; if they’re smoking pot on the corner – no worries. Pot does not make people violent, and even stoned people on a corner tend to dissuade criminals from the neighborhood.

  • sugarfrosted

    @3

    Clearly Fischer needs to get stoned.

    Be careful, given how Fisher uses that term he might take that as a threat.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    Don’t think CptDoom was unaware of the double-entendre.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    He didn’t even preface “Everybody knows what marihuana does to the blacks” with “I’m not racist, but…”

     

    Alternately;

    He is right that pot is dangerous. I once saw a cop pull over a pot addict for whatever the opposite of street racing is!

  • Larry

    What makes pot so dangerous is it makes you want to wander down the middle of the street, unarmed, and black, where you could get shot 6 times by your local policeman.

  • _Arthur

    Cannabis can be detected in the blood up to 90 days after use. (Wikipédia Drug test article).

    Having smoked a joint last month is hardly a shooting offense.

  • dingojack

    Did anyone mention that informative documentary:

    Reefer Madness?!?

    @@

    Dingo

  • lorn

    ‘Hyped Up on Marijuana’ is pretty much a string of words one might use if you had absolutely no idea of how marijuana effects people.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … he did have marijuana in his system…

    Harmless in itself, but a gateway to the hard stuff: Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea!

  • Childermass

    d.c. wilson @ #2: “Fischer must think “Reefer Madness” was a documentary.”

    Are you sure he does not think that those who smoke pot are Reavers? Only if they are black, of course.

  • caseloweraz

    I smoked pot once. It made me want to rape and kill! Then I swallowed some PCP and calmed right down.

    /sarc

    (Wish I could find the old Playboy cartoon that’s the source of the first two sentences.)

  • david

    J Drug Educ. 2011;41(4):369-89. Does marijuana use lead to aggression and violent behavior?

    Ostrowsky MK.

    Just saying’

  • colnago80

    There is now a report that Brown was in an altercation with the police officer before the shots were fired and was beating the shit out of him. This report should be taken with a ton of salt as it was broadcast on the Fascist News Network, a highly unreliable source of information.

  • Childermass

    I’ve been seeing headlines for several days now promising new witnesses and/or evidence that the officer has several broken bones in the face. Somehow I suspect, if they really had this evidence it would have been aired by now.

  • arthurski

    Doesn’t make much sense even that way. Suppose Brown slaps officer Wilson around, bangs him against the car a couple of times (far from proven). Then Brown flees. Then Wilson shoots Brown at 20’+ distance (no gunpowder residue).

    A police officer cannot be justified to shoot an unarmed suspect fleeing the scene, even if the suspect has just punched him.

    Of course, Brown, being deceased (shot 6 times), cannot testify to what happened. And the police has seized all recordings of the “altercation”, and may have “lost” those, by some unfortunate mishap.

    As is always the case, Brown would have had a great case if he was crippled in an hospital bed. Being dead, he has no case.

  • Ichthyic

    If anyone should spend more time with a joint between his lips, instead of just flapping them, it’s Brain Fissure.

  • Ichthyic

    I once saw a cop pull over a pot addict for whatever the opposite of street racing is!

    The opposite of street racing…

    this maybe?

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5927738/hector_the_road_safety_cat/

  • Ichthyic

    Just saying’

    just bullshittin’ more like.

  • lorn

    Generally shooting a unarmed person is frowned upon, but there is one extreme situation where an unarmed person is pretty likely to get shot with the shooting being justified. Any serious attempt by an unarmed person to take a policeman’s pistol has a very high chance of getting them shot.

    This is what is being claimed by some who claim to be in a position to know and, based upon the bits and pieces released, most of it coming from a private second autopsy, the forensics looks to me to back some of this up this up. IMHO the trajectories of the wounds seem more likely to have been inflicted during a hand-to-hand struggle. The offered alternative, Brown standing in a position surrendering, or charging at Wilson with his head down, seem either impossible or highly unlikely.

    The immediate objection is the lack of powder residue but this is true only of the second, private, autopsy. The clothing, which would retain the powder residue were not included in the autopsy and any powder residue that might have been on the body might have been washed away in the normal course of the first, county, autopsy. Washing the body is done to remove blood and dirt that might obscure any wounds. One hopes that testing for powder residue was done early in the first autopsy.

    Give it some time and the truth will emerge.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Well, we learned one thing…”Reefer Madness” has not been forgotten.

    Any serious attempt by an unarmed person to take a policeman’s pistol has a very high chance of getting them shot.

    Not if the cop has any decent martial-arts training, and is willing to use it to avoid having to kill someone.

    And besides, if someone is close enough to reach for your gun, he’s close enough to prevent you from aiming it if you grab it first; so even then, trying to shoot your assailant really isn’t the wisest thing to do.

    Give it some time and the truth will emerge.

    Some truth is already emerging, in the form of eyewitness accounts; and you’re ignoring it.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    The offered alternative, Brown standing in a position surrendering, or charging at Wilson with his head down, seem either impossible or highly unlikely.

    Given the atrocious behavior of the Ferguson cops after the shooting (unusual even by cops-protecting-their-own standards), I have to ask, Why not?

  • Desert Son, OM

    david at #14:

    Thanks for mentioning that reference. I looked it up. Here’s the full reference, APA style:

    Ostrowsky, M. K. (2011). Does marijuana use lead to aggression and violent behavior? Journal of Drug Education, 41(4), 369-389.

    Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Some key elements of the article:

    Marijuana use and violent behavior are causing widespread public concern.

    This is an interesting way to start the abstract, because it conflates the two aspects from the beginning.

    This article reviews theory and research on the relation between marijuana use and aggressive/violent behavior. It is evident from the inconsistent findings in the literature that the exact nature of the relation remains unclear. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 369)

    Important: “the exact nature of the relation remains unclear.”

    In their study of five habitual cannabis users, Howard and Menkes (2007) report that acute cannabis intoxication is associated with impairment of the brain function related to goal-directed activity, whereby acute cannabis use negatively affects cognitive abilities, such as executive control, decision-making, and planning. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 370)

    Without knowing more about the Howard and Menkes (2007) study (I haven’t read it), an N of 5 is ringing alarm bells. Maybe there were multiple trials. Otherwise, an N of 5 is insufficient to overcome Type I error rates (barring an absolutely astonishing effect size) and thus useless for generalizability.

    It is also possible that individuals with pre-existing psychological, personality, and/or behavioral disorders may become violent when intoxicated from marijuana. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 370)”

    Ah, so there may be some confounding variables at work, variables that would need to be tested against other drugs, as well as against a control group under no drug influence. That’s important.

    Third, Moore and Stuart (2005) propose that a short-term effect of marijuana use is an increase in heart rate, and an increased heart rate may be associated with violent behavior. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 371)

    Ok, I’m starting to wonder how this passed muster in a peer-reviewed journal. An “increased heart rate may be associated with violent behavior?” It may also be associated with a heart attack, or great sex, or running to catch a bus. This is way too ambiguous.

    Furthermore, reports of the relationship between heart rate and marijuana use are conflicting. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p.371)

    Thank you. That’s all you needed to say for the previous to make contextual sense. So, what Ostrwosky’s really noting here is that there’s nothing conclusive to link increased heart rate, marijuana use, and violence. So far we’re three pages into the article with nothing significant to link marijuana use and violent behavior.

    Perhaps “marijuana causes a significant increase in heart rate; however, this increase is no more dangerous than that caused by using caffeine or nicotine” (Abadinsky, 2008, p. 179). (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 371)

    In which case, Fisher’s got his work cut out for him, as he’ll need to carefully monitor every coffee, tea, and caffeinated soda drinker in the world.

    In short, it appears that marijuana’s impact on heart rate is complex, and it is unclear exactly how an increased heart rate and violent behavior are related.(Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 371)

    Indeed.

    Indeed, a growing literature demonstrates a marijuana withdrawal syndrome, which may include irritability, anxiety, anger, and aggressive behavior (Budney & Hughes, 2006; Hoaken & Stewart, 2003; Kouri, Pope, & Lukas,1999; Milin, Manion, Dare, & Walker, 2008; Vandrey, Budney, Kamon, & Stanger, 2005) (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 371)

    So, it may not be “hyped up” on happy grass that’s the problem. It’s may be that NOT “hyped up” on happy grass is the issue. Maybe some research into de-escalating violence might include a marijuana use trial.

    It may be that the greatest risk of violent behavior from a user of marijuana is during a period of abstinence and withdrawal. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 371)

    Sounds like Ostrowsky might support my previous paragraph.

    According to Goode, marijuana users have a lifestyle that involves a greater tolerance for deviance, a greater willingness to engage in risk-taking behavior, and a more permissive attitude. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 371)

    So yet another set of confounding variables enters into it. Further research will need to control for lifestyle. By the way, lifestyle, as a variable? That’s going to require some serious defining, and anytime you have to define something that complex, you’re going to have to do a lot of research, because complex variables are far more difficult to measure with reliability and validity, and far harder to control for in rigorous study design. It’s starting to look like the research on any links between marijuana use and violent behavior is going to take a long time, and it’s long past looking like ascribing causality to marijuana use and violent behavior is premature and ill-advised.

    yet such a relationship is difficult to interpret: it may be a reflection of many possible factors—such as subcultures, lifestyles, and personalities that support the defiance of societal standards—rather than any pharmacological effects of the drug itself. (Ostrowsky, 2011, pp. 371-372)

    Well said. We’re four pages in and it’s already too early and uncertain to lay violent behavior at marijuana use’s doorstep. The next section in Ostrowsky’s article begins with this:

    Five somewhat interconnected reasons emerge from the literature for anticipating a negative association between marijuana use and violent behavior. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 372)

    Emphasis mine. In addition, Ostrowsky (2011) reviews self-report data on the relationship between marijuana use and violent behavior, and notes “rather inconsistent findings” (p. 375).

    Which is no surprise. Self-report data is an important part of human subjects research, but when looking for causal relationships, relying on self-report data alone is unreliable. For causality, you have to draw up a controlled study comparing groups (and, you need high power, which means you need lots of subjects and/or lots of trials/groups. 60 is good, 90 is better). What the self-report data can be good for is how participants perceive effects, which is then useful to have alongside what controlled tests actually show about effects.

    Anyway, Ostrwosky (2011) goes on, and has sections on inconsistencies relative to types of aggression (pp. 379-380), gender (p. 380), gang affiliation (pp. 380-382), reciprocal relationship (pp. 381-382), and confounding variables (pp.382-383).

    This post is already running long, so I’ll jump ahead to some important notes from the conclusion.

    There appear to be several compelling reasons for expecting marijuana use to increase violent behavior. However, there are just as many compelling reasons that would lead us to expect marijuana use to decrease violent behavior. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 383)

    In other words, linking violent behavior and marijuana use causally would be stupid without additional significant research.

    Taken together, the results of some studies suggest that marijuana use and violence are positively associated, some research has found no association, and other studies even reveal that marijuana use can reduce aggressive behavior. These conflicting findings are not overly surprising, considering that marijuana has been classified at different times by different investigators as a depressant, a stimulant, a hallucinogen, and a narcotic. (Ostrowsky, 2011, p. 383)

    So, yet still another set of confounding variables: classification of the drug itself.

    Far more research required.

    Just sayin’.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  • lorn

    I based my estimate of likelihood upon the path of the bullets and how the body would have to be positioned in relation to the gun to line up.

    As for witnesses there was, according to the family, only three people present. Which leaves Wilson and Dorian Johnson as the only witnesses. So when you say witnesses you mean witness. You also might call him an accomplice, as Johnson was evidently present for the theft at the store. Of course, even accomplices might tell the truth.

    What you have is two people with, we assume, two different stories.

    But we also have the results of the second, private and independent, autopsy. Johnson has said Brown was shot in the back. There are no wounds on the back.

    I’m not saying that Johnson is necessarily lying. Nor am I saying Wilson is necessarily going to tell the objective truth. It wouldn’t be the first time a minor crime turned sour and the remaining suspect made up a story to curry sympathy. It also isn’t unknown for some police to lie. But to lie Wilson would have to make a statement.

    We know the part about how Brown was shot in the back is objectively false. Perhaps he just misinterpreted what he saw. Or it might be one more false detail of a wider confabulation, if not an actual lie. We have only heard one version based upon Johnson’s statements and a whole lot of assumptions and hyperbole. Information about Wilson’s version of the story have only come out indirectly.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Apparently they took “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” as an instruction manual.

    “KNOW YOUR DOPE FIEND. YOUR LIFE MAY DEPEND ON IT! You will not be able to see his eyes because of the Tea-Shades, but his knuckles will be white from inner tension and his pants will be crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when he can’t find a rape victim. He will stagger and babble when questioned. He will not respect your badge. The Dope Fiend fears nothing. He will attack, for no reason, with every weapon at his command-including yours. BEWARE. Any officer apprehending a suspected marijuana addict should use all necessary force immediately. One stitch in time (on him) will usually save nine on you. Good luck.

    -The Chief” — Hunter S. Thompson

  • lakitha tolbert

    The opposite of street racing is “inching”, i’m guessing. That’s what my friends call it when we’re stuck behind extra slow drivers.

  • zmidponk

    lorn #25:

    I based my estimate of likelihood upon the path of the bullets and how the body would have to be positioned in relation to the gun to line up.

    Those paths also conform to the scenario that Brown was fired at, turned around to surrender, got shot, then continued to get shot as he was crumpling to the ground.

    As for witnesses there was, according to the family, only three people present. Which leaves Wilson and Dorian Johnson as the only witnesses. So when you say witnesses you mean witness. You also might call him an accomplice, as Johnson was evidently present for the theft at the store. Of course, even accomplices might tell the truth.

    What you have is two people with, we assume, two different stories.

    Leaving aside, for the moment, your heavy implication that Johnson must be lying, there are at least three other witnesses, regardless of who was actually present at the precise location of the incident. Probably more, given that this happened on a residential area, with houses all around.

    Piaget Crenshaw filmed the immediate aftermath using her cellphone from her home, and, according to her, the incident was that there was some kind of struggle between the two at Wilson’s car, which resulted in Brown getting shot once there, but he got away, and started running away, then Wilson got out and fired at him, and Brown then raised his hands and turned around to surrender, only to get pummelled by bullets as Wilson fired some more.

    Tiffany Mitchell was on her way to pick up Piaget Crenshaw and saw a struggle between Brown and Wilson at the window of Wilson’s car, with Brown trying to get away when she heard a gunshot. Brown then started running off, when Wilson exited the vehicle and fired a couple of shots after Brown. Brown then turned around, raising his hands, and Wilson walked towards Brown, then fired several more times.

    Michael Brady saw, from his home, some kind of altercation at the window of Wilson’s car. He did not hear a gunshot, but he did see Wilson get out of the car, with his gun drawn, as Brown and Johnson ran off, and shot once or twice at Brown. Brady decided to step outside to see exactly what was going on, so missed the part where Brown turned around, but the next thing he saw was Brown slumped over, falling to the ground, with Wilson continuing to fire at him.

    But we also have the results of the second, private and independent, autopsy. Johnson has said Brown was shot in the back. There are no wounds on the back.

    Source please, because all I have seen is Johnson saying that Brown was shot during the struggle at Wilson’s car, then the next time he was shot was after he turned around to surrender.

    I’m not saying that Johnson is necessarily lying.

    No, you’re not quite doing that. You’re doing everything but that, but not quite that.

    Nor am I saying Wilson is necessarily going to tell the objective truth. It wouldn’t be the first time a minor crime turned sour and the remaining suspect made up a story to curry sympathy. It also isn’t unknown for some police to lie. But to lie Wilson would have to make a statement.

    We know the part about how Brown was shot in the back is objectively false. Perhaps he just misinterpreted what he saw. Or it might be one more false detail of a wider confabulation, if not an actual lie. We have only heard one version based upon Johnson’s statements and a whole lot of assumptions and hyperbole. Information about Wilson’s version of the story have only come out indirectly.

    No, we also have other eyewitness accounts. Of course, they’re all by black people, so maybe they don’t count.