Baton Rouge Shooter’s Online Persona

Baton Rouge shooter, Captain Soggypants, went by the online persona Cosmo Setepenra

Baton Rouge shooter, Captain Soggypants, went by the online persona Cosmo Setepenra

Baton Rouge Shooter’s Online Persona

The Baton Rouge shooter, who will henceforth be referred to as Captain Soggypants, had an active second-life online under the persona Cosmo Setepenra. Captain Soggypants assassinated three police officers in Baton Rouge, and shot three more; one is still fighting for his life. On his birthday, Captain Soggypants traveled from Missouri to assassinate officers as revenge for the justified officer-involved shooting of Alton Sterling.

Under the name Cosmo Setepenra, Captain Soggypants apparently authored several self-help books and labeled himself as a “nutritionist, life coach, dietician, personal trainer, author and spiritual adviser.” He also made several alarming online rants.

The Advocate reports:

Last week, on his YouTube series called Convos with Cosmo, he posted a video called “Protesting, Oppression and how to deal with Bullies”, where he discussed Sterling’s shooting and the subsequent protest.

“If y’all wanna keep protesting, do that, but for the serious ones, the real ones, the alpha ones, we know what it’s going to take. It’s only fighting back of money, that’s all they care about,” he said. “Revenue and blood. Revenue and blood. Revenue and blood. Revenue and blood. Nothing else.”

Long posted another rambling YouTube video titled “3 principles for my people” in which he urged viewers not to “get emotional” about recent current events but to make a “lifestyle change.” In the recording, he refers to himself as a “buffer between the bully and the victim.”

“Don’t get emotional about it,” Long says in the video. “When you make decisions that are based off emotion, when that emotion dies, then that fuel dies that energy for that decision. That’s why you base your decisions off logic.”

He railed against police violence, complaining that officers are rarely, if ever, charged in fatal shootings. In one Twitter post, he uploaded “bodycam footage” he said he had recorded in Dallas three days after five officers were fatally shot there. In that rambling video, he says he had been “out in the streets educating our people” about their “purpose.”

“Power doesn’t respect weakness,” he wrote in a Twitter message two days after Sterling’s shooting death. “Power only respects power.”

In another Twitter post, he wrote, “You can’t talk (or protest) the devil into changing his ways, this has never been done and never will.”

After the Dallas shooting, he wrote, “The Shooter was NOT WHITE, He was one of us! # My religion is Justice.”

When these extremists start indicating in their online posts that they may become violent towards law enforcement, we can no longer just ignore these posts as the rants of somebody who is emotional in the moment. We need to ensure that law enforcement receives the resources necessary to fully investigate these threats. Threatening anyone online is not protected speech, and it should be fully prosecuted before the suspects decide to act on their threats, just as Captain Soggypants did.

  • G

    Wow… Not sure you understand that you live in a democracy where all lives and people are supposed to be equal and the cop is a civil servant. Then there’s the most sacred of American law, the presumption of innocence. Did you do your police training in Murica or perhaps by watching Judge Dredd a few too many times? I bet your best days were high school where you were the big guy and got to beat people up. Now that you’re in the real world, being a cop is the only job that gets you to demand respect, instead of earning it.

    • Your open display of hostility and intellectual pomposity is really quite amazing, especially in light of the fact that nothing you wrote is correct. I assume you are from humble origins and like to try to bully people that you think are now your lesser, but in reality you know that they do things you don’t have the guts to do. Before you start writing and disparaging our Police, either know what you are talking about or you could
      even so some research.

      You know. I learn new things every day and I thank those that share knowledge with me. So before I get a nasty note back from you, just note that I graduated from a top tier law school and passed the Alabama Bar Exam the first on the first try in 1984. I practiced law until 1997 when I was a appointed circuit judge, one of 14, in the busiest circuit in the State of Alabama, elected four times without opposition and retire a year ago. I tried several hundred criminal jury trials, gave continuing legal education lectures in the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. I was also Director of the 13th Circuit Court Police, a 32 person police force for 10 years and am familiar will all aspect of policing. I have hired and fired police officers, fired my police chief after he assaulted a handcuffed detainee, and fired another officer for continuing to be rude to visitors of Government Plaza. In general.

      I have found that most people doing police work are motivated by the desire to do public service. A few may have become burned out because of the job and they are a danger to everyone.

      The United States is not a “Democracy” it is a “Federal Republic”. One can start in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. ”Why would a “Republican Form of Government” be guaranteed if the government established by the Constitution was some other form?

      During the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph on June 11, supporting James Madison’s version of the “Guarantee Clause”, which was pending, said that “a republican government must be the basis of our national union; and no state in it ought to have it in their power to change its government into a
      monarchy.” 1 M. Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 206.

      Portions of Federalist 51 (Madison writing as “Publius”):
      “But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.”

      “First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments…”

      “Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part…”

      “…The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority…”

      As to “presumption of innocence”, the presumption only applies to one who has been accused, through a formal process like an indictment or will likely be charged. A dead “victim” has no presumption of anything. A witness testifying can be questioned as to whether they have been convicted of felonies and if denied and
      the attorney who has propounded the questions has the certified convictions may inquire into the natures of them. Unless a state has a rape shield law, a rape victim’s past sexual history is relevant and she may be questioned about it.

      The United States inherited the presumption from Great Britain, and unless the EU changed something in the past five years it is still a maxim with their criminal law.

      The “presumption of innocence” applies only to a criminal defendant. While it has evolved over the years it is hardly the foundation of our judicial system anymore as the trial by jury certainly is.

      It is a legal fiction, now wrapped into the burden of proof, unlike years ago before “bail reform” destroyed its true character. How can someone be “presumed innocent” and yet forced to spend nine months in jail pretrial, effectively serving a sentence?. Because the purpose of bail has changed from ensuring the defendant’s appearance at trial to keeping the public and the alleged victim safe. So, there has already been a pre-trial inquiry by the court into the
      guilt of the defendant.

      I have given this charge on “presumption of innocence” probably close to 300 times and nobody has ever question this portion or taken an exception to it:
      “In coming before you, a jury of his peers, the Defendant is presumed innocent of the charge against him. This presumption apparently stems from the Latin legal Maxim: ‘ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat’ which means that the burden of proof rests on the one who asserts the offense, not one who
      denies it.
      The presumption of innocence remains with the Defendant throughout every stage of the trial and during your deliberation on the verdict, and is not overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant is guilty of the charge. The presumption of innocence
      with which the Defendant, Mr. ___, enters into the trial is a fact in this case which must be considered by you along with all the evidence and is not to be disregarded by you. The presumption of innocence attends the Defendant as a matter of evidence and is sufficient to acquit the Defendant unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant’s guilt.”

      It is a legal fiction that now is interwoven with the burden of proof. The oddest thing is that if the state fails to meet its burden a defendant id never found INNOCENT, but rather NOT GUILTY.

      Finally, what really is the presumption of innocence? Police, may presume suspects innocent; however, they may stop and question and arrest individuals based on suspicion and probable cause far short of weighty evidence of guilt. Why, because they are not a jury and the suspect has not been charged.

      “The presumption of innocence is a doctrine that allocates the burden of proof in criminal trials; it also may serve as an admonishment to the jury to judge an accused’s guilt or innocence solely on the evidence adduced at trial and not on the basis of suspicions that may arise from the fact of his arrest, indictment, or custody, or from other matters not introduced as proof at trial. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U. S. 478, 485 (1978); see Estelle v. Williams,
      425 U. S. 501 (1976); In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970); 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2511 (3d ed. 1940). It is “an inaccurate, shorthand description of the right of the accused to `remain inactive and
      secure, until the prosecution has taken up its burden and produced evidence and effected persuasion; . . .’ an `assumption’ that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence.” Taylor v. Kentucky, supra, at 484 n. 12.
      Without question, the presumption of innocence plays an important role in our criminal justice system.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 US 520, 533 (1979).

      Further reading:
      Baradaran, Shima. “Restoring the presumption of innocence.” Ohio St. LJ 72 (2011): 723.
      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shima_Baradaran/publicati/228128409_Restoring_the_Presumption_of_Innocence/links/0a85e5347ebebde164000000.pdf

      Pennington, Kenneth. “Innocent until proven guilty: The origins of a legal maxim.” Jurist 63 (2003): 106.
      http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1169&context=scholar

  • Pingback: Kansas City Police Officer Shot - In Critical Condition - Blue Lives Matter()