General Police Misconduct aka Murdering Black People

[playwithfire]

This thread needs to exist.

I've been following what's going down in Ferguson as I can, though I definitely don't feel I've given it the attention it deserves.

Between Twitter and livestreams and press, there's so much coverage. Though it seems that press/media (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/17/3472290/police-officer-threatens-to-shoot-reporter-live-streaming-protests-in-ferguson/) is having (http://www.vox.com/2014/8/18/6043247/ferguson-police-media-harassment) a pretty horrific time (https://twitter.com/BNDJLee) there. (https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery) Lots of people are. (https://twitter.com/TalibKweli)

Also, two ets members (that I know of) live in Ferguson.

I want to listen to other peoples thoughts/what you guys have been following. But this whole thing is pretty awful. Someone described Brown's shooting as a drop in a very full bucket. This short video details that really well.
(http://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/6045335/the-racism-of-the-us-criminal-justice-system-in-10-charts?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=tuesday)

[tony.parente]

I live about 7 miles from Ferguson, it's all anyone talks about over here.

[Sarah K]

The whole thing absolutely fucking sucks.

There are SO MANY conversations that can be had from this, though: profiling, diversion tactics(not releasing the officer's name for SO LONG, and then packaging it with a video of a "robbery"), police militarization, 1st amendment rights being trampled on in all forms, brutality, competence, racism in all different forms... The list goes on and on.

It's a scary fucking deal. Everything about this whole situation is bad.

I'm attending a rally tonight. Hope NYPD keeps calm.

[tony.parente]

^^ Be safe!! ^^

[Swykk]

It's a frightening look at how far from true progress we are and a wake up call to those who think police are adequately doing their job, as if the NYPD fiascos weren't enough. The process by which we hire police, and how they're monitored thereafter needs to be overhauled (but it won't be). Police procedure isn't to try and apprehend subjects from your car. You don't shoot an unarmed person 6 times. You don't attack the people and media with rubber bullets, fire and tear gas. You don't cause riots. But they do. They have. The evidence shows this happening.
To craft a bullshit story after days with no info given only proves this more. It took what, like four days for them to spin that robbery tale, only for that to crumble within the same day?

[allegro]

We need national legislation requiring police officers to wear cameras on their persons at all times. If they disable or remove the camera, ever, they are removed from duty without pay or pension and if anything happens during that time, they are immediately assumed to be at fault.

As I said in another thread, I was born/raised in Detroit and was a child during the Detroit race riots of 1967 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot). That was very similar to this, but Detroit was a LOT worse, obviously.

The big difference, however, was media: When the national guard or police initiates a curfew, that goes for everybody; citizens, media, everyone. I do NOT like how the police handled this situation in Ferguson. At all. I do not like the brutal way they handled ordinary, peaceful protesting citizens. That being said, when a curfew is in place, the police force's and the national guard's job is to get everyone off the street, and that includes the media. This is generally believed to be for the protection of all citizens. There are definitely some instigators, some provocateurs, some rogue protestors who are there just to provoke trouble, who are not there for peaceful protest, who are putting the lives of the peaceful citizens and the peaceful protestors in danger. I also do not like these looters, many of whom do not even LIVE in that area, and who came in from other areas or even states to take advantage or commit crimes, and are detracting from the real issue, here.

It's sad that we haven't seem to have come very far since 1967.

[Swykk]

I posted this in "cheer up" thread but it applies here as well and would certainly help.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hank-johnson-stop-militarizing-law-enforcement-act

[allegro]

Also, I posted this in another thread:

Stop Arming the Police Like the Military (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/06/stop-arming-police-military/87163/).

[Sarah K]

I would just like to give a round of applause for The Onion/Clickhole for absolutely nailing the entire situation. They have been so on point.

[allegro]

What gets me is how many people, online, in the comments section, the people over at my mom's condo complex, etc., are focusing on how this "big black kid" strong-armed this little Asian guy and stole some cigars, and how THAT somehow justified Mike Brown being shot SIX FUCKING TIMES, twice in the HEAD, while unarmed.

This is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, where you are entitled, per our United States Constitution, to a fair trial by a jury of your peers. He was unarmed, the police could have fired shots to disable him, then they could have arrested him and brought him to justice and had him tried through our justice system. But, instead, the police acted as judge and jury and shot him dead. Right there on the street. And that's just bullshit.

Want more examples of the Constitution being violated? Look at the Cook County Jail here in Chicago (http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/20320674-418/time-stands-still-in-cook-county-jail-for-some-inmates.html#.U_TTq7xdVss). When you are accused of a crime, you are entitled to a speedy trial, per the U.S. Constitution. It doesn't matter if you're guilty or not, you are still entitled to a TRIAL. "[Cook County Clerk Preckwinkle] pointed out that 70 percent of the inmates are waiting for trial on non-violent charges." That's all kinds of bullshit! And the VAST majority of them are minority inmates without any money. Sitting there waiting for a fucking TRIAL. FOR FIVE YEARS.

So, here's the scoop: You either get thrown into jail and forgotten about, or you get shot dead. Welcome to America, land of the fucking free.

[Sarah K]

Yes... But they claim that the first four shots that connected "didn't disable" him. Yeah. Sure.

Like, it's REAL FUCKED UP to read some people's justification for this shit.

They bring up 2,443,291 unrelated topics that in their mind, somehow justifies a kid being murdered in the street. NONE of those topics matter. I couldn't give two fucks what he was doing before he was killed. What was happening in that moment had zero justification for murdering him.

DID YOU SEE THAT PHOTO OF HIM FLIPPING OFF THE CAMERA?! OBVI A THUG.

[allegro]

A friend posted this on Facebook: Evidently, Ferguson has hired some police force rejects (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/ferguson-eddie-boyd_n_5682454.html).


Yes... But they claim that the first four shots that connected "didn't disable" him. Yeah. Sure.
The cop stories keep changing, but press conference with the family's medical examiner, the retired guy from New York, that was fascinating, and it seemed obvious to me that the grouping of shots showed he was holding his arm up in the air. Anybody who's ever fired a gun at a firing range would see this immediately. You take the one side of his body, put that one arm up in the air and, there you go, a grouping, he was protecting himself. The "kill shot" was right through his head, per the medical examiner. All of the witnesses had pretty much the same story, which is pretty rare, actually. People tend to be really weirded out and remember things in different ways, but these witnesses are saying the same details, and they do not corroborate with the cops' story at all, and the witness accounts were pretty instant, so it wasn't like there was some kind of "advance meeting" to come up with a corroborated witness story. My gut says that there is going to be a cell phone video that will come forward somewhere. I sure hope so.

Look, if we want, we can step way from the race issue of police / SWAT team brutality, here, and look at other examples.

HERE'S ONE THAT PISSED ME THE FUCK OFF (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-02/news/ct-met-kass-0802-20130803_1_butcher-type-kitchen-knife-park-forest-police-taser).

Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK. It wasn't until the Chicago Tribune got ahold of of this story that anybody even knew about it.

And now that police officer is facing trial for reckless conduct. Which is far less that the MURDER charges he should be facing (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-02/news/chi-john-wrana-death-trial-20140702_1_john-wrana-super-sock-trial-date).

Here was a senile, medicated 95-year-old man in a nursing home. As the one retired police chief said in the above interview, all these cops had to do was lock the door to the old man's room and let him sleep it off. The old man was in hospice, he was dying, he was a decorated war veteran, he was confused, he was refusing his medicine. But the fucking cops devised a "plan" and blasted into his room in SWAT gear and ignored the MANUAL for the bean bag guns and blasted the old guy at close range and killed him.

[Sarah K]

I think stepping away from the race conversation involved with police brutality removes one of the biggest(if not THE biggest) issues.

Edit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/18/hedy-epstein-arrested-ferguson-holocaust-_n_5689822.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

They arrested a 90 year old Holocaust survivor. So I for sure feel safer.

[allegro]

but, the problem is that after September 11th, the police in many communities across the country have been arming themselves with fucking tanks and SWAT type provisions as if we're fucking Beirut.

Linked above: http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/06/stop-arming-police-military/87163/


If there’s anything I know after serving the Boston Police Department for 27 years, it’s this: Good policing is all about trust.

This isn’t a particularly novel insight, but my time as a beat cop hammered it into me time and again. Yet it’s incredible how many police departments across the nation have lost sight of this in their rush to transform into something more akin to a standing army rather than a civilian police force safeguarding a democratic people.

Have no doubt, police in the United States are militarizing, and in many communities, particularly those of color, the message is being received loud and clear: “You are the enemy.” Police officers are increasingly arming themselves with military-grade equipment such as assault rifles, flashbang grenades, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles and dressing up in commando gear before using battering rams to burst into the homes of people who have not been charged with a crime. Perhaps more alarming is the fact that the Pentagon has played a huge role in this militarization by transferring its weapons of war to civilian police departments through its so-called 1033 program.

Many communities now look upon police as an occupying army, their streets more reminiscent of Baghdad or Kabul than a city in America. This besieged mentality created by the militarization of police has driven a pernicious wedge into the significant gains made under community- and problem-oriented policing initiatives dating from the late 1980s. The trusting relationships so many police officers painstakingly built within their communities have been eroded by the mindset of the warrior cop.

One of the more alarming trends in the overall militarization of police, which has accelerated since 9/11, is the use of Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT, teams for routine police work. According to the ACLU’s new report, “War Comes Home,” the majority of the SWAT raids it examined was to execute search warrants, usually in low-level drug investigations. The ACLU also found that many of the SWAT raids it studied used unjustifiably “violent tactics and equipment,” often in homes where children were known to be present.

The ACLU also found something far more worrisome but unfortunately not surprising. The use of SWAT teams disproportionately impacts people of color, particularly when the teams were deployed to execute a search warrant for a drug investigation. Of the cases the ACLU studied, when SWAT raids affected blacks and Latinos, 68 percent were for drug searches. But when SWAT raids affected whites, only 38 percent were for drug searches, even though whites use drugs at roughly the same rates as blacks and Latinos.

This discriminatory and excessive use of SWAT teams turns the criminal justice system on its head and eviscerates the presumption of innocence, which is the hallmark of American justice. People who have been charged with no crime aren’t only treated like they’re guilty; they’re made to endure a violent intrusion into their home based on the mere suspicion of low-level crimes. To the victims of unnecessary SWAT raids and their communities, the idea that police are there to serve and protect them becomes a bad joke.

This isn’t to say that the use of SWAT teams is never justified. I know better than most. I participated in one of the very first SWAT deployments at the Boston Police Department when a man who shot a police superintendent barricaded himself in an apartment. But this is the precise type of situation that the SWAT program was created for, not breaking down the door of people in the middle of the night with guns drawn in pursuit of drugs.

Militarized policing undermines the very notion of law enforcement in a democratic society. Rather than reassuring us that we are safe and out of harm’s way, it creates a pervasive sense that we are unsafe and in danger, sometimes from the police themselves. It’s not surprising then that the ACLU also discovered that the militarization of domestic law enforcement occurred without any input, direction, or oversight from affected communities and that law enforcement agencies’ records on acquisitions of military weapons, vehicles, and equipment were “virtually nonexistent.”

The situation, however, is far from being beyond hope or possible resolution. Not all police practitioners — including policy makers, administrators, managers, supervisors and line officers — endorse and support the militarization of America’s law enforcement agencies. Progressive police chiefs in Madison, Wisconsin, and Salt Lake City, Utah, for example, have been publicly critical of police militarization practices and initiatives.

If we want to roll back the militarization of our police forces, the ACLU offers many common sense recommendations, but two stand out as critical first steps. The first is that the use of paramilitary tactics should be restricted solely to situations where there is a true and verifiable emergency, such as a hostage or barricade situation. The second would require that police record and report all uses of paramilitary tactics, including a justification for the use of SWAT, as well as all injuries and property damage caused by the use of SWAT teams.

Our streets and communities aren’t warzones, but the creeping militarization of our police forces and the warrior mindset it creates has the feel of a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of our nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Dr. Tom Nolan is an associate professor and the chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh. He served 27 years in the Boston Police Department before retiring as a uniformed lieutenant.

[allegro]

Rand Paul did an Op-Ed piece for Time Magazine (linked in Swykk's above link (http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)


Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police

Anyone who thinks race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention, Sen. Rand Paul writes for TIME, amid violence in Ferguson, Mo. over the police shooting death of Michael Brown

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:

"Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force. It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians."

The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:

"Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (“‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.”) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?"

Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.”

How did this happen?

Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.”

Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”

Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included.”

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

[DigitalChaos]

Rand Paul nailed it and is the only politician to come anywhere near that level. That should tell you how likely it is that we will ever see national legislation that changes the police militarization in a meaningful way... unless citizens and their officials decide to change. Watching Rand Paul come out *way* left of the democrats AND with a workable plan of attack seriously has me changing my views on him though.


That said, I'm glad a large portion of the country is actually starting to talk about this problem that is heavily rooted in the War on Drugs and War on Terror. It's kind of surreal to hear everyone saying shit that Ice-T was saying in the early 90's. I could go on and on about how much we need to change things, but most of it was already covered above.


As for the topic of the Mike Brown killing, I really think people need to let it go to court. Brown's judge, jury, and executioner was a cop... and that is FUCKED UP. You don't respond to a complete lack of integrity like this with more of it. The idiots trying to scrape together every bit of "evidence" and "testimony" in an attempt to lay guilt on one party of the other are just absurd.

[DigitalChaos]

We need national legislation requiring police officers to wear cameras on their persons at all times. If they disable or remove the camera, ever, they are removed from duty without pay or pension and if anything happens during that time, they are immediately assumed to be at fault.
There are already cases where cops are "accidentally" bumping their cameras contrast all the way up so you can't see anything or knocking the focus out. They will always find a way. I mean, look at their fucking name tags. They find ways to pin them so they face up into the sky and are hard to read but technically visible, etc.

We need better wearable cameras but we also need sousveillance from the public. Stuff the cops have no way (or at least a much harder time) of messing with. It's already growing with all the smart phones, but it's going to get better.

[Swykk]

Uh oh. Ferguson's finest, ladies and gentlemen!


http://youtu.be/8zbR824FKpU

[allegro]

As for the topic of the Mike Brown killing, I really think people need to let it go to court. Brown's judge, jury, and executioner was a cop... and that is FUCKED UP. You don't respond to a complete lack of integrity like this with more of it. The idiots trying to scrape together every bit of "evidence" and "testimony" in an attempt to lay guilt on one party of the other are just absurd.
Well, that's what the Brown family and their attorneys want; they want the shooter(s) charged and they want it to go to court.

[thelastdisciple]

http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A

Yes i know... political satire, he has writers, "quoting comedians makes you look like a stupid" and blah blah blah.

Hard not to agree with what was covered though.. lots of great points.

[Hazekiah]

^ Nearly simultaneous post, n/m...they've got it covered already.

:)

[DigitalChaos]

Well, that's what the Brown family and their attorneys want; they want the shooter(s) charged and they want it to go to court.
And that's totally fine. And they are out there peacefully protesting and there is no issue. It's everyone that is latching onto any little bit of info released and trying to proclaim guilt for one party or another. It's just fucking stupid.

Discuss the police militarization, the racial imbalances in our legal system, etc... but trying to vindicate the cop or Brown in this mess is just silly right now.

[DigitalChaos]

Best article I've seen about the police militarization issue:
http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close




just a few of the points:
- The Ferguson PD used as many bullets on Michael Brown as the Polizei used on ten million Germans.
- The biggest government in the free world chooses not to keep statistics on how many people get shot by law enforcement.
- A soldier wears green camo in Vietnam to blend in. A policeman wears green camo in Ferguson to stand out - to let you guys know: We're here, we're severe, get used to it.
- When an unarmed shoplifter in T-shirt and shorts with a five-buck cigar box in one hand has to be shot dead, you're doing it wrong.

[xmd 5a]

- When an unarmed shoplifter in T-shirt and shorts with a five-buck cigar box in one hand has to be shot dead, you're doing it wrong.

But he was going to make a THUG MARIJUANA BLUNT with them. And listen to the THUG RAP MUSIC.

/sarcasm

Killer Mike is pretty on-point here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9dZctr84QY

[october_midnight]

St. Louis release footage of Kajieme Powell killing that somewhat contradicts their original story. (http://gawker.com/st-louis-police-release-video-of-officers-killing-kaji-1624750401)

Warning: Graphic content...it's a video of a man being brutally gunned down, so yeah.....warning.

Seems pretty fucked up to me, 9-10 rounds for a knife-wielding person, who could've easily been shot in the knee or with non-lethal force. Plus, you're gonna roll a body over and cuff it afterwards? wtf.

[DigitalChaos]

Plus, you're gonna roll a body over and cuff it afterwards? wtf.

well YEAH! If you don't do that you run a very high risk of the body resisting arrest just like this guy:

http://i.imgur.com/FlBSBcO.gif

[DigitalChaos]

But he was going to make a THUG MARIJUANA BLUNT with them. And listen to the THUG RAP MUSIC.

/sarcasm

Killer Mike is pretty on-point here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9dZctr84QY


Pretty spot-on. But screw calling Mike Brown "a child." They did the same bullshit with Trayvon Martin. Everything else was solid though.


It's fucked up that nobody will know how police used to be outside of reruns of the Andy Griffith show. There have been many steps of separation between how things used to be. You no longer see locals policing their own neighborhood. You have cops come in from different counties to police. Now, you have the federal government providing funding and other resources to local police. That is fucked up and it pollutes the relationship that is supposed to exist. The only people who should be paying police are the very people who are being policed by them.


This also makes me think about a larger cultural thing beyond the police. People don't give a shit about their neighbors anymore. It's very rare to see people reach out to help someone. Everyone just keeps their head down. I think it's a mixture of many things (fear of being sued, a less responsible & respectful culture, fear of being hurt, etc) but it certainly has an impact on how individuals act in their communities too.

[thelastdisciple]

I've read law enforcement complaining about being under a microscope, well newsflash maybe you shouldn't have taken up that profession in the first place? you are given permissions and use of force that ordinary citizens aren't meant to have and you expect to be trusted right off the bat? you expect that when instances such as this happen that people aren't going to want to look twice at who is supposed to serve and protect the community? gtfo! being held accountable for your actions comes with the job.

[DigitalChaos]

Uh oh. Ferguson's finest, ladies and gentlemen!

http://youtu.be/8zbR824FKpU
The ACLU got Officer "go fuck yourself" removed from duty:
https://twitter.com/aclu_mo/status/502181704493432833

I hope he gets tried for the death threats though (a felony).

[allegro]

The ACLU got Officer "go fuck yourself" removed from duty:
https://twitter.com/aclu_mo/status/502181704493432833

I hope he gets tried for the death threats though (a felony).
I just could not believe that shit, aiming a loaded assault weapon at random citizens and threatening them.

[Satyr]

St. Louis release footage of Kajieme Powell killing that somewhat contradicts their original story. (http://gawker.com/st-louis-police-release-video-of-officers-killing-kaji-1624750401)

Warning: Graphic content...it's a video of a man being brutally gunned down, so yeah.....warning.

Seems pretty fucked up to me, 9-10 rounds for a knife-wielding person, who could've easily been shot in the knee or with non-lethal force. Plus, you're gonna roll a body over and cuff it afterwards? wtf.

Police officers are absolutely not trained to shoot a threat in the knee.....If a cop is shooting at you they are trying to kill you. That is the bottom line.

If you want to watch what cops have to be prepared for feel free to watch the **GRAPHIC VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIhQjfOYKk GRAPHIC VIDEO** that I soft linked.

[allegro]

DigitalChaos technically, Trayvon Martin was a child because he was a minor, under 18. This Mike Brown guy was 18, so he had reached the age of majority so ...

[allegro]

Police officers are absolutely not trained to shoot a threat in the knee.....If a cop is shooting at you they are trying to kill you. That is the bottom line.
See this: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5693020

[allegro]

Best article I've seen about the police militarization issue:
http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close




just a few of the points:
- The Ferguson PD used as many bullets on Michael Brown as the Polizei used on ten million Germans.
- The biggest government in the free world chooses not to keep statistics on how many people get shot by law enforcement.
- A soldier wears green camo in Vietnam to blend in. A policeman wears green camo in Ferguson to stand out - to let you guys know: We're here, we're severe, get used to it.
- When an unarmed shoplifter in T-shirt and shorts with a five-buck cigar box in one hand has to be shot dead, you're doing it wrong.
Great article! Wait what about this part!?!? WTF

"NOTE: Several readers have queried my use of the term "shoplifter", insisting that this was a "strongarm robbery", the phrase du jour. It's not clear whether, legally speaking, this was any kind of robbery, in the sense of a prosecutable crime: The store owner did not report any theft and did not volunteer the video as evidence. Instead, the Ferguson PD went to a judge to get a court order to make the store owner cough it up on the grounds that it might contain something useful to them.

And then the chief says he had no choice but to release it because he was getting Freedom of Information requests for it. Which makes even less sense..."

[Timinator]

People killed by police in the UK (pop: 64m) since January 2010: 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_by_law_enforcement_officers_ in_the_United_Kingdom)
People killed by police in Canada (pop: 35m) since January 2010: 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_Ca nada)
People killed by police in Australia (pop: 23m) since January 2010: about 20 (my estimate using numbers from here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/30/half-shot-police-mentally-ill))
People killed by police in the US (pop: 318m) since January 2013 (I got tired and gave up counting): 419 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_th e_United_States)

[allegro]

That info is in the article that DigitalChaos linked above

[Swykk]

Thanks for that update, DigitalChaos. Makes me feel slightly better.

Anyone else disgusted by Holder hugging Johnson? This isn't a celebratory "We did it!" Moment. It's a "Let's figure out those who are responsible now, as in, right now!"

[allegro]

Atlantic article about militarization of police

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/militarization-of-the-police-fargo-edition/378883/

[Swykk]

I've read and seen (as I'm sure many of you have) where cops taze children and teens, for lesser reasons. I mean, those people talking in that video are right, the cops easily could've tazed Powell but why do that when you can just gun him down? He had a knife, so nothing will happen to those trigger happy dicks. That's the power of it that attracts the bullies (Officer Go Fuck Yourself).
Did Powell deserve to be arrested? Probably. Rushing to lethal force when you have the distance and means to non lethal tactics? Unnecessary.
And yes, Satyr and allegro are correct, if a cop is aiming a gun at you, it's never to wing you.

[allegro]

I know Chicago cops, and they say they DON'T want to kill people; they would much rather just hurt you. Killing requires a lot more paperwork. But some situations require killing, and sometimes in a split second a rookie cop isn't going to make the right call, mostly due to lack of experience and training.

Officer gofuckyourself obviously lacks training and experience; he also lacks good supervision and management.

Look at the OTHER law enforcement officer who came over and pushed gofuckyourself's gun away from the crowd, and got gofuckyourself to move along. THAT guy knew what's up.

[skip niklas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUfcNSTgk3I&feature=youtu.be

[allegro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUfcNSTgk3I&feature=youtu.be
Holy shit that's creepy!!!!!

[tony.parente]

I'm not really going to get involved in the coverup conspiracies or the cop hate on here because I think that should probably be in another thread but I'm going to just put my opinion on the actual events in Ferguson.

It is entirely possible to explain the Michael Brown events in a rational and reasonable way that takes the known facts into account. No character assassination required.

Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson were involved in a robbery. Johnson has fully admitted to this. We can't ignore this simply because we know the end result of the story - that a man lost his life- and it's irresponsible to try to draw the conclusion that the punishment for cigar theft is execution. The fact that Brown used intimidation and force to shoplift makes it a robbery instead of shoplifting or petty theft. The dollar amount doesn't matter if you use force or intimidation. You don't get away with robbery if you threaten somebody and steal their empty wallet. Disagree if you like, but that is the law. (If the case went to court, he would most likely end up getting probation because obviously it's not all that violent or dangerous)
Brown and Johnson left the store and walked down the street.
The PO saw two kids walking down the street.
At this point it is important to emphasize who knew what information.
Brown and Johnson: We were involved in a robbery.
Officer: Kids are walking in the street.
What matters is that they knew they were involved and the Officer didn't.
Here's a secret: people don't like to go to jail.
So, if you just committed a crime and a Police car drives up to you, you're going to assume that the police have arrived because of what you just did.
Facts get very muddy around this point in the story. But that doesn't mean that the Officer is some racist renegade hell bent on enforcing his twisted view of the law by executing an unarmed cigar thief.
It suggests is that the Officer felt threatened enough to defend himself. It suggests that Brown and Johnson knew something that the officer didn't and the situation escalated to the point of no return.
Whichever spin you put on the narrative (violent thugs rob gas station, gentle giant, racist cop, hero cop, execution, self defense, character assassination, presentation of facts, etc...) I truly feel that this situation boils down to the imbalance of available information. The young men had more information than the officer - they knew that they committed a crime. The officer did not. When people offer that the cop stopped them without even knowing they were involved (often cited as evidence that the Officer did something wrong - "HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW THEY WERE INVOLVED!") I offer that that was the exact problem, but for different reasons. If the Officer did in fact know that they were suspects, he wouldn't have tried to contact them by himself. Police Training 101: Call For Back-Up. Perhaps in this case, calling for back-up should apply even if you think you're stopping some kids for jaywalking. But alas, hindsight is not a luxury afforded those of us that live in the present.
It simply comes down to the fact that they knew more than he did. He wasn't planning on killing an unarmed man that day.
To summarize:
Robbery occurs (merchandise stolen is irrelevant bc of force and intimidation)
Two men walk down street (knowing they were involved)
Officer encounters men (not knowing they were involved)
Men don't want to be arrested (officer doesn't know he's supposed to arrest men and men don't know he doesn't know)
< struggle of some sort >
Officer felt struggle warranted deadly force
Say what you will about racial profiling, institutional racism, the community response, and the police response. Those ideas are very important and should be discussed, but they don't influence or change the known facts known to us at this very moment.

[aggroculture]

When I was growing up in the UK, my understanding was that a police officer is allowed to shoot someone if that person is shooting at them and their own life is in danger. Nothing less.

Where did this character of the terrified police officer come from, who shoots first and asks questions later?

Also, I would think police depts would be at the forefront of campaigning for gun control, but that doesn't seem to be the case. A police officer in the UK, for example, can safely assume that most citizens are not carrying a gun, but in the US it seems that the assumption is that everyone is armed, thus creating a scenario of jumpy and trigger-happy cops who shoot and kill innocent people because they are scared of being shot.

[Swykk]

I really wish I didn't click "view post."

So very wrong. Willful ignorance? Trolling? Both? Either way, it's a tired act with huge holes poked in it. You can view pretty much all of the other posts here and pick that bullshit apart.

[tony.parente]

I really wish I didn't click "view post."

So very wrong. Willful ignorance? Trolling? Both? Either way, it's a tired act with huge holes poked in it.

Maybe you could throw up links like on your Facebook...so you know, we can see your "source material?"

You're not capable of having an adult conversation without throwing out personal attacks. The adults come here and have discussions, you post videos and say "LOL FERGUSONS FINEST" and contribute nothing. I'm choosing not to engage you at all because nothing good will come of it. We need a conspiracy theory/cop block thread to put you in so you don't poison legitimate conversations in threads like this one.

[allegro]

Tony, the Chief of Police already held a 2nd press conference to revise his 1st press conference to make clear that the officers in fact knew absolutely nothing about a robbery, saw no evidence of a robbery, and were not talking to these two men due to any alleged robbery. At the time of the shooting, the store owner had not reported a robbery. It was not until after Brown was dead that this robbery came to light and, again, the store owner did not consider it serious enough to report it to police. The video we see was obtained via court order by police, as a character assassination.

[tony.parente]

Tony, the Chief of Police already held a 2nd press conference to revise his 1st press conference to make clear that the officers in fact knew absolutely nothing about a robbery, saw no evidence of a robbery, and were not taking to these two men due to any alleged robbery.

The officers didn't know anything about a robbery, I thought I made it very clear that the officers involved in the altercation knew nothing about any suspected crime taking place beforehand.

I'm not sure though if we're debating on whether or not the robbery took place, but like I said earlier Dorian admitted to it.
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/

[Sarah K]

Even if they DID rob the store(which, as far as I know, we DON'T KNOW YET), it is irrelevant to what happened.

This is EXACTLY WHY they didn't release the name of the officer until they had this. It puts a shitty fucking spin on it, and it makes people wrongfully think that somehow the murder was justified. Lame.

[Swykk]

Right. I'm the problem. Not you! All of my posts in this thread got face palms and nobody thinks what I'm saying holds water...oh wait, the opposite is true.

That one video you're referencing got that asshole put off duty, hopefully fired. It wasn't an LOL moment, either. It was an example of what I've been saying. I'm backing up my statements. You should try doing the same.

For dropping "adult" on me, you sure do exhibit a child's naivete.

[allegro]

The officers didn't know anything about a robbery, I thought I made it very clear that the officers involved in the altercation knew nothing about any suspected crime taking place beforehand.
You didn't make anything clear. That was a convoluted and pointless post containing zero legal bullet points. A 5 dollar box of cigars was missing. Any criminal legal expert is going to confirm that nobody is going to look suspicious while near their own apt holding a 5 dollar box of swishers. He probably had more illegal pot in his system.

Bigger question: why does it appear that such a large black population has such a WHITE police force? With a SWAT team?

You are making defensive assumptions, here, none of which assume that perhaps this department has SWAT gear and tanks but should have spent money on squad car cameras; that these cops clearly need better training; that it is entirely possible that this cop fucked up, and now he should be charged and face a jury of his peers; that police are not above the law.

[tony.parente]

You didn't make anything clear. That was a convoluted and pointless post containing zero legal bullet points. A 5 dollar box of cigars was missing. Any criminal legal expert is going to confirm that nobody is going to look suspicious while near their own apt holding a 5 dollar box of swishers. He probably had more illegal pot in his system.

Bigger question: why does it appear that such a large black population has such a WHITE police force? With a SWAT team?



Robbery occurs (merchandise stolen is irrelevant bc of force and intimidation)
Two men walk down street (knowing they were involved)
Officer encounters men (not knowing they were involved)
Men don't want to be arrested (officer doesn't know he's supposed to arrest men and men don't know he doesn't know)
< struggle of some sort >
Officer felt struggle warranted deadly force


I thought this portion made it pretty clear that the officer did not know of the suspected robbery. And just because the shop owner didn't feel as though the crime was large enough to press charges didn't change the fact that a strong armed robbery took place. I'm not intending the robbery to be the main focus of this conversation, it's only important in my eyes because Mike and Dorian knew they committed a crime, thought the officer who stopped them knew even though the officer did not. That's the ONLY relevance to the situation in my opinion. I think everything I spoke about is something we can all agree upon, if it's not I can go and spend 45 minutes and gather the main news sources and annotate them.

[allegro]

You made ASSUMPTIONS, there. Men don't want to be arrested. We do not know that. The witnesses said the police yelled at the men to get out of thr street.

And when this goes to trial, a robbery may not even be allowed as admissable evidence.

The "crime" that was committed was the police officer's, not the victim's.

[Swykk]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) Not to mention, though I DID MENTION IT, that it is NOT procedure to try and apprehend a suspect from your vehicle.

[tony.parente]

You made ASSUMPTIONS, there. Men don't want to be arrested. We do not know that. The witnesses said the police yelled at the men to get out of the street.

Every witness account, the ones who said mike attacked the officer and the ones who said the officer tried to pull mike into the vehicle all say he ran after the scuffle in the police vehicle. I don't think it's an assumption that Mike tried to flee to avoid arrest, unless you feel that he was fleeing to avoid assault from the cop and depending on your view on what happened I guess that's a fair route to take as well.

[allegro]

The scuffle happened AFTER the cops saw the two men walking in the middle of the street, and the cops yelled get the fuck out of the middle of the street.

The newest witness, the one with video footage, confirmed that there was a shot that came from inside the squad car, then the guys ran, then the cop shot at Brown from behind.

And all of this would have been captured on the squad car's camera had the city sprung for that instead of SWAT gear and tanks.

You do know how many innocent people die every year due to unnecessary and ridiculous high speed police chases, which are now falling out of favor nationwide mostly due to public outrage.

That shooting occurred in broad daylight. In an apartment complex. Filled with children. Hell, in nearly every interview I've seen at the scene, there were little children going in and out of buildings.

Seasoned police veterans generally don't make that kind of dangerous call. This cop fucked up. We should not vilify all cops for it. But we should learn lessons from it. Change should come from it.

[tony.parente]

The scuffle happened AFTER the cops saw the two men walking in the middle of the street, and the cops yelled get the fuck out of the middle of the street.

The newest witness, the one with video footage, confirmed that there was a shot that came from inside the squad car, then the guys ran, then the cop shot at Brown from behind.

And all of this would have been captured on the squad car's camera had the city sprung for that instead of SWAT gear and tanks.

You do know how many innocent people die every year due to unnecessary and ridiculous high speed police chases, which are now falling out of favor nationwide mostly due to public outrage.

To be fair it's an assumption that the cop screamed at the kids to get the fuck out of the street due to conflicting stories by various witness'. Also I would imagine that the police cruiser indeed had video surveillance recording at least the audio of what happened, but from what officials said nothing is going to be released in regards to evidence until after the whole court thing. (I'm not a fan of that AT ALL) Also I am very aware of many, many instances of police profiling of african americans and the wrongful deaths due to police negligence (the killing of that producer from tosh.o comes to mind) and while we have to take into account the obvious history of blacks being persecuted we have to be as level headed about what we know as possible.

And I know you were referencing the tanks and squat gear at the protest but those have to relevance to the incident itself.

[allegro]

It is relevant in that it shows where they spent their Federal defense dollars. They should have spent it on cheap squad car cameras. If they HAVE footage, they would have released it by now (instead of the store footage); they don't, which is why they released the desperate store footage.

The police union is protecting its own at expense of public safety.

The good news is that a grand jury has been called and is meeting every Wednesday; it may take until October to reach a decision whether or not to indict but it should make the Brown family feel better.

Conflicting witness accounts is Law School 101. That happens all the time. Nobody remembers things correctly. Not even cops. Which is why the grand jury will use forensics, medical, physical, all kinds of data in addition to witness accounts.

[tony.parente]

It is relevant in that it shows where they spent their Federal defense dollars. They should have spent it on cheap squad car cameras. If they HAVE footage, they would have released it by now (instead of the store footage); they don't, which is why they released the desperate store footage.

Here's what I think we can all agree on:
I'm not a fan of the timing in regards to the releasing of the video, I DO feel as though they released it to paint a bad picture of Mike in the media.
I don't think that swat gear and other militarized weaponry was needed at all until the protesters started shooting at cops and throwing molotov cocktails at them.
There are many, many cops involved in the protests that acted extremely inappropriately and should either be fired or severely reprimanded (who points a gun at a complacent protester and says they're going to kill them?)
Sarah said at her rally in NYC there were police helicopters flying, that is stupid as hell and a large waste of resources.
If the police officer had a camera on his person either A. He would be rightfully charged with the murder of an unarmed teen who was surrendering or B. We would be talking about how Mike assaulted the officer, reached for his gun and charged him and he had to regretfully defend himself.
It is possible that the officer involved overreacted and shot Mike in a situation that did not warrant it.
It is possible (though very less likely in my opinon) that the officer felt like he had an excuse to kill a (in his racist eyes) black kid walking in the middle of the street.

I don't think anything that happened after the shooting is relevant to the shooting itself. The only events that I feel are relevant is the second that Mike and Dorian walked into that convenience store to the moment mikes heart stopped beating. Everything else is a separate issue that has it's own problems and solutions.

[allegro]

Now, having been in law for 26 years, I can say that the relevant timing is the altercation between the officers and Brown. What happened before is not relevant.

This thread is not ONLY about this one case and this one guy. It is about the fucking SWAT teams that came out after, too. It's about the militarization of police forces across the country, using Federal tax dollars. You don't get to narrow the focus. This mess we are seeing on TV is just one example of a systemic problem, a growing epidemic. It's racism, yes. But it's also militarization of police. It's giving absolute power to police. Look at that shit that happened in Boston. To white people. Sure, terrororists are bad. But two fucking days of 10 miles of lockdown was fucking nuts.

Did you see that statistic? 419 people killed by police in 2013? And we don't think, wow, that seems like a lot?

[tony.parente]

Now, having been in law for 26 years, I can say that the relevant timing is the altercation between the officers and Brown. What happened before is not relevant.

I can agree with this, my only reasoning behind thinking it is relevant in any fashion is the fact that Mike knew he committed a crime and it is safe to say that he could have thought he was being stopped because of that crime and if there was indeed an altercation caused by him in that police vehicle it would explain why he acted the way he did. Again since we can't interview Mike we'll never know his thought process at all.

EDIT: I didn't try to say what we could or could not talk about in this thread, I was meaning to say what happened after the shooting isn't relevant to the shooting itself and is a separate issue that's happening in Ferguson and should be treated as such. Of course we should talk about that in this thread.

[allegro]

I can agree with this, my only reasoning behind thinking it is relevant in any fashion is the fact that Mike knew he committed a crime and it is safe to say that he could have thought he was being stopped because of that crime and if there was indeed an altercation caused by him in that police vehicle it would explain why he acted the way he did. Again since we can't interview Mike we'll never know his thought process at all.

EDIT: I didn't try to say what we could or could not talk about in this thread, I was meaning to say what happened after the shooting isn't relevant to the shooting itself and is a separate issue that's happening in Ferguson and should be treated as such. Of course we should talk about that in this thread.
I guarantee you, no judge will allow a jury to pretend to assume what the victim was thinking, therefore it will be declared irrelevant.

If the police were not aware of the robbery, then it will inadmissable.

[tony.parente]

I guarantee you, no judge will allow a jury to pretend to assume what the victim was thinking, therefore it will be declared irrelevant.


That's fair, you're right.

[aggroculture]

I am a little dubious about the "let's equip all policemen with cameras all the time" solution.
I don't think outsourcing ethics to technology is a sustainable solution in the long run:
What's next: all citizens must wear a camera at all times?
I think we need to change the culture of excessive police authority in the US, not to big brother everything further. That people can be legally killed for stealing property is totally fucked up and morally wrong.
That the police force is used to oppress poor people and defend the interests and property of rich with violence is all wrong.

[tony.parente]

I am a little dubious about the "let's equip all policemen with cameras all the time" solution.
I don't think outsourcing ethics to technology is a sustainable solution in the long run:
What's next: all citizens must wear a camera at all times?
I think we need to change the culture of excessive police authority in the US, not to big brother everything further. That people can be legally killed for stealing property is totally fucked up and morally wrong.
That the police force is used to oppress poor people and defend the interests and property of rich with violence is all wrong.
All citizens have cameras available on their cell phones at all times. I think that once you leave your house or apartment you forfeit all assumptions of privacy because you can't tell someone not to film you in public.

[allegro]

I am a little dubious about the "let's equip all policemen with cameras all the time" solution.
I don't think outsourcing ethics to technology is a sustainable solution in the long run:
What's next: all citizens must wear a camera at all times?
I think we need to change the culture of excessive police authority in the US, not to big brother everything further. That people can be legally killed for stealing property is totally fucked up and morally wrong.
That the police force is used to oppress poor people and defend the interests and property of rich with violence is all wrong.

Cameras on police squad cars has protected not only citizens, it has protected the police; putting cameras on police can do the same thing.

This guy wasn't "legally killed for stealing property." The cops didn't know he stole anything.

We are not sure why he was killed, actually, other than there was some kind of "altercation" between the deceased and the cops. We are not hearing the whole truth.

We will eventually find out all of the details. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. And it had nothing to do with the robbery that occurred, be mindful of that. Again, the police were completely unaware of that robbery until after the deceased was already dead.

[DigitalChaos]

You guys beat me to the "wounding shots are for the movies and people who have never shot a gun." That shit isn't even possible unless you have someone very calmly holding their sights on the target the entire time.


I have the rules of engagement for personal defense always stuck in my head. You can't even brandish a weapon thanks to the "a gun is only for killing" idiots but police have different rules. Such as the one from allegro's huffpo article:
"1985 Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee v. Garner, in which ... the Court ruled that a police officer may only use deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon."

Assuming the cop's facial fracture was from Mike Brown hitting him, that would probably make Brown a felon. Then it's really easy to justify the shooting in court.

[tony.parente]

http://img-9gag-lol.9cache.com/photo/ag00WWW_700b.jpg
Does this sum up the entire thread at the moment, including me?

[Sarah K]

Don't you have to be convicted in order to be ruled a felon?

[aggroculture]

Cameras on police squad cars has protected not only citizens, it has protected the police; putting cameras on police can do the same thing.

This guy wasn't "legally killed for stealing property." The cops didn't know he stole anything.

We are not sure why he was killed, actually, other than there was some kind of "altercation" between the deceased and the cops. We are not hearing the whole truth.

We will eventually find out all of the details. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. And it had nothing to do with the robbery that occurred, be mindful of that. Again, the police were completely unaware of that robbery until after the deceased was already dead.


I was thinking more generally about the police and property rights.

When I was in Ohio visiting Kent State University where the national guard killed four students protesting the Vietnam war, I remember someone telling me that it is legal, in Ohio, to kill someone who is stealing your property. I don't know how widespread this is.

[DigitalChaos]

I don't think outsourcing ethics to technology is a sustainable solution in the long run:
What's next: all citizens must wear a camera at all times?
.

This might be hard for someone that has very little separation between the state and the individual. For the rest of us, a public servant does not have privacy, the individual does (and even then, not in public... in most states). This has always been the case. Many MANY cases have demonstrated that the public has the right to record official police duties.

And it's not outsourcing ethics. It's keeping accurate records of official police duties.

[tony.parente]

Don't you have to be convicted in order to be ruled a felon?

I guess since allegro is in law they would know more than any of us about the actual law of things (no sarcasm), but the fact that you can only shoot to kill if the person is a felon seems a little shady, and let be honest you don't "shoot the injure" you ALWAYS shoot to kill...the person could die from a number of reasons no matter where you shoot them.

[allegro]

If Brown in fact assaulted a police officer, then yes the police officer had every right to use deadly force to attempt to apprehend Brown, who at that point would be a dangerous Defendant. Because it is absolutely 100% a felony to assault a police officer, always. Them's the rules.

I saw autopsy evidence showing that Brown was high on pot (how the drug results came back THAT FAST I have no fucking idea since it usually takes WEEKS) and if this is true, i wonder, because having smoked massive quantities of pot myself I can't imagine doing something like that on pot. I can't imagine running while high on pot. Hell, I didn't even want to get up and change the TV channel while high on pot.

Again, we can't really know anything until all of the evidence is in. The only thing the Brown's family and team of attorneys wanted was their own autopsy (before it was too late and they'd already planted him in the ground) and all of the forensic evidence they could possibly gather before it was too late and the evidence was tainted or magically missing, and now that the Feds and the friggin' PRESIDENT and Holder is involved, I don't think they'll have any problems.

[Sarah K]

Yeah, I wasn't being a bitch or anything there... it was a serious question. Haha. I always thought a felon was someone who has been convicted of a felony.

[tony.parente]

If Brown in fact assaulted a police officer, then yes the police officer had every right to use deadly force to attempt to apprehend the Brown, who at that point would be the Defendant. Because it is absolutely 100% a felony to assault a police officer, always.

That's going to be the crux of this case, as the officer had bruising on his face and a few sites are reporting that he had "severe facial injuries"

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson---who-shot-michael-brown---had-serious-facial-injury-source-sa.html

[allegro]

This might be hard for someone that has very little separation between the state and the individual. For the rest of us, a public servant does not have privacy, the individual does (and even then, not in public... in most states). This has always been the case. Many MANY cases have demonstrated that the public has the right to record official police duties.

And it's not outsourcing ethics. It's keeping accurate records of official police duties.
Again, though, it was also designed to protect the police as much as it was to protect the citizens. It is keeping an accurate record.

[allegro]

Yeah, I wasn't being a bitch or anything there... it was a serious question. Haha. I always thought a felon was someone who has been convicted of a felony.
I think referring to the perpetrator as the "felon" is perhaps premature, you're right. But, he committed a felony by allegedly assaulting a police officer. Obviously, the cop couldn't wait for Brown to be tried by a jury and found guilty of a felony before deciding to chase and shoot him :)

If Brown actually assaulted a cop, that was a very very very bad and dumb thing; cause everybody knows ya never hit a damned cop. And then you especially don't run away. I still question them shooting a gun in a busy apartment complex (they should have tazed him ... shit, the cops in my city all have friggin' tazers on 'em!!!) but whatever, too late for that. I don't know why the didn't go all Starsky & Hutch and just run his ass down, but whatever. I shoulda been a police woman cause I'd be totally bad ass. I wouldn't need a gun, cause I'd use my fucking Kung Fu Grip.

[allegro]

That's going to be the crux of this case, as the officer had bruising on his face and a few sites are reporting that he had "severe facial injuries"

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson---who-shot-michael-brown---had-serious-facial-injury-source-sa.html

Yeah, that is going to be pretty important, for sure.

[DigitalChaos]

Yeah, I wasn't being a bitch or anything there... it was a serious question. Haha. I always thought a felon was someone who has been convicted of a felony.
i was asking the exact same thing in a much more verbose way :)
I couldn't make sense of how a conviction would be required. Like, how would a cop verify that before shooting? etc...

[allegro]

What happens when police wear body cameras (http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244)

[allegro]

i was asking the exact same thing in a much more verbose way :)
I couldn't make sense of how a conviction would be required. Like, how would a cop verify that before shooting? etc...
He was "guilty" of a felony the moment his fist (ALLEGEDLY) met the cop's face. The cop is an expert witness. So is the other cop in the car. The cop has the instant authority to pursue the perpetrator and use deadly force, because assaulting a police officer is considered the type of dangerous offense worthy of the use of deadly force. At least, from the cases I've seen. Unless you've seen otherwise.

(Unless you were overanalyzing, like "was he in his car using the laptop running down his record?" which of course they do)

See Graham vs. Connor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor

Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.

(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 490 U. S. 393-394.

(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.

(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

(d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that, because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishment" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 490 U. S. 397-399.

[DigitalChaos]

http://img-9gag-lol.9cache.com/photo/ag00WWW_700b.jpg
Does this sum up the entire thread at the moment, including me?

To be clear, there is a big difference between theoretical discussion (along with continual reminders that there is plenty of unknown) and the bullshit I've been seeing on Facebook.
"<link to cigar stealing video> I told you the cop was justified in killing him!"
or
"<link to random 3rd party witness story> Now can we hang the fucking cop!?"

[DigitalChaos]

What happens when police wear body cameras (http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244)
fucking beaten again!! This got a lot of attention out here in CA.

Just so nobody skips this article:

"In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%."

[tony.parente]

"In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%."

Everyone does their jobs better when they're being recorded all the time. I worked for directv as an installer for about a year and they decided to put cameras in the trucks and that video feed was accessible by the home garage any time and productivity increased about 35% almost immediately after they were put in.

[DigitalChaos]

I've read law enforcement complaining about being under a microscope, well newsflash maybe you shouldn't have taken up that profession in the first place? you are given permissions and use of force that ordinary citizens aren't meant to have and you expect to be trusted right off the bat? you expect that when instances such as this happen that people aren't going to want to look twice at who is supposed to serve and protect the community? gtfo! being held accountable for your actions comes with the job.

I forgot to address this one. Honestly, there are a few legitimate concerns here. They don't even come close to outweighing the benefits, but that's not to say they can't be solved. The complaints are usually about coworkers/superiors using the cameras to listen to idle shit talking and other such things.
It's solvable like this:
1 - Make it so nobody is allowed to pull footage unless there is an active investigation or FOIA (is that what it's called for PD record request?) request from citizens.
2 - Have all footage handling/storage/processing pass through a 3rd party.
3 - Make it so all footage pulls trigger a very noticeable "alarm" to multiple responsible parties... or just make it near impossible for this to happen outside of the above.

[tony.parente]

Words can't describe how much I love allegro for seeing past the media smokescreen and dropping some serious legal knowledge in here.

Law ≠ moral but it's pretty important when people are screaming murder.

[allegro]

Law ≠ moral but it's pretty important when people are screaming murder.

Well, they were screaming murder for a reason. The Ferguson police, the mayor, the city could have handled this a lot better and quelled this mess more diplomatically, that's for sure. But they went at it too defensively, they sheltered the information they had, they released irrelevant and inflammatory information that was meant as nothing more than a character assassination, then they whipped out the SWAT team and this only got better once the governor took over and brought in that black highway patrol guy and he took over and started hugging people. The police made it look like they didn't care, like "us vs. them," even when the tanks were out, when they were arresting journalists and saying "shut the fuck up" to journalists, "this ain't up for discussion" to journalists from the fucking WASHINGTON FUCKING POST and throwing them into the back of police squad cars, that is DUMB fucking shit, bro. DUMB. Then, of course, these total NEWB power hungry cops get their catch back to the main boat, "hey, boss, look what we caught!" and the boss goes, "you dumb fucks, throw them back!" and then it all looks like it never happened? Nope, next day, guess what's on the front page of the Washington Post.

As usual, you had people protesting who only wanted to be on CNN, you had reporters and photographers on CNN who only wanted more CNN coverage (really, watching CNN is hilarious ... "look, the police are heading toward something, let's follow them, Anderson, we don't know where they're going ... they're running toward something ... we're following them ... " such excitement, so of course people are going to WANT TO BE ON CNN!!!!), you had looters who always loot and don't give a shit about any of this and they just want free stuff, you have assholes who hate cops and just want to throw molotov cocktails and show up at all protests and do that stupid shit, no matter what the cause, they don't care, they just hate cops, G3, immigration, Trayvon Martin, No Nukes, Save the Baby Whales, FarmBill, whatever, they show up with bottles and gasoline ...

[DigitalChaos]

Video of the entire police interaction involving the guy with the knife getting shot.
Quite a bit of what the police claimed (knife over head, etc) doesn't match. They certainly could have used a taser. Are they legally justified in shooting though? No idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU

[DigitalChaos]

alright, i'm literally avoiding a company event just so I can catch up on the awesome commentary in this thread. I need to get back to work. :o

[allegro]

Yeah, me too, I have, like, 10 REO real estate closing packages to prep for a bank client, for multi-million-dollar deals, lol, and here I am in here discussing this shit, I gotta motor ...

[Swykk]

Glaring mistakes were made from the get go by the police. Why wait so long to release info? If that cop's face was smashed, why not lead with that? Case nearly closed.
Instead, their story keeps changing, in a well known good ol' boys network of law enforcement, no less. This is why people are justifiably angry.

[Sarah K]

Glaring mistakes were made from the get go by the police. Why wait so long to release info? If that cop's face was smashed, why not lead with that? Case nearly closed.
Instead, their story keeps changing. This is why people are justifiably angry.

I was just thinking this... At first, it was like "The cop has a swollen cheek" which is now being spun into THE COP WAS BEATEN. If the cop was "beaten", that would have been a much better photo to release with his name rather than "Well, in this photo you can maybe kinda see that the victim was involved in something that may or may not have been a robbery".

If the cop was injured, I'm sure we would have seen those photos by now.

[Satyr]

Video of the entire police interaction involving the guy with the knife getting shot.
Quite a bit of what the police claimed (knife over head, etc) doesn't match. They certainly could have used a taser. Are they legally justified in shooting though? No idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU

If I was aggressively approaching 2 police officers with handguns aimed at me and I had a knife in my hand I would certainly expect to get shot....

[Swykk]

Exactly. Show that evidence right off the bat and I wouldn't have reacted the way I have. I would wager to say many people wouldn't be so mad. Instead, everything I'm seeing and hearing, some of which I shared here, points in a very different and very clear direction.
Show me a beaten face of Officer Wilson nearly a week later? You'd better be able to prove when said photo was taken.

[Deepvoid]

If I was aggressively approaching 2 police officers with handguns aimed at me and I had a knife in my hand I would certainly expect to get shot....

My first thought was suicide by cops.

[allegro]

My first thought was suicide by cops.

this does appear to be suicide by cops; I guess he was yelling, "kill me, kill me."

[DigitalChaos]

this does appear to be suicide by cops; I guess he was yelling, "kill me, kill me."
Yeah, judging by the whole video, he orchestrated the entire thing to lure cops out and get them to shoot him. I'm guessing the Mike Brown thing got him worked up enough to do this. It's like setting yourself on fire in protest.

[allegro]

For those who don't know, it's actually a real thing (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/suicide-by-police-an-alarming-new-trend)

[DigitalChaos]

I saw autopsy evidence showing that Brown was high on pot
I don't think they have any test to show that someone was high on weed. They can just demonstrate weed metabolites, which will stay in your blood for well over 4 weeks after smoking. This is why those tests are useless outside of enforcing prohibitionary needs (work drug tests, etc).

That said, I've seen plenty of people smoke weed and get this... coke-like ego thing going on. I have no idea what happened between Brown and the cop, but for the sake of discussion: Mike Brown looked like he was acting like a douchebag toward the guy in the store he stole from. Then he went and started walking through the middle of the fucking street? I could see a very ego-fueled "nobody can fuck with me" thing going on there as a possibility. That kind of attitude would have certainly influenced his response to a cap that was challenging him. That situation can certainly happen WITHOUT weed too. I see that kind of demeanor very frequently in downtown SF.

THAT is why I think the cigar theft video may actually be important in court. It speaks toward Brown's demeanor at the time. It's one more piece to the puzzle... the puzzle that wouldn't exist if the altercation was caught on camera.

[allegro]

THAT is why I think the cigar theft video may actually be important in court. It speaks toward Brown's demeanor at the time. It's one more piece to the puzzle... the puzzle that wouldn't exist if the altercation was caught on camera.
yeah but I really don't think a judge would allow a jury to see that, because it is still irrelevant. you can have the most fucked-up bad-ass attitude in the world, but that doesn't justify lethal force. a bad attitude doesn't justify lethal force. state-of-mind doesn't justify lethal force. jaywalking doesn't justify lethal force. that cop had to have some really good reason, and so far -- without being assaulted -- he's got nothing. and something that happened earlier that has nothing to do with this instance is irrelevant. if the cops happened to catch Brown while in hot pursuit of him after he robbed the store and they felt threatened or whatever, then that's different. but that's not the case. you can't tie this shooting to that crime.

young black males in the ghetto tend to dislike white cops. because they're probably constantly harassed by them. Brown's friend didn't call the cigar thing a "theft," he called it a "prank." for all we know, Brown and his friend were very familiar with the store owner, knew him for a long time, we don't know the whole story, this store owner may feel sorry for these guys.

the sudden revelation that the cop was assaulted is weird. why wasn't that put out there immediately? BEFORE the party store cigar video? makes no sense. the cops are trying to tell a "story," here, because obviously their own story has holes in it.

[Satyr]

I was told the story....Brown, a small black child, was giving away bibles door to door when a racist, 7 foot tall white cop, tackled him for no reason at all and shot him 6 times in the head.

Thats what happened right?

[DigitalChaos]

yeah but I really don't think a judge would allow a jury to see that, because it is still irrelevant. you can have the most fucked-up bad-ass attitude in the world, but that doesn't justify lethal force. a bad attitude doesn't justify lethal force. state-of-mind doesn't justify lethal force. jaywalking doesn't justify lethal force. that cop had to have some really good reason, and so far -- without being assaulted -- he's got nothing. and something that happened earlier that has nothing to do with this instance is irrelevant. if the cops happened to catch Brown while in hot pursuit of him after he robbed the store, then that's different. but that's not the case. you can't tie this shooting to that crime.

the sudden revelation that the cop was assaulted is weird. why wasn't that put out there immediately? BEFORE the party store cigar video? makes no sense. the cops are trying to tell a "story," here, because obviously their own story has holes in it.

But would they allow it if demeanor was an indicator in terms of how likely it is that Brown would have assaulted the cop? I mean, if being high is a court-worthy bit of info, why not other bits of info that point toward their mental state and mood?

I guess an assault against the cop wont be a point of contention if they have medical records to prove assault now. So this won't really really have any value. It's just something I was wondering about prior to the medical records.

[allegro]

I was told the story....Brown, a small black child, was giving away bibles door to door when a racist, 7 foot tall white cop, tackled him for no reason at all and shot him 6 times in the head.

Thats what happened right?

LOL, you sound like my 75-year-old dad. Seriously.

Brown could be a gangster hoodlum asshole. But, cops don't have the right to be douchebags, driving through neighborhoods shooting people. Not in black neighborhoods, not in white neighborhoods. That's not the way it works. You have to have a good reason for shooting somebody. If the cop can show he has a good reason for shooting an unarmed guy, then this will all go away.

[allegro]

But would they allow it if demeanor was an indicator in terms of how likely it is that Brown would have assaulted the cop? I mean, if being high is a court-worthy bit of info, why not other bits of info that point toward their mental state and mood?
No. Because it's not necessary. You can be smiling and quoting the bible and if you punch a cop, you going down. We don't know if being high is "court-worthy" right now, either. This is shit that the police is leaking to CNN; this ain't shit the judge is allowing on the jury instructions. Understand something: EVERYTHING is allowed as evidence for a Grand Jury. But it ain't like that when if and when it gets to a real jury. The rules of evidence are a LOT more picky when it gets to a real jury.

The evidence of "demeanor" is going to come from eye witnesses at the actual scene, and from the two cops, when and if this goes to a trial (if this cop is indicted by a Grand Jury).

[DigitalChaos]

And the discrediting of key witnesses continues:

Dorian Johnson has an open warrant and previously filed a false police report.
http://www.abc17news.com/news/key-witness-in-ferguson-wanted-in-jefferson-city/27624066

[allegro]

The open warrant doesn't matter, he's still a witness. The false police report could be a problem at Trial, if there is one.

but, really, he was always a shitty witness, anyway. he was never a star witness. seriously, did anybody think he was? he was Brown's FRIEND. do you expect he would say anything that wasn't defending his friend? totally unreliable witness.

[Satyr]

LOL, you sound like my 75-year-old dad. Seriously.

Brown could be a gangster hoodlum asshole. But, cops don't have the right to be douchebags, driving through neighborhoods shooting people. Not in black neighborhoods, not in white neighborhoods. That's not the way it works. You have to have a good reason for shooting somebody. If the cop can show he has a good reason for shooting an unarmed guy, then this will all go away.

Where the hell are cops driving around neighborhoods shooting people for no reason? This is completely ridiculous....A black woman can murder a white kid and burn his body with a blow torch and its not news....400 black people can murder two white kids at a McDonalds and it gets buried. Last time I went to a concert there were a bunch of black kids yelling racial slurs at all the white people...Yet every time a black person gets shot by a white person its national headlines.

check out this video before you reply to me. This country is fucked up beyond repair....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGTUcS-yQtQ#t=314

[Satyr]

http://americanthinker.com/2014/08/beaten_to_death_at_mcdonalds.html

Not a headline.....not a word...

[Satyr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newso m

Not a peep

[Sarah K]

Jesus fucking christ.

[allegro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newso m

Not a peep

What is your point? We could indicate literally thousands of these in this country, including children. Thousands of children missing and murdered.

But we are narrowing this topic to the militarization of the police force.

Have you actually READ this thread? Did you read the the links re the stories re the old white 95-year-old guy in the nursing home killed by a cop wielding a bean bag gun? I'm guessing not.

Would you like us to read the stories aloud to you?

[Sarah K]

Last time I went to a concert there were a bunch of black kids yelling racial slurs at all the white people...



This bit did make me laugh. But you just sound ridiculous during the rest of it. It's like when Tony linked to his racist site on facebook and was like BUT THEY HAVE SOME VALID POINTS. No.

It's not "every time a black person gets shot by a white person".

It's when people who have power over others abuse that power. It is when people who are supposed to make calm, rational decisions lose their cool and make the wrong choices. It is when cops are killing people.

I can also find you a million stories of people being murdered by other people. Doesn't matter.

[allegro]

Where the hell are cops driving around neighborhoods shooting people for no reason?

Again, you're not reading this entire thread, you're not reading the linked articles, you haven't read the discussions, you're cherry picking.

Not a peep from the old guy; he's dead, shot by a cop with a bean bag gun.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-51fb157e/turbine/chi-chi-kass-wrana-20130801/599/599x391

As linked earlier in this thread, that you didn't bother reading:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-02/news/ct-met-kass-0802-20130803_1_butcher-type-kitchen-knife-park-forest-police-taser
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-02/news/chi-cop-charged-john-wrana-death-kass-20140402_1_john-wrana-craig-taylor-beanbag-rounds

[Satyr]

The 95 year old guy sucks but I hardly see an epidemic of cops going around randomly shooting people.

[DigitalChaos]

Satyr - you are completely missing the point of race here. No doubt, there are plenty of people (if not the majority) who are on both sides making the same mistake as you... but don't let it distract you from the foundation.

Rand Paul outlines the race issue very VERY well: http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/ It's something that impacts everyone, but it impacts people of color disproportionately.


And you should really stop to think about this. Rand Paul has been called racist by many of the democrats. Yet, he is the only politician to properly convey the situation and provide solutions. How insane is it that a GOP candidate leans more left on a huge list of social topics than any democrat who could land in the white house next election? Drug War, Police militarization, Wall Street, NSA, War on Terror, etc. There are plenty of Bush/Obama era republicans (and democrats) who are on the wrong side of this, but I'd urge you to reassess your position. Don't let the race-baiters on either side of the debate blind you to the reality.

[allegro]

The 95 year old guy sucks but I hardly see an epidemic of cops going around randomly shooting people.
Nobody here EVER said "randomly." Nobody. You said that. Nobody here said that. (Although, links provided said 419 people were killed by cops in 2013. See Timinator's post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3407-Ferguson?p=208396#post208396) + see this (http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close).) Again, you are not reading this thread. Nobody is ignorantly playing the race card, here. We aren't that stupid. We are discussing all legal angles, intelligently. Again, if you really want to join the discussion, you should read the entire thread and the links. The many articles posted illustrate the issues, here, and we have discussed those articles. Most of those articles have illustrated how we got here, and propose how we fix it. You can't just cherry-pick one sentence in one post that was in response to somebody else and use it to push your own agenda and not come across as somebody who doesn't know how to debate.

Here are some of the links that we have read and discussed:

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/06/stop-arming-police-military/87163/
http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/police-deadly-force_n_5693020.html
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/militarization-of-the-police-fargo-edition/378883/
http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson---who-shot-michael-brown---had-serious-facial-injury-source-sa.html
http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor


Up until the point where you came in, we had kept it pretty civil in here; we'd actually managed to keep it to legal aspects and we weighed the different sides of the stories from all sides. You were the first to come in with the race molotov troll cocktail.

And at this point, I suggest that we all ignore this aspect of it and not take the bait and keep this civil and intelligent.


How insane is it that a GOP candidate leans more left on a huge list of social topics than any democrat who could land in the white house next election? Drug War, Police militarization, Wall Street, NSA, War on Terror, etc.
I dunno, the GOP has been leaning toward Libertarianism for a while, and Libertarianism is clearly left-leaning social-wise and less-government wise. The Democratic party is actually more conservative than Eisenhower Republicans at this point. But, we probably shouldn't go all political in here, eh?

[DigitalChaos]

I'd also point out that protesters in Ferguson have been saying "Fuck Al Sharpton and Obama ain't changed shit (http://tinyurl.com/pb8kzss)"


and Jesse Jackson was booed off stage (http://twitchy.com/2014/08/16/in-ferguson-jesse-jackson-reportedly-booed-after-asking-crowd-for-donations/). Not everyone is wrapped into the race-baiting that you see in all areas of big media.

[allegro]

I saw an old black dude walk past a CNN cameras and Anderson Cooper last night and he had a sign that said "Go shoot ISIS; leave us alone" and he stopped and kind of smirked. And it was funny. But it was true, LOL.

[allegro]

Oh, hey Swykk, you'll love this: http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/13/how-a-suburban-swat-team-sees-itself

the video is awesome, we should ask for a tank from Uncle Santa Sam for Christmas

[DigitalChaos]

Agree about keeping political party talk to a minimum, even though politics plays a HUGE rule in this. I'm hoping it connects with Satyr in a way that other approaches weren't. His topic does weigh heavily on tribalism after all. Just have to pivot that tribalism in a new way!

[thefragile_jake]

I live about 40 minutes away from Ferguson, but my office is a good 25 minute drive. I think what's all the more disturbing is that Friday night before the shooting I was hanging out in Ferguson at a comic book shop.

[allegro]

Agree about keeping political party talk to a minimum, even though politics plays a HUGE rule in this. I'm hoping it connects with Satyr in a way that other approaches weren't. His topic does weigh heavily on tribalism after all. Just have to pivot that tribalism in a new way!
Tribalism? Really? I think it leans heavily toward people in this forum who haven't read the discussion or the links. They read Facebook or see stuff on TV or they read the comments sections online, then come in here and assume we're that stupid. We aren't. If they can't take the time to read the links and the articles, why should we bother with them? But, yes, keeping it civil and intelligent is goal number one.

In some ways, Rand Paul drives me nuts; in other ways, he's okay. He ain't the 3rd party guy that's gonna make that change, though.

[DigitalChaos]

Tribalism? Really? I think it leans heavily toward people in this forum who haven't read the discussion or the links. They read Facebook or see stuff on TV or they read the comments sections online, then come in here and assume we're that stupid. We aren't. If they can't take the time to read the links and the articles, why should we bother with them? But, yes, keeping it civil and intelligent is goal number one.

In some ways, Rand Paul drives me nuts; in other ways, he's okay. He ain't the 3rd party guy that's gonna make that change, though.
It's the tribalism from where Satyr's arguments come from. The belief that this is all about Black vs White and that someone needs to win that battle. The reality is so much more complex.

As for Rand Paul, he used to really piss me off. After Ferguson, I am seriously re-evaluating that. I've always voted 3rd party but I could see voting for him as a GOP candidate. He would push both the Democrats and Republicans MUCH more left on social topics. This is a huge benefit and an opportunity I haven't seen. We are talking moving decades into the future compared to the pace of the last 2 decades. We might finally see some action on all the topics that stir up national debate.
Anyway, election season is soon and I'm looking forward to what unfolds.

[DigitalChaos]

This topic is examined in much more detail here. There is some great analysis of public data. There are also a lot of rhetorical topics rebutted.

http://tremblethedevil.com/?p=3523

"If the War on Drugs didn’t directly precipitate the destruction of the African-American family, why did the decline in married black women triple during the first decade of the War? And why did welfare spending spike in lockstep with our prison population right as it started?"


We need to AT LEAST level the playing field. And we should do that by removing the barriers that have been created (drug war, etc), not by trying to "help" people through resource redistribution (welfare, etc).

[Swykk]

Oh man. That's fucking rich, allegro.

As for Satyr. That'll make two racists blocked this week. It's a shame it's 2014 and that mentality still exists.

[ziltoid]

Would the lack of comprehension of what going on relevant to this thread?

I'm overwhelmed by the amount of B.S. that the majority of people keep spewing about whats going on at Ferguson within my college campus/work here in Missouri.

I honestly thought people are more self aware of the things they say and process information.

It's sad to see people believing in the hype and horrible news coverage without indicating a well informed opinion. Maybe the news is to blame?

Long ago I've come to the conclusion that not many people use their common sense and just reiterate what they hear on the news and what they read on facebook and other social mediums?

I honestly don't understand why.

Is it because they don't care and find self-importance by trying to stay relevant by repeating the crap they read/hear?

To say on topic; here is an interesting interview with a perspective that I found informative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktv6IcDaozk&app=desktop

[DigitalChaos]

Is it because they don't care and find self-importance by trying to stay relevant by repeating the crap they read/hear?

Yup. Social media is basically the biggest "water cooler" or break room now. People want to have something to talk about. It's frequently in the form of current events, sports, etc. Everyone wants to have an opinion. They take the quickest route possible to achieving an opinion. It's one of the biggest problems with a properly functioning democracy. Thank the fucking spaghetti monster that our legal system digs into topics very deeply. I wish we had a similar depth of process in all of Congress.




and holy fuck that video. I can't believe CNN didn't cut away from their bickering after 5min of it.

[tony.parente]

Oh man. That's fucking rich, @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76).

As for Satyr. That'll make two racists blocked this week. It's a shame it's 2014 and that mentality still exists.
Still waiting for you to back up your statement that I'm racist, you blocked me because you couldn't. Because im not.

[Satyr]

I've got one simple question....If Michael Brown was white and the cop was black...would this be national news?

[Sarah K]

Are white men regularly getting gunned down by black cops?

[Satyr]

Are white men regularly getting gunned down by black cops?

I'm quite sure it's never happened before.

[Sarah K]

If it happens with the regularity that young black men are shot by white cops, then sure... We can have that discussion.

Until then, no. Troll harder.

[Satyr]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58304981-78/police-taylor-lake-salt.html.csp

Or wait....It does....You just don't care because it was a black cop shooting a white kid.

[tony.parente]

Disregard sorry

[Sarah K]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58304981-78/police-taylor-lake-salt.html.csp

Or wait....It does....You just don't care because it was a black cop shooting a white kid.

In this case, the officer was wearing a body camera, and the entire incident was captured. The correct story will come out one way or another.

As far as I'm aware, the officer's name in that case has yet to be released. We don't know who he is.

And again:


Are white men regularly getting gunned down by black cops?

[allegro]

I've got one simple question....If Michael Brown was white and the cop was black...would this be national news?
If the local community held a protest about it, and then the local PD brought out SWAT TEAMS TO HANDLE THE PROTESTERS AND STARTED ARRESTING JOURNALISTS, yes. Absolutely.

This only got to be THIS huge when Ferguson police pulled out their fucking SWAT teams during peaceful local protests. Which was total overkill. Had the Ferguson PD handled this differently, this probably would have floated away like a turd. People get shot and killed by police all the time and it don't make even the local news. It was the SWAT teams and the PD's treatment of journalists that brought all the attention, not the actual shooting.

HENCE THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.

The point of this thread is multi-faceted: the militarization of police after September 11th; that police have a set of standards regarding when to use lethal force; that the police do not have the unilateral and unencumbered power to infringe on journalists' 1st Amendment rights; that small town police don't need fucking SWAT teams; that releasing information to the public as soon as possible probably avoids all of this crap; that if the Ferguson PD thought it was important enough to release the store footage under FOIA, it is equally important to release all other information under FOIA; that the police can't point loaded assault weapons at protesters and threaten to kill them; that is still very serious racial tension in this country, and some police departments ain't making it any better; that CNN and other news outlets are often totally full of shit, throwing gasoline on the fire.

We've chosen not to focus on race because we know racial inequity exists; that's a no-brainer. If you'd like to start a White Power thread, feel free to do so. In the meantime, this thread has been focused on the bolded points, above.

The Salt Lake City case is JUST AS IMPORTANT as this Brown case. They are all about this SAME THING WE ARE DISCUSSING IN THIS THREAD.

[allegro]

He posted a link to this: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58304981-78/police-taylor-lake-salt.html.csp

Which was a really good point, the guy holding this sign:

http://i.imgur.com/O1UX5DW.png

[allegro]

and holy fuck that video. I can't believe CNN didn't cut away from their bickering after 5min of it.
Don Lemon is a terrible interviewer, TERRIBLE. he loves to hear himself talk.

[Sarah K]

There is also an interview with the chief of police there who said that they aren't seeing the problems that Ferguson is because they're aren't sending their officers out in riot gear for peaceful protests.

[allegro]

Here is a link to the 1033 Program FAQ page:

http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/pages/1033programfaqs.aspx

When and why was the program created?
Answer: In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Congress authorized the transfer of excess DOD personal property to federal and state agencies for use in counter-drug activities. Congress later passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; this act allows all law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission. Preference is given to counter-drug and counter-terrorism requests.

Who runs the program?
Answer: The program came under the Defense Logistics Agency’s jurisdiction in October 1995. The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), located at DLA Disposition Services Headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan, oversees the program.

What controls does the program have?
Answer: For states to participate in the program, they must each set up a business relationship with DLA through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Each participating state’s governor is required to appoint a State Coordinator to ensure the program is used correctly by the participating law enforcement agencies. The State Coordinators are expected to maintain property accountability records and to investigate any alleged misuse of property, and in certain cases, to report violations of the Memorandum of Agreement to DLA. State Coordinators are aggressive in suspending law enforcement agencies who abuse the program.

Additionally, DLA has a compliance review program. The program’s objective is to have the LESO staff visit each state coordinator and assist him or her in ensuring that property accountability records are properly maintained, minimizing the potential for fraud, waste and abuse.

Who participates in the program?
Answer: Over 8,000 federal and state law enforcement agencies from all 50 states and the U.S. territories participate in the program. A law enforcement agency is a government agency whose primary function is the enforcement of applicable federal, state and local laws and whose compensated law enforcement officers have the powers of arrest and apprehension.

How does the program work?
Answer: Once law enforcement agencies have been approved to participate in the 1033 Program by the State Coordinator and the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO), the law enforcement agencies appoint officials to visit their local DLA Disposition Services Site. They will screen property and place requests for specific items by submitting requisitions on the Enterprise Business Portal RTDWeb page. The item must have a justification and be approved by both the State Coordinator and the LESO Staff. Law enforcement agencies that receive approval for property must cover all transportation and/or shipping costs.

Who determines what material is available to law enforcement agencies?
Answer: DLA has final authority to determine the type, quantity and location of excess military property suitable for use in law enforcement activities.

What other organizations have access to DoD's excess material?
Answer: DLA, specifically its DLA Disposition Services, has responsibility for Department of Defense property disposal. There are several stages in the property disposal process. Reutilization and transfer comprise the first stage. Reutilization involves the military services and other DoD components and organizations receiving access to excess property either by public law or DoD policy-the Law Enforcement Support program is part of reutilization. Transfers occur when federal civilian agencies receive excess property.

The second stage is the donation stage, where excess property that is determined to be surplus to the military’s needs is provided to organizations, such as state and local governments as well as homeless shelters, under the General Services Administration’s donation programs. The final stage consists of surplus property sales to the general public.

What are some ways in which law enforcement agencies use the equipment they acquire?
Answer: Law enforcement agencies use the equipment in a variety of ways. For instance, four-wheel drive vehicles are used to interrupt drug harvesting, haul away marijuana, patrol streets and conduct surveillance. The 1033 Program also helps with the agencies’ general equipment needs, such as file cabinets, copiers, and fax machines that they need but perhaps are unable to afford.

What does “original acquisition value” mean?
Answer: Original acquisition value refers to the amount the military services paid for the property.

Why is Hazardous Material not authorized for transfer from the DLA Disposition Services Field Activity?
Answer: LESO handles this on a case-by-case basis. Hazardous Materials require special handling, licensing, and transportation.

[Deepvoid]

I remember the story of the Albuquerque homeless man that was shot and killed by several police officers.
He was white.
I agree that the Ferguson story is more than just a race issue.
There seem to be a lot of trigger happy officers out there.

[Satyr]

I remember the story of the Albuquerque homeless man that was shot and killed by several police officers.
He was white.
I agree that the Ferguson story is more than just a race issue.
There seem to be a lot of trigger happy officers out there.

There also seem to be a lot of internet armchair quarterbacks out there. Perhaps we can not riot and throw Molotov cocktails at the police until all the facts are out?

I have a hard time agreeing with the demilitarization of police when the store that this asshole robbed before he got shot was looted by a bunch of violent lunatics for no reason other than to seemingly get back at the store for being robbed by said asshole.

[Sarah K]

When the police are throwing tear gas and shooting people with rubber bullets for literally no reason, and threatening to kill them, I'm pretty sure they know what the outcome of that is going to be. I don't agree with the violent protesting or rioting at all. Not even a little bit. I understand the frustrations, though. There are always going to be a small percentage of people who take things too far. It doesn't matter what the topic is.

[allegro]

Nobody agrees with looting. But looting happens after every hurricane and this SWAT shit don't happen.

Honestly, the National Guard should have taken over control from the Ferguson PD almost immediately. Because the Ferguson PD is too white and too green.

I saw a photo of 2 Crips and a Blood joining forces to protect a store from looters.

In that Kewli interview, he says the PD bullets started FIRST, then the crowd reacted.

We aren't going to discuss race, but I'll touch on it a little, here, because I'm old:
Race riots defy logic. They're built on emotion, anger. Dr. King attempted to calm that anger in the 60s. Blacks have no such leader, now. Obama is not that leader. During the Detroit riots, stores were looted and burned, destroyed. I was confused as a child; why did they burn their own neighborhood? Why did they burn the stores they went to? Many blacks then were as confused as this child was, as confused as you are now. But emotion and anger is not based on logic. Oppression leads to a seething anger; Dr. King was on the side of calm pacifism. Malcolm X demanded change at any cost. The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Dunno.

But let's have some perpective, here:

Detroit, 1967:
" The result was 43 dead, 1,189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed. The scale of the riot was surpassed only by the New York City draft riots, during the U.S. Civil War, and the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The riot was prominently featured in the news media, with live television coverage, extensive newspaper reporting, and extensive stories in Time and Life magazines. The Detroit Free Press won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage."

(Wikipedia)

We also had Rodney King in 1992

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

[allegro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUfcNSTgk3I&feature=youtu.be
Hey, look, check this out!!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/us/missouri-police-officer-suspended/index.html

[Leviathant]

Hey, look, check this out!!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/us/missouri-police-officer-suspended/index.html

Ho-lee shit.

[tony.parente]

Hey, look, check this out!!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/us/missouri-police-officer-suspended/index.html


Yeahhhh....you can't do that. Also in regards to that psychopath cop who was pointing his automatic rifle at protesters saying he was going to kill them, I was talking to a few police friends of mine who are working down there and he's not just suspended...he's fired.

[allegro]

Lol, officer gofuckyourself?

[tony.parente]

Lol, officer gofuckyourself?

No, former Officer Gofuckyourself. I hear if you go to the local mcdonalds he'll ask you if you want mfuckingfries with that.

lawl

[allegro]

Haaaaaaahahaha

Well, at least they're weeding out the wackos. That's really good.

[tony.parente]

Haaaaaaahahaha

Well, at least they're weeding out the wackos. That's really good.

I understand these officers are on edge, working 13+ hour days for god knows how long for the most part not wanting to be there while they're facing angry protesters/rioters/looters etc. I understand that sometimes you have enough douchebags putting their phones in your face that you're going to eventually say something that you're not supposed to, but what he did WASN'T ok.

[allegro]

NYT piece, Key factor in police shootings, 'reasonable fear'

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/us/ferguson-mo-key-factor-in-police-shootings-reasonable-fear.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0&referrer=

Interesting:


David Klinger, also a former police officer and a professor and criminologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, has interviewed in depth about 300 officers who fired weapons in confrontations with suspects. A blow to the head by itself would not justify a shooting, he said, but other factors also could be at work.

“Sometimes you make a straight-up mistake,” Mr. Klinger said. “ ‘He punched me, so I shot him.’ Punching and shooting don’t go together unless you’re much bigger than me or you have martial arts training.”

“Let the physical evidence tell us what happened,” said Pat Diaz, a former South Florida homicide detective who investigated more than 100 police shootings and now works as a court-certified expert witness. “How badly injured was the police officer? Was he dazed? Was Michael Brown on drugs? Let’s see what’s really going on here.”

“He may have been pulling the trigger out of pure adrenaline, because he was in fear,” Mr. Diaz said. “If the cop has no injuries, then it’s clear-cut and hard to say he should have been shot. It’s all going to be told by the physical evidence.”

Similarly, said Mr. Kobilinsky of John Jay, “If a felon is fleeing and is known to be unarmed and poses no danger of bodily harm to either a police officer or civilians in the area, then the officer will no doubt have legal issues if he uses deadly force to subdue that person.”

[Deepvoid]

Another officer involved in manning security in Ferguson suspended.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/us/missouri-police-officer-suspended/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[allegro]

Another officer involved in manning security in Ferguson suspended.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/us/missouri-police-officer-suspended/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Yeah we were just laughing about that 2 posts up.

[Dra508]

Ferguson Police Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-police-incident-report_n_5701131.html

Ferguson PD don't seem to be helping themselves. I read so many quotes from folks saying that a lot of this could have been avoided had the PD just provided more information in a timely manner.

I heard this interview with the Philadelphia Police Chief on the radio the other day which it gave some good insight as to what is suppose to happen relative to deadly force. http://www.npr.org/2014/08/20/341958697/parsing-the-rulebook-to-a-police-officers-use-of-force


One thing this police chief mentioned was the benefit of foot patrol over cops being in cars. I totally agree with this. Little Lilly white me knew exactly who the day time beat cop was in my neighborhood in Manhattan growing up. Big Dude with giant brass buttons on his coat. He knew the neighborhood. I don't know how realistic that is in this suburban world, but this chief was quoting stats on reduction in crime in areas he had established regular foot patrol.

As for looting, that happens in many situations, not just racial. Hurricane aftermath, power black outs, futbol....

[Satyr]

Related to the militarization of police.

http://www.10news.com/news/cal-state-san-marcos-on-lockdown-search-for-possible-gunman

[tony.parente]

As for looting, that happens in many situations, not just racial. Hurricane aftermath, power black outs, futbol....

Yeah the ferg just happens to be a mostly black area surrounded by other mostly black areas. All colors loot and riot.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10301950_338299379659942_5257344050511331556_n.jpg ?oh=279426db0e866d8eab60be96a0f92017&oe=546CC05F&__gda__=1416661635_0ad355f98b0d8e22db013296e320c06 c

[Swykk]

It's good you've seemingly changed your stance through the course of this thread, Tony. This isn't the kinds of things you were saying and agreeing with earlier or especially on Facebook. I'm legitimately pleased to see it, no sarcasm.

"So two cops were doing their job" and "just for LOLs" in reference to Officer GoFuckYourself? I'll take these new reactions over those any day. Well done.

[tony.parente]

It's good you've seemingly changed your stance through the course if this thread, Tony. This isn't the kinds of things you were saying and agreeing with earlier or especially on Facebook. I'm legitimately pleased to see it, no sarcasm.

"So two cops were doing their job" and "just for LOLs" in reference to Officer GoFuckYourself? I'll take these new reactions over those any day. Well done.

I have the same opinions on the matter that I always have. Period.

[Sarah K]

I'm almost positive that he was being serious.

[DigitalChaos]

Yeahhhh....you can't do that. Also in regards to that psychopath cop who was pointing his automatic rifle at protesters saying he was going to kill them, I was talking to a few police friends of mine who are working down there and he's not just suspended...he's fired.
yessssss yesssssss
it's shit like this that makes me happy to give money to the ACLU.

[DigitalChaos]

I'd like to take the time to point out the 1st and 4th amendment activists that frequently get a bad name for "making trouble" and tend to be lumped in with open carry activists. I'm talking about the people who intentionally record cops in hopes of being approached by them and then refuse to answer any questions unless the cop can provide RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime). Sometimes they go through border checkpoints and sobriety checkpoints for the same.

You can find a lot of videos of them over at http://www.reddit.com/r/amifreetogo , among other places.

What do you guys think of them? I've seen the majority of them have a positive impact. They educate quite a large number of police departments, even if it means going to court over it. They actively seek out known areas where photographers were told to stop recording in public, etc.

[Swykk]

I was 100% serious. I even said so ("no sarcasm").

Am I still upset at some of the "sources" he was throwing links up to elsewhere? Yeah. And he absolutely has changed his stance which is great. Again, for real, zero snark. Writing me off as just a cop hating nutjob is a mistake too (evidence is plentiful to prove I'm not, I just want a change in how we hire and monitor police).
But I'll take this as progress. And it is.

[tony.parente]

https://www.gofundme.com/OfficerWilsonFundraiser
To those wanting to help support officer Wilson the best you can, I've donated $50.

[Sarah K]

lol...

Or, you can... you know, donate to help the victim's family. Just a thought!

http://www.gofundme.com/justiceformikebrown

[tony.parente]

I'm glad there is an option for both sides, thanks Sarah K!

[skip niklas]

Hey, look, check this out!!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/us/missouri-police-officer-suspended/index.html

I saw that yesterday. Apparently the lecture is two years old and this guy has been doing all kinds of alternative media appearances since, as recently as a radio show last month. I'll try and find the link to the lecture in it's entirety, but a few websites and groups on social media have been digging into his claims and he seems to be lying about quite a few of his credentials. I wonder if he'll go work for a "contractor" now that he's lost his day job.

Edit: That didn't take me long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jFtXG4fC5A

[tony.parente]

I saw that yesterday. Apparently the lecture is two years old and this guy has been doing all kinds of alternative media appearances since, as recently as a radio show last month. I'll try and find the link to the lecture in it's entirety, but a few websites and groups on social media have been digging into his claims and he seems to be lying about quite a few of his credentials. I wonder if he'll go work for a "contractor" now that he's lost his day job.

Edit: That didn't take me long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jFtXG4fC5A

Dudes like that give the military and cops a bad name. WTF

[tony.parente]

Oh, and here is our interesting read of the day. It gives a bit of insight into a police officers mindset of what happens during scenarios such is this one.

http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7489476-Fergusons-6-top-use-of-force-questions-A-cops-response/


And another bit of reading, on the flip side sort of.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/michael-brown-scholarship-fund_n_5694697.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000054&ir=Impact


One organization is working to not only honor the achievements and legacy of the late Michael Brown
Yeah his legacy being finishing highschool, strong armed robbery, assault and attempted murder of a police officer.

Missouri statute on robbery in the second degree (strong armed robbery) Chapter 569
Robbery, Arson, Burglary and Related Offenses
Section 569.030
Robbery in the second degree.
569.030. 1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.
2. Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony.
Source: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5690000030.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select section from the missouri statute on assault on an officer
Chapter 565
Offenses Against the Person
Section 565.082
Assault of a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer in the second degree, definition, penalty.
565.082. 1. A person commits the crime of assault of a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer in the second degree if such person:
(1) Knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical injury to a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel, highway worker in a construction zone or work zone, utility worker, cable worker, or probation and parole officer by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument;
Source: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5650000082.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURDER, ATTEMPTED
In order for a person to be found guilty of attempted murder the government must prove:
First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.
Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m052.htm (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lectlaw.com%2Fdef2%2Fm052 .htm&h=LAQHjkTHB&enc=AZMjJwJ7C5RxCQxKr8ZlDb7keG4kzzpToQBW--yvSgnS9-Aupj2pL4KFcTdrtF_hIJPsvU1HAInKprbgkodU5UvGAVawTSwC 2onyYskMsFCJu727mCTAg8wPYXiP6NpOa5ZcxqZfHujDanO7FZ nWEQOj&s=1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Missouri Statute on the use of lethal force by an officer
Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest. 563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Source: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5630000046.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mur·der
noun \ˈmər-dər\
1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
un·law·ful
adjective \ˌən-ˈlȯ-fəl\ : not allowed by the law
1: not lawful : illegal
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlawful (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Funlawful&h=mAQEhmfip&enc=AZOxfxKhcv2FUNTGHWH44eZsXP2p_QtTXYMi6UKl5uftxx Az_Is8dHJKhQwQO0K4moCARreVcmeOEzyq3-iUpdDkp3BUQJk5qh1_PpSlygePluDAF8JeBjb2PjadZBF1oKbw lAYQvJo8B4knjYqJYbaq&s=1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
fel·on
noun \ˈfe-lən\
: a criminal who has committed a serious crime (called a felony)
Full Definition of FELON
1
: one who has committed a felony
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/felon

TL;DR
If Mike assaulted the officer and reached for his gun the shooting was justified by law, Darren Wilson won't be charged with murder and it's safe to say if he wasn't killed he could have been charged with strong armed robbery, assault on an officer, resisting arrest and attempted murder. Thats just off the top of my head.

[skip niklas]

40 minutes into the lecture and I can say this is from earlier this year, not 2 years ago, as he references the Bundy Ranch standoff. He's a bigot but he's dropping some knowledge if you want to hear it.

[Sarah K]

He's a bigot but he's dropping some knowledge if you want to hear it.

No. Just fucking no.

That's like when people start a sentence with "I'm not racist, but"...

[tony.parente]

No. Just fucking no.

That's like when people start a sentence with "I'm not racist, but"...

I don't like that ass goblin one bit, and I refused to watch anything past what I've seen already because I have no interest in hearing that douche talk any more than I have to...but just because someone has hateful beliefs ie racism or whatever doesn't mean everything that comes out of their mouth not associated with said hateful beliefs is incorrect or without merit.

[Sarah K]

Yes it does. He obvious does not live in reality. People who believe that shit should not be taken seriously in any context.

[tony.parente]

Yes it does. He obvious does not live in reality. People who believe that shit should not be taken seriously in any context.

If I said 2 + 2 = 4 and hitler says 2 + 2 = 4 hitler isn't wrong just because he was an anti semetic psychopath.

[Sarah K]

But it does mean that he isn't worthy of anyone listening to anything that he says, no matter the subject matter.

[tony.parente]

But it does mean that he isn't worthy of anyone listening to anything that he says, no matter the subject matter.

I feel like i'd be nitpicking at this point, but you're right in that context.

Fuck Hitler AND math by the way.

[skip niklas]

Like I said, "if you want to hear it". You can throw the baby out with the bathwater if you'd like. This guy has been around, and though he may be a prejudiced dickhead, he still knows what he's talking about when he's discussing facts and not opinions.

[allegro]

40 minutes into the lecture and I can say this is from earlier this year, not 2 years ago, as he references the Bundy Ranch standoff. He's a bigot but he's dropping some knowledge if you want to hear it.
"I have highest security clearance and I have a target on my back because I know too much" and "I wouldn't work for Obama because he's undocumented" makes him sound like he's full of caca though.

[Leviathant]

This guy has been around, and though he may be a prejudiced dickhead, he still knows what he's talking about when he's discussing facts and not opinions.
Facts like the president is an undocumented immigrant?

[DigitalChaos]

Yes it does. He obvious does not live in reality. People who believe that shit should not be taken seriously in any context.
Unless, of course, you posses critical thinking skills and are capable of filtering information on your own. There is a lot of valuable info to be gained from listening to people you disagree with or even who hold demonstrably false beliefs.

Hell, those infowars idiots probably posses views that are much worse, but their coverage on ferguson has given some additional information on the ground. I just cringe every time they try to sell you their survival iodine at the end of every video. That and their obnoxious intro logo thing that has, at this point, produced a negative pavlovian response for me.

example:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqtiGhpNH9Y

[tony.parente]

Closing your mind to people you don't agree with socially was part of the reason why the tea party exists IMO

[ltrandazzo]

I live about 40 minutes away from Ferguson, but my office is a good 25 minute drive. I think what's all the more disturbing is that Friday night before the shooting I was hanging out in Ferguson at a comic book shop.

There isn't a comic shop in Ferguson. If it was the Fantasy Shop, then that's in Florissant.

[ltrandazzo]

St. Louis is so small, it's funny. Anyway, we can debate the law and what it says in police manuals about self defense and all that, but at the end of the day, pumping six shots into an unarmed teenager is excessive. What this incident has done for me is shine a light on the fact that race relations in Ferguson are severely strained. I was ignorant to that fact, but I'm not anymore. Things have to improve, majorly.

Several people need to go as well. Chief Jackson for his horrible attempt at a character assassination of Michael Brown. If Mayor Knowles refuses to remove Jackson, then I'll vote the person who promises to replace the chief in instead. Maria Chapelle Nadal is a joke who hides behind profanity and verbal bombs. Look up her history and she's just as dirty as the language she's been using. Congressman Lacy Clay is also on a hit seat. He should've been down there trying to calm things down on West Florissant and he was nowhere to be seen. And of course, Darren Wilson needs to be charged. Again, St. Louis is so small, it's funny. I can say with complete honesty that he and his girlfriend's first concern is where he's going to get his new job. He isn't even considering the fact that he could be charged with murder.

[tony.parente]

And of course, Darren Wilson needs to be charged. Again, St. Louis is so small, it's funny. I can say with complete honesty that he and his girlfriend's first concern is where he's going to get his new job. He isn't even considering the fact that he could be charged with murder.

How can be be charged with murder when everything that was done by him was 100% legal? We can debate the morality of the laws and work on trying to change them after the dust settles but he didn't do anything unlawful if the alleged assault and fleeing happened. The second he assaulted Darren he committed a felony and when he 'fled' the shooting was legally 'justified', that's not even taking into account the fact that Darren was also allegedly charged at.

EDIT: But you're right, the dude isn't going to be able to work in saint louis at ALL. He's going to have to change his name at this point, or work in Ballwin or something.

[allegro]

Tony, a grand jury is determining if what the officer did was legal. That has yet to be determined. If he hit the officer, that may not have warranted the officer using deadly force. The grand jury will determine if he should be indicted, and if he is then he will be tried.

[tony.parente]

Tony, a grand jury is determining if what the officer did was legal. That has yet to be determined.

I have a feeling that the grand jury is going to side with the laws in missouri, but we'll see.

[allegro]

Actually it's bigger than that but I'm not getting into a legal discussion at this point. It's stupid. Wait for the grand jury.

[tony.parente]

Actually it's bigger than that but I'm not getting into a legal discussion at this point. It's stupid. Wait for the grand jury.

Not to compare granny smith apples to pacific rose apples but I think this is going to be a repeat of the Trayvon Martin situation.

[allegro]

No, COMPLETELY different.

But you had better hope this ain't a repeat of Rodney King.

Stop discussing legal technicalities, Tony, this is over your head right now. No offense, but it is. I won't even discuss this right now because it is obvious that we are getting a lot of incorrect "facts." Let the grand jury do its job.

[tony.parente]

No, COMPLETELY different.

But you had better hope this ain't a repeat of Rodney King.

Stop discussing legal technicalities, Tony, this is over your head right now.

Unarmed black "kid" gets shot after assaulting and threatening the life of a light skinned individual after being stopped on suspect reasoning. The only major difference is a cop was involved in one of the cases and it only took 1 shot to stop Trayvon, and that was only because it was a lethal one.

[allegro]

Trayvon Martin was not killed by a police officer, and the Trayvon Martin case involved weird Florida assault and stand your ground laws.

Trayvon Martin believed he was being threatened, and tried to protect himself. In the scuffle, per FL assault law definition, the moment Martin shifted from the bottom to the top position, Zimmerman could legally shoot him per FL law, even though Zimmerman was the instigator, Martin was on his way home, and Zimmerman was told by police to wait and do nothing until police arrived.

This is TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THIS CURRENT CASE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE MARTIN CASE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CONCEALED CARRY, STAND YOUR GROUND, AND FLORIDA'S WEIRD ASSAULT LAW DEFINITION.

[tony.parente]

Trayvon Martin was not killed by a police officer, and the Trayvon Martin case involved weird Florida assault and stand your ground laws.

Zimmerman was a weird, self appointed 'authority figure' who had no foundation in reality and had NO reason to stop Trayvon that night. He was literally stopped for walking while black, 100% racially based and Zimmerman deserves to be judged for that. If zimmerman just minded his own business trayvon would be alive today and no one can dispute that fact, and don't judge me for saying but.

BUT

Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the concrete and Zimmerman just so happened to have a gun at his disposal to defend himself with.

Zimmerman may have been able to walk free but that man sure as hell isn't "free".

[allegro]

Dude, are you in law? Seriously, are you?

[tony.parente]

Dude, are you in law? Seriously, are you?

I'm not claiming to be an expert in law, but the brown situation is getting compared to trayvon's a lot in the media for a reason.

[allegro]

Because the media is fucking STUPID and sees TWO BLACK GUYS. Legally, they HAVE FUCKING NOTHING IN COMMON.

Rodney King and this Brown case have more in common; both involved COPS.

The media only compares Brown and Martin as far as public reaction, but if you want to go that route then why don't we bring in KAYCE ANTHONY, too?

[tony.parente]

Because the media is fucking STUPID and sees TWO BLACK GUYS. Legally, they HAVE FUCKING NOTHING IN COMMON.

Rodney King and this Brown case have more in common; both involved COPS.

The media only compares Brown and Martin as far as public reaction, but if you want to go that route then why don't we bring in KAYCE ANTHONY, too?

But Kayce killed her daughter, hid her body and then went out smoking cigars afterwards and got away with it. That's not even in the same universe as this lol

[ziltoid]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/swat-team-descends-college-campus-response-man-carrying-umbrella/
My fear is that this behaviors is now considered normal.

[tony.parente]

I legitimately laughed at the headline. You can't make that shit up.

[allegro]

But Kayce killed her daughter, hid her body and then went out smoking cigars afterwards and got away with it. That's not even in the same universe as this lol

That's exactly my point.

[Dra508]

Let the grand jury do its job.
Being that grand juries only hear what the state wants them to hear, aren't they just giant rubber stamps for indictments? Honest question.

[Swykk]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76), you are most definitely the MVP of this thread.

I get so angry because I see just how far behind we are and get depressed by how we aren't close to progress in 2014. Fuck a hoverboard! I'd like racism to end and civil rights to be given and accepted as universal.

The Rodney King comparison is correct. Public reaction would be the only viable piece of a connection to Trayvon, though both situations also share heinous mismanagement too.

[allegro]

Being that grand juries only hear what the state wants them to hear, aren't they just giant rubber stamps for indictments? Honest question.
I don't understand your question. A grand jury is prior to a trial (or indictment), so there are no official rules of evidence. They can see and hear all kinds of crazy shit that might not be allowed in a real trial. But that doesn't mean they'll indict.

see this: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html


The Grand Jury's Decision and a Prosecutor's Discretion

Grand juries do not need a unanimous decision from all members to indict, but it does need a supermajority of 2/3 or 3/4 agreement for an indictment (depending on the jurisdiction). Even though a grand jury may not choose to indict, a prosecutor may still bring the defendant to trial if she thinks she has a strong enough case. However, the grand jury proceedings are often a valuable test run for prosecutors in making the decision to bring the case.

[Satyr]

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/anderson-cooper-ferguson.jpg
THINK OF THE BUSINESSESSSS!
http://www.100percentfedup.com/images/ferguson-looting-mn-1235_04c5f77164d0ab579e33fe52a49f173d-550x348.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ui9cIzjK--/ii6yaofnygojfdk2cyyo.png

http://gawker.com/ferguson-residents-protect-stores-from-looters-during-p-1622633871

[orestes]

Pity you didn't include photos of local residents blocking looters from entering businesses.

[Dra508]

I don't understand your question. A grand jury is prior to a trial (or indictment), so there are no official rules of evidence. They can see and hear all kinds of crazy shit that might not be allowed in a real trial. But that doesn't mean they'll indict.

see this: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.htmlRight, the no official rules of evidence piece. I think some folks might assume that every thing gets presented to a grand jury whereas really it's up to the prosecutor's discretion what they hear and don't hear. For example, the whole "he's no angel" stuff that's been said today. The relevance of the victim's behavior criminal or threatening prior to being shot and how that is presented to the grand jury is up to the prosecutor's. They can present that he had just stole a cigar or not. Right?

[allegro]

Right, the no official rules of evidence piece. I think some folks might assume that every thing gets presented to a grand jury whereas really it's up to the prosecutor's discretion what they hear and don't hear. For example, the whole "he's no angel" stuff that's been said today. The relevance of the victim's behavior criminal or threatening prior to being shot and how that is presented to the grand jury is up to the prosecutor's. They can present that he had just stole a cigar or not. Right?
The grand jury hears everything, good and bad; hearsay, irrelevant stuff, bad witnesses, good witnesses, EVERYTHING, and nobody objects to anything, and the prosecutor doesn't really hold anything back. Because there are no rules. The grand jury hears everything. Including good and bad character stuff about the cop, his past work history, everything. But, ultimately the grand jury weeds through all that and determines if there is enough evidence to indict the cop, meaning that the cop did something wrong and should be charged with a crime. And then the cop is tried by a jury of his peers. The grand jury isn't there to judge Brown or Wilson, the grand jury is there to determine if Wilson should be indicted for a crime. And even if they vote no, the evidence that is collected through this process can be enough for the prosecutor to go ahead and indict, anyway.

Edit: sorry, was getting interrupted and got cop's name wrong while typing original post, corrected

[Satyr]

Pity you didn't include photos of local residents blocking looters from entering businesses.

Couldn't find any....sorry

[DigitalChaos]

Closing your mind to people you don't agree with socially was part of the reason why the tea party exists IMO
wut?
As someone who helped birth the tea party and watched it get co-opted by disgruntled republicans... I'd say the tea party is filled with individuals with closed minded people.

[allegro]

this Newsweek article does a very good job at reviewing all of the details of what we know so far (http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675) and the legal aspects of the case; the evidence that is gathered for the grand jury will either refute or support the evidence that has already been presented.


The fleeing felon

"At one point in American history it was not uncommon for state law to permit officers to use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon," said Frank O. Bowman III, criminal law professor at University of Missouri School of Law. Those state laws made it easier for police officers (often white) to shoot fleeing suspects (often black) without repercussions.

But in 1985, the Supreme Court declared in Tennessee v. Garner that police cannot use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon who is not perceived to be dangerous.

In the Garner case, a Memphis police officer responded to a report of a home burglary and, once at the scene, saw a figure dash across the backyard. Using his flashlight, the officer could see that the figure was a teenager who appeared to be unarmed.

The officer ordered the suspect to halt. When the teen instead tried to flee by climbing a fence, the officer shot and killed him. That fleeing felon turned out to be 15-year-old Edward Garner. He was 5’4”, about 110 pounds, unarmed, and black. He had on him a purse and $10.

A majority of the Supreme Court held that in order to use deadly force against a fleeing felon, the police must have probable cause to assume that the felon poses a significant risk of harm to the officer or the community. The shooting of Garner was, therefore, unconstitutional.

How does this affect the case of Michael Brown? Until Josie shared Wilson’s account, the known facts indicated that Brown was either fleeing or surrendering when he was shot. Assuming he was fleeing or surrendering, not charging, the facts that would suggest it was likely illegal to shoot Brown.

It’s unclear at this point whether Darren Wilson knew that Brown was suspected of robbing a convenience store. If he didn’t know, then the robbery plotline is, as Joy put it, a “red herring.” If he did realize the two were suspects, it’s possible he thought they were therefore dangerous, even though no weapon was used in the “strong-arm” robbery, as police are calling it.

What if Brown did assault Wilson and try to take his gun before fleeing—the account put forward by the St. Louis County police? Would that make him a dangerous fleeing felon?

“It’s conceivable that there might be a determination that Mr. Brown had committed an assault that was equivalent to a felony against a police officer and that might be viewed legally as a justification for the use of force—and in this instance, deadly force,” Joy said.

But assuming Brown didn’t charge at Wilson, as his friend recounted, other legal experts say that argument would be shaky at best.

Assuming "that Brown breaks away from the police officer and the police car, is not armed, and is at some distance away from him—not presenting any immediate threat to the officer or anybody else—then it's plainly illegal to shoot him,” said Bowman.

Did a struggle with the police officer turn Brown into a violent fleeing felon? After all, police department’s account claims Officer Wilson’s face was hit during the altercation and he was treated for his wounds at a hospital.

Not according to Bowman. “If you’re a police officer and I walk up and punch you in the nose and turn around and run away, you can’t pull out your glock and shoot me in the back. You just can’t. The law insists on far more restraint than that from police officers.” he said.

Generally, the law requires more than an altercation to justify the use of deadly force against someone who is fleeing the police, like assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon, or committing a crime with a deadly weapon.

“It’s pretty hard to think of any legal justification for the officer firing at this guy once contact is broken and the guy is moving away,” Bowman said.

Bowman was a little wary of Josie’s account, but stressed that an investigation will have to sort fact from fiction. “The idea that, once out of the car, the kid would then charge an obviously armed policeman seems to me less probable,” he said. “But, who knows? We'll see what the actual investigation decides.”

[DigitalChaos]

I'm extremely happy this issue is now in the hands of a proper legal system.

allegro - how will the grand jury release their decision? Will there be something as interesting as a SCOTUS opinion or anything like that?

[orestes]

Couldn't find any....sorry

I wouldn't expect to find any on a website called Conservative Treehouse.

Here's a roundup. (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5684042)

[ltrandazzo]

Couldn't find any....sorry

No worries! I found one and included it in your original post. I also included a link to a Gawker article with more pictures!

[allegro]

I'm extremely happy this issue is now in the hands of a proper legal system.

allegro - how will the grand jury release their decision? Will there be something as interesting as a SCOTUS opinion or anything like that?
No, he'll just be indicted or not. Any info will either leak or will be formally released and some will come out at trial (if he is indicted).

Can't release info before trial; cop has right to unbiased jury.

[Sarah K]

Tony has stooped as low as making fried chicken jokes now. So I think it's safe to dismiss anything he says on this topic from here on out.


Fuck a hoverboard!

This made me lol. <3

[jessamineny]

No worries! I found one and included it in your original post. I also included a link to a Gawker article with more pictures!

Errrrrrr..... Is that you, Meathead?

[Deepvoid]

Someone allegedly taped the audio of the shooting. That person was video chatting with a friend and you can hear the gun shots in the background.
It sounds like the cop shot 11 times with a pause between two series of shooting.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/

[Satyr]

No worries! I found one and included it in your original post. I also included a link to a Gawker article with more pictures!

What happened to that fine young mans shirt?

[tony.parente]

Tony has stooped as low as making fried chicken jokes now. So I think it's safe to dismiss anything he says on this topic from here on out.



You don't find it a little strange the local news station was showing a churches chicken commercial 2 times every single commercial break throughout the entire funeral when I've never seen a churches chicken commercial on that station EVER?

[Fixer808]

You don't find it a little strange the local news station was showing a churches chicken commercial 2 times every single commercial break throughout the entire funeral when I've never seen a churches chicken commercial on that station EVER?
Translation:
"I ain't seen it, so it ain't ever happened!"

[Swykk]

Tony has stooped as low as making fried chicken jokes now. So I think it's safe to dismiss anything he says on this topic from here on out.



This made me lol. <3

9 times out of 10, I don't want to be the "I told you so" guy but this is that one. I fucking told you so. And I'm sure lots of you thought I was overreacting. You are not seeing what he writes on Facebook but it's good you're getting the whole picture now.
On topic, the pause in gunfire recording? Is anyone surprised by that?

[Satyr]

You don't find it a little strange the local news station was showing a churches chicken commercial 2 times every single commercial break throughout the entire funeral when I've never seen a churches chicken commercial on that station EVER?

It's certainly an interesting observation....and I certainly think its possible that churches chicken bought commercial spots during the funeral because they thought a lot of their target demographic would be watching at the time.

That being said most of the ultra liberals in here are too afraid of being labeled a racist to acknowledge the possibility.

[tony.parente]

You are not seeing what he writes on Facebook but it's good you're getting the whole picture now.

For anyone who wants to add me on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/somewhatdamaged05
For anyone who wants to see said fried chicken joke:
http://i.imgur.com/7z6VMSu.jpg

And not that it matters @Fixer808 (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=43) but I watch the local STL affiliate Fox 2 news every morning when I get home from work from 7:45 until around 9:30-10am. The first time I've ever seen a churches chicken commerical during a newscast was during the live coverage of the funeral yesterday and there were about 10 of them during it, I have yet to see one today at all.

[allegro]

I assume you guys are too young for Soul Train, when they ran 60 Afro Sheen commercials and then you never saw another Afro Sheen commercial again ever. Yes, there is target demographic advertising DUH. White people get lots and lots of it are too stupid to know it.

wtf.

[Satyr]

I assume you guys are too young for Soul Train, when they ran 60 Afro Sheen commercials and then you never saw another Afro Sheen commercial again ever. Yes, there is target demographic advertising DUH. White people get lots and lots of it are too stupid to know it.

better watch out....fixer is gonna call you a racist

[tony.parente]

I assume you guys are too young for Soul Train, when they ran 60 Afro Sheen commercials and then you never saw another Afro Sheen commercial again ever. Yes, there is target demographic advertising DUH. White people get lots and lots of it are too stupid to know it.

Stop it you're being racist.

[allegro]

I was in advertising. Tony is glaringly naive, but not racist.

[tony.parente]

I was in advertising. Tony is glaringly naive, but not racist.

I think I'm well aware and EXTREMELY transparent with everything I'm saying. Someone doesn't bring up churches chicken commercials in a black kids funeral unless they're trying to get some sort of reaction. I just think it's absolutely fucking hysterical that it dripped from FB to ETS.

That means I make an impression in peoples lives.

[allegro]

Church's chicken is just advertising, and gets no more of a reaction than a beer commercial during a redneck funeral. Not all black people eat chicken, but CHURCHES hopes people who watch the news will want chicken. No advertiser wants to piss anybody off.

Tony, being a douche doesn't mean you make an impression; it could simply mean people think you are an ignorant douche. Be careful with that ego.

The guy who texted a photo of his dick to people on ETS made an impression, too. A bigger one than you, actually.

[tony.parente]

Tony, being a douche doesn't mean you make an impression; it could simply mean people think you are an ignorant douche. Be careful with that ego.

LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of people think I'm a huge ignorant douche. I wouldn't really call it an ego as much as I do being confident in who I am, who I'm not and surrounding myself with people who see my sense of humor for what it is and what it isn't.

[allegro]

Ego and confidence are very good friends.

A guy is dead, here. Somebody's son. This isn't funny to her. Some of your observations are akin to Tourettes. Glaring honesty isn't always the classiest choice.

As you mature, you may want to learn how to run it through a public filter.

Just a suggestion.

[tony.parente]

Ego and confidence are very good friends.

A guy is dead, here. Somebody's son. This isn't funny to her. Some of your observations are akin to Tourettes. Glaring honesty isn't always the classiest choice.

That's absolutely hysterical that you said that because I actually have Tourettes, diagnosed when I was 8 years old. It's pretty much non existent at this point as it's mellowed as I've gotten older but yeah that's all irrelevant. But honestly they are completely ok with all the attention when they allowed the worlds cameras and complete strangers to be inside the church during her sons funeral. It went from a send off of her son to a fucking circus.

[Satyr]

Ego and confidence are very good friends.

A guy is dead, here. Somebody's son. This isn't funny to her. Some of your observations are akin to Tourettes. Glaring honesty isn't always the classiest choice.

I'll take glaring honesty over people being afraid of pointing out facts because they'll be labeled a racist even if they aren't. You probably think posting the video of the strong arm robbery or the images of brown flashing gang signs would be racist...

[tony.parente]

The images of brown flashing gang signs

That was confirmed NOT to be brown I think. But I never really saw them as anything but a kid being a kid when those were taken, i'm sure there are pictures of ME as a 16 year old flashing stupid gang signs or something lol

[allegro]

Tony, stop. Do not use a public memorial as carte blanche for insensitivity. It doesn't work that way. Look up "Emmett Till." In the history of civil rights, public funerals became ways to symbolize a shared grief.

[tony.parente]

Tony, stop. Do not use a public memorial as carte blanche for insensitivity. It doesn't work that way. Look up "Emmett Till." In the history of civil rights, public funerals became ways to symbolize a shared grief.

I just thought watching some stranger who got killed by a cop's funeral on fox 2 was a little strange and unwarranted.
In before "everything you say is strange an unwarranted".

[Deepvoid]

I don't think there's any causal link between an old picture of Brown flashing gang signs and getting shot 11 times. Maybe I'm missing something.
People keep bringing pieces of information that are so irrelevant to the actual shooting.

[tony.parente]

I don't think there's any causal link between an old picture of Brown flashing gang signs and getting shot 11 times. Maybe I'm missing something.
People keep bringing pieces of information that are so irrelevant to the actual shooting.

There isn't a link, and I wish that picture of some other dude never came to light because it just muddies the waters of what really happened and why.

[Satyr]

I don't think there's any causal link between an old picture of Brown flashing gang signs and getting shot 11 times. Maybe I'm missing something.
People keep bringing pieces of information that are so irrelevant to the actual shooting.

So if there were pictures of the cop that shot Brown in KKK garb...you agree it wouldn't be relevant?

[allegro]

I don't think there's any causal link between an old picture of Brown flashing gang signs and getting shot 11 times. Maybe I'm missing something.
People keep bringing pieces of information that are so irrelevant to the actual shooting.
See this: black America and the burden of the perfect victim:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/black-america-and-the-burden-of-the-perfect-victim/2014/08/22/30318ec2-27d1-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

[tony.parente]

So if there were pictures of the cop that shot Brown in KKK garb...you agree it wouldn't be relevant?

Not after brown assaulted darren and went for his gun it wouldn't have.

[Swykk]

Your impression on me is that you're a willfully a bad person which is like the worst thing you can be. I'm not easily offended but you offended me.

Congrats! You did it! Racism, homophobia, hypocrite "Christians," willful ignorance/naïveté/stupidity. These are the things that offend me, justifiably so.

But really, actual contributors, if this recording is legit, don't you think it sort of paints a picture where Wilson made sure he killed Brown? An unarmed man. Defensive wounds to his arm. It kind of adds up.

[Sarah K]

I didn't know that the funeral was aired... But I find that to be a good thing. This is a tragedy that has united people. Many people feel connected to this story, and hopefully being able to witness a celebration of this young man's life was able to bring a bit of closure for everyone who has been uniting over his unfortunate death.

[orestes]

Out of all the things to focus on from Brown's funeral (http://mattfraction.com/post/95827196699/virginiagentlenerd-hirakumblr), you choose to focus on a chicken commercial?

Tony, why do you keep bringing up that Brown assaulted Wilson when there is no corroborating evidence to prove it.

[tony.parente]

I didn't know that the funeral was aired...

So all you see on my Facebook is "churches chicken" and then you cry racism without even reading wtf I was talking about? Mother of god Sarah.

[Sarah K]

Nowhere in your post did you say that it was being aired. I've had facebook off for a few days. I turned it on to message someone the other day, and saw that in my brief presence. I didn't do any investigating.

[allegro]

re Brown reaching for a gun; we are not certain that actually happened.

[tony.parente]

Nowhere in your post did you say that it was being aired. I've had facebook off for a few days. I turned it on to message someone the other day, and saw that in my brief presence. I didn't do any investigating.

How would there be a Churches Chicken commercial during a funeral if it wasn't aired?

[Sarah K]

I figured you were just being an asshole.

[tony.parente]

I figured you were just being an asshole.

Fair enough.

Sorry for derailing this thread guys, I just felt the need to defend myself a bit. I don't mind being called an asshole or a racist or whatever but I don't want people think i'm "hiding" on facebook is all. I'm off to the gym, have a good one fellas!

[allegro]

I am not Facebook friends with any ETS people (I'm only FB friends with family) so why do we cross post FB shit where none of us know what the fuck is going on? Or care? Many of us LIKE the anonymous aspects of forum conversations and we don't WANT to know you personally, here or on Facebook. We'd just like to stick to the damned conversation.

And ETS is supposed to be free of ad hominem attacks or comments since they cause DRIFT