Page 3 of 62 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1851

Thread: Ferguson and general police misconduct

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    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.
    Last edited by tony.parente; 08-21-2014 at 11:00 AM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tony.parente View Post
    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.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-21-2014 at 11:07 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    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.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,607
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    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.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    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.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    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.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-21-2014 at 11:54 AM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    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.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)

    Does this sum up the entire thread at the moment, including me?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,547
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Don't you have to be convicted in order to be ruled a felon?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,607
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    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.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    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.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah K View Post
    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.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    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.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-21-2014 at 12:19 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,547
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    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.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    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...source-sa.html

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    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.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah K View Post
    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.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-21-2014 at 12:25 PM.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tony.parente View Post
    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...source-sa.html
    Yeah, that is going to be pretty important, for sure.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah K View Post
    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...

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post
    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 ァ 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.
    Last edited by allegro; 08-21-2014 at 12:46 PM.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tony.parente View Post
    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!?"

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    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%."

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalChaos View Post

    "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.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thelastdisciple View Post
    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.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,874
    Mentioned
    242 Post(s)
    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.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tony.parente View Post
    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 ...
    Last edited by allegro; 08-21-2014 at 01:08 PM.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    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.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,963
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    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.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,126
    Mentioned
    718 Post(s)
    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 ...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions