General Police Misconduct aka Murdering Black People

[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/swa...ying-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, 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...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]

THINK OF THE BUSINESSESSSS!




http://gawker.com/ferguson-residents...g-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...jury-work.html

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?

[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 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?