The Ferguson, Missouri thread

[Uzor]

Pretty sure it's been stated numerous times he had no record.

Even IF he had a previous arrest, that doesn't automatically mean he's actually committed a crime. Just being arrested doesn't mean you're guilty of anything.

And fuck, even if he was guilty of something previously - unless said crime is child rape or something equally horrendous - that doesn't mean he deserves to be killed.

[quannum]

it's amazing that this needs to be said and even more amazing that it's met with some form of "well cops have a tough job" or "he deserved it"

[SephYuyX]

And by the way, around 96 percent of people killed by police are men

Sooo the real question is, where are the feminists at? Why arent they clamoring agianst how unfair and unjust this is?
Theyre always bitching about how they want to be equal, but we dont see them doing a damn thing when it comes to "killings".
Whatever. More cherrypicking bullshit. Must be nice to be a women.

[Nephlite]

Couple of people have asked me about the "Incident Report" that was released; It's not an actual report. It's a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) entry in to CJIS by case number or a Crime Stat Sheet. It's an informational bulletin that can be obtained through a public records check. Also I noticed the ACLU petitioned for the St. Louis County report, but not for the Ferguson report, which will be different. Statements and witness information can be redacted from reports if it's still under investigation. Since the investigation is under DoJ jurisdiction now, most of the public record will be sealed until the Grand Jury reaches an indictment.

TL;DR St. Louis Police did give them some info but not what they want.

[archibaldcrane]

In your estimation is it pretty outlandish that the report appears to have not been created until 10 days after the shooting?

Also there apparently is no Ferguson report.

Police in Ferguson, Missouri, did not file an “incident report” on the fatal shooting of 19-year-old Michael Brown because they turned the case over to St. Louis County police almost immediately, the county prosecutor’s office tells NBC News.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mic...report-n186431

[Correction]

These are the cops being hired by St. Louis

But it was Page’s comments in the video describing himself, in Belmar's words, as "an indiscriminate killer, that it didn’t matter what your race or background was” that most concerned the police chief.

Among Page's rambling comments in the hour-long video:

• "Muslims are passive until they gain parity with you or they exceed you in numbers and they will kill you."

• "Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill won't even talk to me. They say 'You're an extremist.' I say amen. OK. And I'm real good with a rifle. My best shot is at 1,875 meters. I got me a gold star on that one. That's a fact. You run from me you will die tired. I'm dead serious, folks."

• "I personally believe in Jesus Christ as my lord savior, but I'm also a killer. I’ve killed a lot. And if I need to, I'll kill a whole bunch more. If you don't want to get killed, don't show up in front of me, it's that simple. I have no problem with it. God did not raise me to be a coward," he said before warning the audience that he believes the government will put kids in indoctrination camps.

• "I'm into diversity. I kill everybody, I don't care."

Page says on the video that he is a former Green Beret who did nine combat tours and took early retirement from the military because he refuses to take orders from "an undocumented president."

Also Friday, Glendale Police Officer Matthew Pappert was suspended after posting on Facebook that the Ferguson protesters were "a burden on society and a blight on the community," according to posts preserved by news and opinion website "The Daily Caller." Another post that appears to come from Pappert says the "protestors should have been put down like rabid dogs the first night."

[Nephlite]

The way it's supposed to work following a shooting; it's supposed to be an initial report is filed by the reporting officer, a secondary report is filed after 24 hours, then a final statement is done along with a Use of Force reporting form after 72 hours. Reason being is details and finer points of the incident can come out after two sleep cycles due to the effects of the SNS and the resulting PNS backlash (adrenaline dump). It's not really that unusual for reports to take days, weeks, even months to file the completed report due to the extensive nature of the investigation.

It doesn't surprise me that there's hardly any information, as there's probably not even a completed report yet. St. Louis probably got yanked as the investigating department once the DoJ got involved. People are outraged that it's taking so long, but there's just so much that has to go in to the report. It takes more than a few days to file a report of this caliber. I've seen 120 page reports on shootings, along with detailed information on the forensic reports, witness statements, etc. (depending on how thorough the reporting agency is). Likely, Darren Wilson's involvement is likely to be a statement, which won't be released until the Grand Jury has a chance to review it and an indictment is sealed.

With that being said, Ferguson definitely has a report. If it's a CJIS report, it'll be public info. If it's an internal Use of Force report, it's not subject to FOIA regulations and is an internalized document. Sucks but, what're you gonna do?

[Quicklet]

Since the investigation is under DoJ jurisdiction now, most of the public record will be sealed until the Grand Jury reaches an indictment.

It is my understanding that the DoJ is doing a parallel investigation into civil rights matters. The homicide investigation is still under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. Part of the problem with using a Grand Jury instead of simply issuing an arrest and having a probable cause hearing is it slows down the process and contributes to the problem of lack of transparency.

Whether or not it is being done in good faith, the entire process is set up right now to support charges of corruption and cover-up should there not be an indictment handed down. For example, it may be difficult to find out if the local prosecutor omits key witness testimony or admits the sort of spurious evidence that has been leaked to the media already.

[Not Kuno]

Sooo the real question is, where are the feminists at? Why arent they clamoring agianst how unfair and unjust this is?
Theyre always bitching about how they want to be equal, but we dont see them doing a damn thing when it comes to "killings".
Whatever. More cherrypicking bullshit. Must be nice to be a women.

They would just say its all men doing the crimes.

[kuronosan]

People like Page should never have been allowed in the military.

The fuck.

[notorious bum]

Tiffany Mitchell, Michael Brady, Dorian Johnson, & Piaget Crenshaw all telling the SAME haunting story

[Nephlite]

It is my understanding that the DoJ is doing a parallel investigation into civil rights matters. The homicide investigation is still under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. Part of the problem with using a Grand Jury instead of simply issuing an arrest and having a probable cause hearing is it slows down the process and contributes to the problem of lack of transparency.

Whether or not it is being done in good faith, the entire process is set up right now to support charges of corruption and cover-up should there not be an indictment handed down. For example, it may be difficult to find out if the local prosecutor omits key witness testimony or admits the sort of spurious evidence that has been leaked to the media already.

Understand that releasing an incomplete report is just as bad as releasing the full investigative report.

I know people want transparency, but a petition for a report in this case does not trump the individual rights of the accused to a fair trial. This includes procedural issues like ensuring the identity of the witnesses and the statements made are untarnished and not subject to witness tampering/falsification. Suppose that the supporters of Darren Wilson use the information obtained by the ACLU to obtain information on key witnesses used by the prosecution? It's a matter of collateral damage control. It prevents corruption and witness tampering, especially if the witness is in fear of his/her own safety. That's why reports and investigations need to remain secret to ensure these types of things don't happen.

Additionally, you can't charge someone without proof. Grand Jury tries all cases like this. The Grand Juries role in this matter is to determine if Darren Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown falls outside the scope of Qualified Immunity. No judge or prosecutor in their right mind will try a case that has an inkling of chance that he could be covered. That's political suicide and will destroy the entire system. That would be akin to arresting every officer involved in a shooting weather or not it was justified, which in turn turns in to lawsuits violating the right to due process.

It sucks, but this is why citizens and people who don't know anything about the law need to be excluded. People are being hyped up about this case and there's no way they should be part of it. You think the prosecutor might be biased? People in general are biased in this case. It would suck if indeed Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown, and he got off on a technicality.

[archibaldcrane]

If nothing else, the dept should have press conferences explaining what is going on - why, for example, they released only 1 page with 0 info. If Time is wrong about there being no Ferguson PD incident report, that should be clarified immediately.

[Xno Kappa]

Nephlite is right in regards to documentation.

[Acevalefor]

Whether =/= weather >.>

Thanks for the insight, I just had to point out your single glaring grammar mistake because internet grammar troll.

[Quicklet]

Yet we've had a number of uncorroborated or unrelated leaks/releases from the side of the police that can already be construed as potential witness tampering / poisoning the process.

I understand that you have a perspective that you feel is not being represented well to the public, but on the other hand you've seen just within the past month a number of incredibly disturbing incidents caught on camera of police abusing their inherent power. You had one police officer strangle an unarmed black man to death over selling loose cigarettes. You've had other incidents of police brutality that do not at all appear to be justified. In many of these cases, the reaction of police in the aftermath is to intimidate witnesses or to flat out lie about the facts involved.

There is a growing sentiment in this country that many police departments and officers feel themselves above the law. Almost weekly you hear incidents that show reckless disregard for civilian safety and for standard protocols, whether it be tossing a flashbang grenade into a toddler's crib, shooting at a fleeing vehicle that is carrying children in it, fatally shooting a mentally disturbed man out in the wilderness, or any number of other documented incidents. In many of these cases there are few repercussions for officers who are clearly breaking either protocol or law.

Yes, it's not every officer, but particularly given the many disturbing accounts of corruption and racism in the Ferguson area, it is important to safeguard the interests of the people to ensure that their police department is operating in the public interest and not in the interest of a single individual who may have committed a murder. Beyond this case, this is why issues of over-militarization of the police and under-documentation need to be addressed. Cameras are essential in the 21st century and would serve both the interests of the public and the police. Let's not pretend that this officer Wilson is being railroaded when there were many things the local police could have done to assure the community that the investigation was being handled properly.

[Acevalefor]

Cameras are essential in the 21st century and would serve both the interests of the public and the police. Let's not pretend that this officer Wilson is being railroaded when there were many things the local police could have done to assure the community that the investigation was being handled properly.

Fuck that. Suck on your tear gas and shut the fuck up or "I will fucking kill you". It's easier and better for the entire community, the country, and now the world if we just subjugate everyone with force, threaten and arrest journalists, and intentionally withhold all information regarding the incident they are so upset about.

[Nephlite]

Yet we've had a number of uncorroborated or unrelated leaks/releases from the side of the police that can already be construed as potential witness tampering / poisoning the process.

I understand that you have a perspective that you feel is not being represented well to the public, but on the other hand you've seen just within the past month a number of incredibly disturbing incidents caught on camera of police abusing their inherent power. You had one police officer strangle an unarmed black man to death over selling loose cigarettes. You've had other incidents of police brutality that do not at all appear to be justified. In many of these cases, the reaction of police in the aftermath is to intimidate witnesses or to flat out lie about the facts involved.

There is a growing sentiment in this country that many police departments and officers feel themselves above the law. Almost weekly you hear incidents that show reckless disregard for civilian safety and for standard protocols, whether it be tossing a flashbang grenade into a toddler's crib, shooting at a fleeing vehicle that is carrying children in it, fatally shooting a mentally disturbed man out in the wilderness, or any number of other documented incidents. In many of these cases there are few repercussions for officers who are clearly breaking either protocol or law.

Yes, it's not every officer, but particularly given the many disturbing accounts of corruption and racism in the Ferguson area, it is important to safeguard the interests of the people to ensure that their police department is operating in the public interest and not in the interest of a single individual who may have committed a murder. Beyond this case, this is why issues of over-militarization of the police and under-documentation need to be addressed. Cameras are essential in the 21st century and would serve both the interests of the public and the police. Let's not pretend that this officer Wilson is being railroaded when there were many things the local police could have done to assure the community that the investigation was being handled properly.

I actually don't think the number of brutality incidents has gone up. I just think people are more aware of them. Ask anyone who's been in the business since the 50's, 60's, or 70's. There's old timers in my department that used to talk about how they would punish petty offenses with a blackjack to the knuckles. No one complained. Why? Because the police would fuck you up. And everyone thought that was the norm. Nowadays, people are more aware and more liberal with their reporting of such misconduct, so it might appear there's more of it when really the problem is getting better.

In response to the cases of flash bang in to cribs and whatnot, the officers were cleared of liability from those instances because they practiced under the scope of their protocol. It wasn't that they disregarded it, it's the protocol that needed to be addressed. Can't punish people for things they didn't know or they were acting in "Good Faith". Ignorance of the law is not a defense in criminal misconduct, but understand Police Officers are granted immunity to certain offenses because some laws need to be bent or broken to safeguard life, which essentially would turn civilian offenses that are criminal in to negligible or civil infractions that can't be punished under the scope of law. That's why Qualified Immunity doesn't extend to Civil Liability so the "victim" can still be made "whole".

Without things like Qualified Immunity and Good Faith laws, there would essentially be no "Good Samaritan" or a need for Police. While the scope of such actions can be considered a viable explanation to policing on the "whole" (i.e. for the greater good), Officers are still charged with the protection of the individual. It's a duality in policing that makes the job pretty difficult. On one hand, you have to safeguard rights of the people on the "whole", yet the Police are still expected to stand up for the individual. If you stop policing individuals and only look out for the greater good, you undermine the whole system and the philosophy of law.

I think body cameras are a great tool for Law Enforcement. Personally, I think people get a better perspective of the instances where police need to use force and it still gives a good piece of evidence. It does nothing for those who still believe that the police can do everything and anything. For instance, the latest shooting of the guy with the knife. Everyone expects "Why didn't they Mace the guy or use a Taser? Why did they pull up so close knowing he had a knife? Why did he have to die?" and yet even if they had cameras, all it shows is exactly the same scenario but people still don't understand the philosophy.

This is why education and perspective is key to letting people know the simple reality "You weren't there, so put yourself in that officers shoes and tell me what would you have done in that instance?" Most of the time, they'll avoid that question and set it on a different issue. Then, I'll show you one of these videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk

Now, tell me if you think Less Lethal is worth it?

Another thing; I'd like cameras, but I want a solution to the problem of money. If the Federal Government is willing to fork over the money to equip all 800,000 police officers in the U.S. with body cameras, then it'll be a no-brainer. Right now the way things are, only a large police force with a large amount of funding can afford them. What's the solution? And don't say "Well it costs less than a lawsuit" because if the Federal Government mandated everyone needed a camera tomorrow, half the police forces in America would never be able to afford it and would be dissolved, as that up front cost and expenditure over the grace period would be some serious cash that most agencies will not be able to front off the top.

[Smokie]

So basically cops ARE above the law.

[NynJa]

half the police forces in America would never be able to afford it and would be dissolved

I wouldnt be surprised if there are a couple people here who would be perfectly ok with that