Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:31 pm UTC

leady wrote:define assault and show the evidence please (friction marks, bruising on the victim etc)

Oh, now you're skeptical of assault? But Wilson's stress rash is proof of nightmarish battery?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Trebla » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:36 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Trebla wrote:Occam's Razor, I would assume. Accepting Wilson's testimony requires the fewest unsupported assumptions (or assumptions counter-indicated by physical evidence)?

Which is not the case, as I've already been over with the altercation at the car. There are a number of more implausible assumptions we have to make to believe Wilson's version of what happened there than we do to believe Dorian Johnson's account.

And speaking of inconsistent eyewitness testimony:
Edit by Trebla: Spoilered image for size:
Spoiler:
Image



I don't think you actually believe this is inconsistent testimony... he saw Brown with the cigarillos in his right hand, at some point later, he guessed Brown was hitting him with his right hand based on how they were situated.

The order of the questions is very misleading as to imply that Brown was punching with his right hand while holding the cigarillos at the same time.

Can you clarify which assumptions are more plausible to believe Wilson is lying? I apologize since you said you've been over them in the past few pages, but I must have missed that. If we assume all parties are equally credible (i.e., not credible at all since virtually all points are contradicted by at least one account), and just look at the actions:

1. Brown assaulted Wilson in his car vs. Wilson grabbed Brown - Now, neither of these passes the sanity test... but to assume that Wilson, seated in his car, grabbed a 6'4" man around the neck with his arm, who was standing away (the door had opened slightly and been closed... he had no reason to be crouching by the window, right?) stretches the bounds of physical credulity. Physical evidence gives no impression either way. The more plausible assumption is the former.

2. Wilson fired on Brown while he was fleeing vs. He didn't - This wouldn't have been an adrenaline reaction... enough time passed for Brown to get some distance and Wilson to get out of his car. Shots would have been a conscious decision. I wouldn't assume that any sane person (even overt racists) would fire on a fleeing person in broad daylight surrounded by witnesses. Again, lack of relevant physical evidence. The more plausible assumption to me is that he didn't... regardless of race of the shooter/victim.

3. Brown charged at Wilson vs. He had his hands up and stationary - The latter makes the most sense. What type of unarmed idiot would charge an armed cop? The additional physical evidence however indicates that he was moving towards Wilson. Given that, the former becomes the more plausible assumption.

These seem to be the important assumptions you have to make either way... the ones that require the least implausible scenarios are the ones that support Wilson's testimony. Maybe you disagree, I suppose there's no reconciliation for that disagreement.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:57 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:I wouldn't assume that any sane person (even overt racists) would fire on a fleeing person in broad daylight surrounded by witnesses. Again, lack of relevant physical evidence. The more plausible assumption to me is that he didn't... regardless of race of the shooter/victim.

Then you should reexamine your assumptions, because good LORD this kind of thing happens all the time, especially with overt racists.

Also, the fact that all of your assumptions rely on arguing what a normal person would do when not highly stressed and thinking irrationally -- which, presumably, wouldn't lead to people getting shot in the street in the first place, so...
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, the only "implausible" thing we need for that version is that Darren Wilson, a 6'4" armed cop in body armor, grabbed at the guy standing outside his window.

Otherwise you need for Mike Brown, unarmed and wearing a tshirt and flip flops, to have decided to reach into a police car to assault the armed and armored cop within.


That doesn't explain why Witness #10 and #48 however claim that Mike Brown was running (after he was shot in the hand) towards Darren Wilson once more.

Those witnesses describe Mike Brown's actions as highly aggressive, someone who charged towards Darren Wilson despite the fact that Darren Wilson had his gun out. Again, unlike all the other actors (Darren Wilson and Dorian Johnson), #10 and #48 are independent witnesses who were interviewed very close to the date of the incident. They also weren't "a couple of blocks away" (#30), or had their view obscured by blinds (#16), and actually were paying attention (unlike #12).

That's a hell of a lot of evidence towards "self defense" actually. Self-defense doesn't require "beyond a reasonable doubt" either. You only need "probable cause" to mount a proper self-defense case.

1. Brown assaulted Wilson in his car vs. Wilson grabbed Brown - Now, neither of these passes the sanity test... but to assume that Wilson, seated in his car, grabbed a 6'4" man around the neck with his arm, who was standing away (the door had opened slightly and been closed... he had no reason to be crouching by the window, right?) stretches the bounds of physical credulity. Physical evidence gives no impression either way. The more plausible assumption is the former.


There is one witness who claims Wilson grabbed Brown. Dorian Johnson. For those new to the conversation: Dorian Johnson is the friend of Mike Brown and one of the key witnesses to the event. However, I'd have to say he isn't a neutral party and thus his testimony / interview is highly suspect. (Like Darren Wilson's, of course)

SUV is clearly seen here. Seems legit:
Spoiler:
Image


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... ncredible/

Dorian Johnson claims that the first thing Wilson did was grab Mike Brown by the neck (why was Mike Brown so close to the cop car? Normal people don't lean in against windows). But he also claims Mike Brown was shot in the chest by the first gunshot. (which is false). Mike Brown's DNA was found all over Darren Wilson's gun, and Mike Brown's blood was found inside of Darren Wilson's SUV. Specifically: Mike Brown's blood was on the driver's Side window on the inside panel. This implies that Dorian Johnson ignores the important detail: that Mike Brown's hand was shot while inside of the car.

If Mike Brown was shot outside of the car (as per Dorian Johnson's testimony), it'd be physically impossible for the blood to splatter to the inside driver-side window panel. Its just basic physics.

I'm sorry, but based on witness accounts (including multiple witnesses that saw Mike Brown charge at Darren Wilson after this whole incident), I'm gonna have to side with Darren Wilson on this one. Dorian Johnson's testimony just isn't holding up to scrutiny.

Reminder: The blood of Mike Brown was found on the left door, inside the car. Mike Brown's hands were well inside the SUV doing something when the gun went off. But Dorian Johnson contradicts this fact.

Dorian Johnson
The bullet came outside the car and struck him [Big Mike]. He was never inside the car and got struck, he was outside the car when the first shot went off. The officer was inside the car . . . but when he shot the gun, [the] bullet traveled outside his car and struck Big Mike in the chest, or I seen blood coming from [there] (106:7).


Even ignoring "Cop vs Other Dude" testimonies, you have to realize that Dorian Johnson's testimony contradicts physical evidence. Not only here of course, but Dorian Johnson also claims that Brown was shot in the back. (Contradicting the autopsy. All shots to Brown have entry wounds to the front)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:27 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Trebla » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:07 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Then you should reexamine your assumptions, because good LORD this kind of thing happens all the time, especially with overt racists.

Also, the fact that all of your assumptions rely on arguing what a normal person would do when not highly stressed and thinking irrationally -- which, presumably, wouldn't lead to people getting shot in the street in the first place, so...


It happens "all the time"... but it happens significantly less frequently than the other way around. At least, that's the impression I have. Most people don't shoot someone who's fleeing from them, even if "all the time" a tiny fraction of people do. My default assumption for ANY person is that they wouldn't shoot in that situation until evidence shows otherwise. (But my default assumption is that most people are inherently good until they demonstrate otherwise, too, so... maybe I'm too optimistic).

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, the only "implausible" thing we need for that version is that Darren Wilson, a 6'4" armed cop in body armor, grabbed at the guy standing outside his window.

Otherwise you need for Mike Brown, unarmed and wearing a tshirt and flip flops, to have decided to reach into a police car to assault the armed and armored cop within.


Yes, common sense dictates it's more plausible that Brown bent down and reached into Wilson's car rather than Wilson being able to wrap his arm around the neck of a (tall) man standing outside his window while seated.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:19 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Trebla wrote:I wouldn't assume that any sane person (even overt racists) would fire on a fleeing person in broad daylight surrounded by witnesses. Again, lack of relevant physical evidence. The more plausible assumption to me is that he didn't... regardless of race of the shooter/victim.

Then you should reexamine your assumptions, because good LORD this kind of thing happens all the time, especially with overt racists.


Why aren't any of Brown's bullet wounds to his back? Why do all the witnesses state that Brown was at least facing the officer?

Brown wasn't fleeing, he was facing the officer when he died. At least two witnesses (outside of Darren Wilson) claim he was "charging" full sprint at him (again, one of them being the exceptionally detailed Witness #10)

Izawwlgood wrote:
leady wrote:define assault and show the evidence please (friction marks, bruising on the victim etc)

Oh, now you're skeptical of assault? But Wilson's stress rash is proof of nightmarish battery?


Be that what it may, Wilson's rash is consistent with Mike Brown punching him in the face.

Spoiler:
Image


Notice that Wilson's bruise is on his right side (Driver Side window is to your left). Which means Mike Brown reached inside of the car, and punched Wilson with his left hand into Wilson's right side. Wilson claims it was Mike Brown's right hand... but I'd consider that a relatively minor inconsistency in Daren Wilson's story. (Its nothing like Dorian Johnson, who is talking about gunshots that never happened and other events that are physically impossible. This is simply Wilson confusing right from left).

The bruise is confirmed by medical records. https://twitter.com/jtes/status/5371024 ... 76/photo/1

On the other hand, the Autopsy came back clean. Mike Brown didn't have any bruises anywhere on his body. He had like 6 gunshot wounds, but no bruises.

This evidence points towards Mike Brown starting the fight.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:35 pm UTC

I can't find any good evidence of what occurred at the car. We only have 2 witness accounts one being Dorian Johnson and one being Wilson himself. I'm considering neither of these as unbiased for the moment. The medical report does have "mild echymosis" on the Wilson's face, but that doesn't mean he somehow didn't grab Brown first, just that he was likely hit by Brown (or something) in the struggle. Brown's DNA on the gun and the officer's clothing can mean he was touching it or there was blood spatter from him being shot in the car (presumably they would have mentioned if there was blood on the officer's clothes, but I can't seem to find if that's the case). Hell even if he was touching the gun it could be that he was pushing it aside as Wilson tried to shoot him or that he was grabbing it trying to push it towards Wilson. I see no mention of any bruising around Brown's neck in the autopsy report, but the whole "grabbed him by the throat" could easily just be colloquial, meaning he grabbed near his throat, shirt collar etc.

KnightExemplar wrote:Brown wasn't fleeing, he was facing the officer when he died. At least two witnesses (outside of Darren Wilson) claim he was "charging" full sprint at him (again, one of them being the exceptionally detailed Witness #10)


This physical evidence does seem to corroborate what Witness #10 had said in this regard. There is a significant (~20 ft) distance between the first blood stains and where Brown's body ended up. He did move towards the officer after he had been shot at least once. Whether he was moving or not before that first shot, isn't apparent from any physical evidence, but the wounds on the body indicate he was facing the officer at the time.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:47 pm UTC

It seems physically impossible for a man, sitting inside a car (even a tall one like an SUV), to grab out and start wrestling. When you're sitting down, your punches have no power, you have no strength. The person standing has a significant combat advantage over you. Furthermore, my arm can barely reach out maybe half a foot out of my window.

I find it very hard to believe that Mike Brown happened to walk within grabbing range of Darren Wilson. That's pretty damn close to a car. It also doesn't make sense: everyone I've ever seen get into a fight steps out of the car first. Because sitting still in a car is the worst way to start a fight.

IE: If Wilson wanted to start a fight, he wouldn't have been sitting in his car. Its that simple. On the other hand, I have seen a few fights where people reach into a car, because the person standing has a significant combat advantage. Try it when you get into your car today. Tell me if you feel comfortable punching or grappling someone while sitting inside your car with the door closed.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:57 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:Yes, common sense dictates it's more plausible that Brown bent down and reached into Wilson's car rather than Wilson being able to wrap his arm around the neck of a (tall) man standing outside his window while seated.


Er, if you're six-four and somebody stops to talk to you from a car, wouldn't you have to bend over to talk to them in any sensible way? I'm five-eight and I need to bend over to talk to someone inside a car. SUVs sit somewhat higher than cars, but they're generally less than six-four, and the driver's head is well below the ceiling.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:24 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Trebla wrote:Yes, common sense dictates it's more plausible that Brown bent down and reached into Wilson's car rather than Wilson being able to wrap his arm around the neck of a (tall) man standing outside his window while seated.


Er, if you're six-four and somebody stops to talk to you from a car, wouldn't you have to bend over to talk to them in any sensible way? I'm five-eight and I need to bend over to talk to someone inside a car. SUVs sit somewhat higher than cars, but they're generally less than six-four, and the driver's head is well below the ceiling.

I obviously don't know what actually happened, and this is pure speculation, but that does seem entirely plausible to me. That is, that Brown was leaned over to argue with Wilson. Probably quite unpleasantly. And that Wilson could have reached to try to grab Brown by the shirt, not appreciating his lip and lack respect, while not expecting it to turn into a fight. And that Brown then, from his point of view, tried to fight back, at which point things went to complete hell.

Or maybe Brown tried to physically assert himself first. Again, I wasn't there.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Otherwise you need for Mike Brown, unarmed and wearing a tshirt and flip flops, to have decided to reach into a police car to assault the armed and armored cop within. And *then* you need for Darren Wilson to forget he could drive away, and for all sorts of implausible physical arrangements of the people within the car during the altercation, and for Mike Brown to have shot his own self in the hand (since leady apparently believes the gunshot in the car somehow implicates Brown more than WIlson).


While I appreciate your skepticism gmalivuk, the fact is that if the Gunshot happened inside the car, it means multiple things.

1. The fact that the gunshot happened inside the car completely shatters Dorian Johnson's story.
2. The fact that the first gunshot was on Mike Brown's hand matches up with Wilson's story. It makes it easier for me to believe the rest of Wilson's story (especially since Dorian Johnson continues to make inaccuracies)
3. The gun shooting at Mike Brown's hand is evidence that Mike Brown was trying to grab the gun from Wilson.

Which means, Wilson shot Mike Brown's hand in self-defense. Autopsy confirms it (Gun residue inside the wound). Blood stains on the inside of the driver-side panel confirm it (physically impossible for that blood to get there unless Mike Brown's hands were inside the car). DNA evidence shows that Mike Brown grabbed the gun at some point during the fight.

The only one who contradicts these facts is Dorian Johnson, who seems like a very unreliable witness indeed (contradicts the autopsy, contradicts other witnesses, talks about gunshots that didn't happen)

At best, you can argue that Mike Brown was trying to point the gun away from Darren Wilson during the altercation. But in any case, Mike Brown's hands were on the gun at some point. That is a fact.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Trebla » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:58 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Er, if you're six-four and somebody stops to talk to you from a car, wouldn't you have to bend over to talk to them in any sensible way? I'm five-eight and I need to bend over to talk to someone inside a car. SUVs sit somewhat higher than cars, but they're generally less than six-four, and the driver's head is well below the ceiling.

I obviously don't know what actually happened, and this is pure speculation, but that does seem entirely plausible to me. That is, that Brown was leaned over to argue with Wilson. Probably quite unpleasantly. And that Wilson could have reached to try to grab Brown by the shirt, not appreciating his lip and lack respect, while not expecting it to turn into a fight. And that Brown then, from his point of view, tried to fight back, at which point things went to complete hell.

Or maybe Brown tried to physically assert himself first. Again, I wasn't there.


While a possible scenario, both Johnson and Wilson claim that Brown closed the door on Wilson when he tried to get out. It does not seem likely (sensible) that Brown would then stoop down to talk to Wilson. Maybe he bent down to taunt Wilson, inciting him to anger who then grabbed Brown. But we're making things up that nobody (neither Johnson nor Wilson, at any rate) say happened just to paint a scenario where Brown could possibly be close enough for Wilson to grab.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I don't dispute anything that you just said, but I don't see how any of it supports your "primary point" that McCulloch failed at his job.

Right, because failure suggests something involuntary, and McCulloch never intended to get an indictment in the first place.

So he didn't do his official job, but he did do the job he's been doing for years, which is getting cops off murder charges. (If he was interested in doing the jobhe was hired to do, he would have cross-examined Wilson like, ever, instead of treating him with kid gloves.)

Except that, as I've said a couple times now, his job is not always to get indictments.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:14 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I don't dispute anything that you just said, but I don't see how any of it supports your "primary point" that McCulloch failed at his job.

Right, because failure suggests something involuntary, and McCulloch never intended to get an indictment in the first place.

So he didn't do his official job, but he did do the job he's been doing for years, which is getting cops off murder charges. (If he was interested in doing the jobhe was hired to do, he would have cross-examined Wilson like, ever, instead of treating him with kid gloves.)

Except that, as I've said a couple times now, his job is not always to get indictments.

In this case, if a prosecutor decides he wants to indict then he shouldn't have kid gloved it. Its patronizing to subject someone to an indictment hearing and then implicitly say the cop is innocent by not trying. It insults both sides, first the cops for indicting without a strong case and then the victim family by giving special treatment to the cop by letting him testify without heavy cross examination. Nobody charged with an indictment ever wants to testify. The reason is there's no judge or defense lawyer stopping the prosecutor from working you over.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:17 pm UTC

So, you're upset because you feel Wilson was patronized?

Please.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:19 pm UTC

sardia wrote:In this case, if a prosecutor decides he wants to indict then he shouldn't have kid gloved it. Its patronizing to subject someone to an indictment hearing and then implicitly say the cop is innocent by not trying. It insults both sides, first the cops for indicting without a strong case and then the victim family by giving special treatment.


The whole reason this grand jury here was unusual is because the prosecutor basically didn't want to take responsibility for the decision that would be controversial either way. So he dumped all the evidence in front of a grand jury and let them decide. Seems like this is the way a grand jury is SUPPOSED to work, it's just not the way it currently tends to in the US. Making it the rubber stamp that it tends to be is just a waste of resources. At that point just let the prosecutors decide on charges themselves (course that would be against the constitution...)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:49 pm UTC

Were Mike Brown's fingerprints found on the gun? My understanding was that they weren't, and DNA on something inside a blood-spattered car doesn't prove anything beyond that it was present when the car was spattered with blood.

So no, the shot to his hand inside the car does not mean Brown was trying to grab the gun.

- - -

As for shooting in broad daylight with witnesses, cops know from experience that they can get away with murder on video, so I doubt they're too worried about that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, you're upset because you feel Wilson was patronized?

Please.

Do I look like gmalivuk to you? I'm stating the prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a solid case. Then he messed up again by implying the cop was innocent. This is defined by pussyfooting around and not vigorously calling out a cop dumb enough to testify without a judge or defense attorney present. And then presenting a muddled case ' fir the jury to figure out' . prosecutors dont do this for anyone else. The alternative is the prosecutor conspired with Wilson that he would have an easy time if he testified.

I'm also calling your libertarianism into question when you give officers this level of deference.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, you're upset because you feel Wilson was patronized?

Please.
Do I look like gmalivuk to you?
What do I have to do with it?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, you're upset because you feel Wilson was patronized?

Please.

Do I look like gmalivuk to you? I'm stating the prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a solid case. Then he messed up again by implying the cop was innocent. This is defined by pussyfooting around and not vigorously calling out a cop dumb enough to testify without a judge or defense attorney present. And then presenting a muddled case ' fir the jury to figure out' . prosecutors dont do this for anyone else. The alternative is the prosecutor conspired with Wilson that he would have an easy time if he testified.

I'm also calling your libertarianism into question when you give officers this level of deference.


Have I said Wilson should have deference due to his status as an officer? Actually, have I said he should have ANYTHING different due to his status as an officer?

I merely do not believe that "poor Wilson" is a reasonable complaint about this indiction. I am certain that the Wilson camp is in fact quite happy with this outcome, and framing this as "insulting for both sides" is...cmon.

I also don't see any confusion of you with gmalivuk. I do not think he is attempting a "this is unfair to both sides" argument.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:52 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I'm stating the prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a solid case. Then he messed up again by implying the cop was innocent. This is defined by pussyfooting around and not vigorously calling out a cop dumb enough to testify without a judge or defense attorney present. And then presenting a muddled case ' fir the jury to figure out' . prosecutors dont do this for anyone else. The alternative is the prosecutor conspired with Wilson that he would have an easy time if he testified.
You and millions of others provided the push to do something, and now that something has been done, you don't like it. You wouldn't have liked it if it had went to court for a preliminary hearing and bounced any better. If you want to see what a botched prosecution looks like look up the name Mel Ignatow. I point out that unlike the case I just gave you the well is not poisoned, if you show up with better evidence there is nothing standing in the way of prosecution at some future date.

@Leady
I can't give you any evidence that law enforcement is racist. However if you want to have that discussion about America overall, I am ready and willing to have that argument for the general population. And if the population overall is racist than it is a safe assumption that the police are.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:08 pm UTC

I agree that Wilson is happy with the verdict. But how does that invalidate my statement the prosecutor made the mistakes I previously stated? You stated yourself that this is a poor case to prosecute. The prosecutor compensating for a rushed indictment by poorly pushing for an indictment is just making two wrongs.

I didn't say 'poor Wilson', I said its patronizing to ask for an indictment and then sabotage your own indictment request. The prosecutor came off as poorly for both his actions.

No morris, you are confusing me for another poster. I didn't say he should be indicted and tried. I said the prosecutor messed up twice. Keep up.

User avatar
clockworkmonk
I'm on a horse!
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:53 am UTC
Location: Austin

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby clockworkmonk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:10 pm UTC

so a cop strangled a man to death on video and wasn't indited

From the article,
the NYP wrote:The Medical Examiner’s Office ruled Garner’s death a homicide caused by “compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”
418 I'm a teapot

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:18 pm UTC

clockworkmonk wrote:so a cop strangled a man to death on video and wasn't indited

From the article,
the NYP wrote:The Medical Examiner’s Office ruled Garner’s death a homicide caused by “compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”


It is also worth noting that chokeholds are banned by the police department's own rules about handling suspects.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:26 pm UTC

I thought NY deemed chokeholds OK, but other cities don't.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:33 pm UTC

No, according to every article I've read, the NYPD bans them as well.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:37 pm UTC

sardia wrote:No morris, you are confusing me for another poster. I didn't say he should be indicted and tried. I said the prosecutor messed up twice. Keep up.
Right....! Then how did he mess up? He has discretion. If he doesn't think the case is good he doesn't have to do anything. He could have simply said, no charges will be filed. He didn't have to open the Grand Jury up to the public. The public got it all. Transcripts, everything. So now he's a screwup. Like I said, you don't like how it turned out. But neither do I, I just want a different target done in.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:38 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:It happens "all the time"... but it happens significantly less frequently than the other way around. At least, that's the impression I have. Most people don't shoot someone who's fleeing from them, even if "all the time" a tiny fraction of people do. My default assumption for ANY person is that they wouldn't shoot in that situation until evidence shows otherwise. (But my default assumption is that most people are inherently good until they demonstrate otherwise, too, so... maybe I'm too optimistic).

Okay, so you're ignoring what the generic behavior of a cop, especially the documented behavior of the cop's Wilson worked with would act, and saying "well, a normal person on the street wouldn't do this, so obviously it's more plausible that Wilson acted like a normal person on the street than the people he's actually most similar to in terms of career/culture/etc."

Yes, common sense dictates it's more plausible that Brown bent down and reached into Wilson's car rather than Wilson being able to wrap his arm around the neck of a (tall) man standing outside his window while seated.

Because there's literally no way Brown would have gotten close to the window of the cop unless he was about to attack him? "Boy, c'mere" has never happened?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I thought NY deemed chokeholds OK, but other cities don't.

If you mean, "do they allow officers to use them to kill black people", apparently yes.

However, the article says this, as far as "official policy" is concerned:
Police union leaders denied that Pantaleo used a chokehold — which is banned by the NYPD — and blasted the autopsy as part of a “political” witch hunt.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:46 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote:No morris, you are confusing me for another poster. I didn't say he should be indicted and tried. I said the prosecutor messed up twice. Keep up.
Right....! Then how did he mess up? He has discretion. If he doesn't think the case is good he doesn't have to do anything. He could have simply said, no charges will be filed. He didn't have to open the Grand Jury up to the public. The public got it all. Transcripts, everything. So now he's a screwup. Like I said, you don't like how it turned out. But neither do I, I just want a different target done in.

The prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a strong case, and then messed up again by not forcefully arguing the case he had. If he didn't believe the cop was guilty, then he was mistaken in pursuing an indictment. If he did believe he had a strong case, then he made an error by arguing his case poorly, intentionly even.
Morris this the second time you failed to comprehend my post.

KrytenKoro wrote:
sardia wrote:I thought NY deemed chokeholds OK, but other cities don't.

If you mean, "do they allow officers to use them to kill black people", apparently yes.

However, the article says this, as far as "official policy" is concerned:
Police union leaders denied that Pantaleo used a chokehold — which is banned by the NYPD — and blasted the autopsy as part of a “political” witch hunt.

I already knew the former. That happens everywhere. I was confirming the latter

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:52 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a strong case, and then messed up again by not forcefully arguing the case he had. If he didn't believe the cop was guilty, then he was mistaken in pursuing an indictment. If he did believe he had a strong case, then he made an error by arguing his case poorly, intentionly even.
And if he already made a bit of a habit of working to get cops off murder charges, and worried that someone else would prosecute the case if he didn't, then Bob McCulloch acted pretty much exactly as should be expected.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:09 pm UTC

That should've been at least a manslaughter charge. Using an improper hold on a suspect resulting in death is basically negligent homicide.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:21 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:That should've been at least a manslaughter charge. Using an improper hold on a suspect resulting in death is basically negligent homicide.

Again, cops have wide latitude as to what constitutes reasonable use of force. Supposedly cops are frozen in fear if they don't have this. Did we get any statements as to why the jury failed to indict?
Last edited by sardia on Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26766
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:24 pm UTC

Yeah, as I've seen several people point out various places, this goes to show that body cams alone won't be enough when you can choke a man to death in broad daylight on video and still get away with it.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:29 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/eric ... ry-indict/
Staten island, where the jury was pulled from is different from the rest of nyc. They're more sympathetic to cops, it's where cmost cops live and its more conservative.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:27 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, the only "implausible" thing we need for that version is that Darren Wilson, a 6'4" armed cop in body armor, grabbed at the guy standing outside his window.

Otherwise you need for Mike Brown, unarmed and wearing a tshirt and flip flops, to have decided to reach into a police car to assault the armed and armored cop within. And *then* you need for Darren Wilson to forget he could drive away, and for all sorts of implausible physical arrangements of the people within the car during the altercation, and for Mike Brown to have shot his own self in the hand (since leady apparently believes the gunshot in the car somehow implicates Brown more than WIlson).

Does that mean we have a Hung Jury?
We seem to have one guy, leady, that thinks Mike Brown went after the Cop.

Everyone else seems to think, The Cop had all The Choices and for some fucked up reason The Cop, Wilson, went after Mike Brown.

Why?
Who the fuck knows!

I listened to a lecture on Homiside and Insanity.
It boiled down to murder is Nuts.

When people commit murder they are Nuts.
Not innocent; Nuts.

They must be treated like they are Victims, even though they may very well be Dangerous MotherFuckers.
Wilson for some reason lost his mind and killed an eighteen year old man child. Nuts, Not Innocent!

Mike Brown was eighteen years old.
Wilson is almost thirty. Who is who?

We may have a hung jury.
Does Mike's Mom know eleven of us give a shit?

I have no idea what else we can do.
She must find closure and move on with her life.

This is not and should not be closed for the rest of us.
Does anyone know what the Feds will do? If anything.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:40 am UTC

sardia wrote:The prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a strong case, and then messed up again by not forcefully arguing the case he had
I understood. He didn't indict. And he didn't ask the Grand Jury to. You seem not to understand that. He tap danced and put the onus on the Grand Jury. I thought this had been cleared. Perhaps Columbia Law might help. But in any case I'll leave you alone.
This St. Louis County Grand Jury decided to return no bill of indictment against Officer Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. This grand jury did not decide that a crime did or did not take place. Another grand jury could return a different outcome should the matter be re-introduced at a later time.

Contrary to much of the media presentation, a grand jury decision is not a “verdict.” A petit jury at a trial after hearing all the evidence returns a verdict (ver-truth; dict-statement, i.e. a statement of truth). A grand jury either true bills or no bills an indictment. Grand juries never return verdicts.

What was unusual about the grand jury proceedings in the Michael Brown shooting?

Everything. The proceedings resembled a trial rather than a grand jury proceeding. For example, the transcripts show that the prosecutors cross-examined potential prosecution witnesses, probing for inconsistencies in their testimony. They were openly skeptical of the testimony of others.

There were about 60 witnesses called during almost 75 hours of proceedings, resulting in almost 5,000 pages of transcript. Most grand juries see only one witness per case: the arresting officer. As a result of the number of witnesses the grand jury took far longer to reach its decision than do most grand juries.

The subject of the grand jury proceeding, Darren Wilson, presented four hours of testimony at the outset of the Grand Jury proceeding.[8] Mr. Wilson was not rigorously cross-examined, while other witnesses were subject to extensive and aggressive cross-examination.

An Assistant District Attorney gave inaccurate and misleading instructions to the Grand Jury at the beginning of the proceeding regarding controlling law on whether officers can kill a fleeing suspect without considering the officer’s fear of life. She cited a Missouri statute that had been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985.[9] She corrected the record weeks after citing the wrong statute and long after Officer Wilson had testified.

The prosecutors did not suggest which charges the grand jury should consider, instead leaving it to the grand jurors to decide.

The grand jury’s no true bill decision was announced late in the evening after several public announcements that a decision was imminent.

The transcripts of the grand jury were released to the public immediately after the no true bill was announced. By contrast, grand jury proceedings are sealed in most states and their secrecy is protected by non-disclosure laws that usually involve criminal penalties for disclosure. In Missouri, for instance, § 540.320 of the Missouri Statutes states that “No grand juror shall disclose any evidence given before the grand jury” and provides that “any juror violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a class A misdemeanor.” It is extremely rare for grand jury transcripts to be publicly available.

Do grand jury proceedings tend to be different in police shooting cases?

In many jurisdictions, a grand jury often is convened to review every police-involved homicide. A prosecutor who, while accountable to an electorate, must also rely on the police department to bring him cases, will frequently find it very useful to attribute a decision not to bring criminal charges to the grand jury. This means that police shootings will sometimes be presented to a grand jury in a situation where, had a civilian been involved, the prosecutor would have made no presentation.

State grand juries tend to be more likely to excuse a police officer in the shooting death of an unarmed civilian, due to broad definitions of deadly force and the rules about when it is justified. In Houston, Texas, for example, local grand juries have cleared police of shooting civilians 288 consecutive times.[10] This is tends to be the case in Missouri, as a result of the extraordinary deference in Missouri law to police officer discretion. Missouri Revised Statutes § 563authorizes deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” if the officer “reasonably believes” it is necessary in order to “to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony…or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”[11]

Is it common for grand juries in St. Louis County to issue indictments in recent police shooting cases?

From 1976-2012, FBI data show that there were 186 fatal shootings by police officers in St. Louis County. Police reported self-defense (“felon attacked officer”) in 77 of these killings (41.3%). In another 15 (8.1%), the shooting took place when the “felon attacked a fellow officer”. The rest of the circumstances included fleeing felons (before Garner), shootings during the commission of a crime, or shootings while one person attacked another.

From 1990-2012, the year before Bob McCulloch became Prosecuting Attorney in St. Louis County, there were 112 fatal shootings of civilians by police, officers. 80 (71.4%) of the victims were Black.

From 2005-2012, there have been 53 fatal shootings of civilians by police officers in that 8 year period, 28.5% of the total of 186 since 1976. In that period, 37 (69.8%) of the victims in those shootings were Black.

Since Bob McCulloch took over as prosecutor in 1991, 33 police officers have been prosecuted in criminal cases, resulting in 20 convictions (5 cases are pending).[12] Four cases of police killings of citizens while on the job have been presented to St. Louis County grand juries. No indictments of police officers were returned in any of those cases. The Michael Brown killing is the fifth such case without an indictment.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby K-R » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:09 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The US has an adversarial system. The Prosecutor's job is supposed to be to indict Darren Wilson. Remember, this was a Grand Jury proceeding. This was NOT a trial. The prosecutor was supposed to be demonstrating probable cause in the case.

No, that's not a prosecutor's job or what a prosecutor is supposed to do. Apart from the specific portions of the professional rules of conduct that I quoted above, the very notion of prosecutorial discretion is that a prosecutor's job is not to go out and get indictments whenever she can.

I don't know if this gets addressed in the two pages since this post, but: either the prosecutor should exercise prosecutorial discretion and not go to the grand jury, or the prosecutor should aim to indict Darren Wilson. Exercising prosecutorial discretion by presenting evidence for the defence, in order to get a No True Bill, is absolutely not the prosecutor's job and is just goddamn stupid.

A prosecutor sandbagging the case helps absolutely nobody. A prosecutor shouldn't be trying cases, or taking cases to the grand jury, if he doesn't believe he'll win, nor should he be doing so if he doesn't want to win.

Similarly, I have a bit of trouble with the notion that a high percentage of indictments coming out of a grand jury is a bad thing, because in an ideal world prosecutors shouldn't be taking cases there if they can't clear that bar.

Beltayn
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:54 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Beltayn » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:31 am UTC

Here is my prediction on what the narrative is going to be rationalizing the lack of indictment of Eric Garner's killer:

1) "Eric Garner was fat and had asthma. He died because he suffered a heart attack or and athsma attack or choked somehow on his own, due to stress from the encounter, and not due to the cop's arm around his neck. In other words, his death while being detained was entirely coincidental, and not a result of the actions of the cop."
1a) "As evidence to the above, he repeatedly said 'I can't breath'. If you really can't breath, you wouldn't be able to speak."

2) "It wasn't actually a chokehold. The cop's arm was around Eric Garner's neck, but it wasn't tight around his neck. The forearm was parallel to Eric Garner's shoulders and out in front. The intent and effect was more to control Garner's body, than to choke him."
2a) "Eric Garner was resisting arrest."

Let's see if I'm right.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:09 am UTC

The system is broken. And this from Ars Technia sums it up.
In Eric Garner's case, legal experts have said that the District Attorney involved, Dan Donovan, likely had little impetus to indict Pantaleo. "It’s politically costly for Dan Donovan to indict a police officer on Staten Island," Jeffrey Fagan, a criminal law professor at Columbia told Gothamist. "He can easily shift the political and legal burden to the Department of Justice to decide whether to pursue criminal charges. He’s washed his hands of it."


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests