Police misbehavior thread

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:46 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:You could, you know, fire him and choose not to hire those like him for being uncorrectably incompetent at his fundamental job requirement of impartial, lawful application of the law.


Firstly I don't see how firing him is a procedure change, nor do I see justification in doing so for him being a racist or the like, from any of the evidence we've seen. Institutional racism almost certainly played a role in this situation. I'm not sure how you go about punishing someone for that though. If he did indeed feel more threatened by Brown because he was black, how would we determine that? He certainly didn't say that. Hell it might even just be subconcious.

New procedure: if a cop cannot practice their job without racial profiling, fire them.

It's not even a question of "does this make them a bad person" -- the chief duty of a cop is to make sure that the law is applied impartially and fairly. If they can't do that, they are fundamentally incompetent for the job.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
rath358
The bone of my bone
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:02 am UTC
Location: west Camberville

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby rath358 » Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:59 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Chen wrote:Police being investigated as thoroughly as non-police when it comes to self-defense (or defense of others) is certainly a must. Clearly dash/body cameras would be a huge boon too. I'm not convinced a flat monetary penalty (the unpaid leave) regardless of whether its justified or not is ok though. Imagine a case similar to this one where the evidence was a bit more concrete but still went to a Grand Jury. Seems like it'd be a bit long to deprive someone of their salary, especially if it turns out in the end the person was justified in the killing.
So reimburse some portion of it if the ruling is that it was justified.

I'm sorry for caring less about whether a cop gets months of paid vacation than I do about the fact that he killed a person.

It just sucks because losing a couple of weeks salary that you may or may not get back in three months could make it really difficult for the officer to make rent or whatever. I sort of like the idea of a hard penalty to make them think twice, but would be worried about negative ramifications if such a penalty is applied arbitrarily. I suppose there are probably ways to mitigate the financial shock, like withholding a bonus or paying minimum wage during the suspended period or whatever

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 » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:08 pm UTC

I feel it's interesting people are suggesting that pay penalties for cops who kill suspects in a manner that requires an investigation is a problem

You realize the tax payer is paying these people's salaries, right? Cops can totally buy into some kind of malpractice like insurance to help mitigate financial loss due to any investigations that may cut into their salaries. Such a service would probably incentivize cops to shoot people less, since every time they have to be investigated they're costing not the tax payer, but their fellow cops money.

This line of argument strikes me akin to complaining that putting cameras on all cops is too expensive. Please, compare the cost of putting a shitty lapel cam on cops to the cost of murder investigations. Of court hearings. Tell us again how expensive copcams would be.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Zcorp » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:17 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:New procedure: if a cop cannot practice their job without racial profiling, fire them.

It's not even a question of "does this make them a bad person" -- the chief duty of a cop is to make sure that the law is applied impartially and fairly. If they can't do that, they are fundamentally incompetent for the job.

A lot of the problem relates to people much bigger than the average street cop. Stop and Frisk was implemented by the Police chief and expanded upon by request of multiple mayors.

Before we can even imagine getting the hire ups to fire the low level enforcers for terrible behavior, we have to elect and replace the people at the top who create, incite and perpetuate terrible behavior.

This thread is valuable for gaining greater perspective on how broken our justice system, laws and enforcement policies are. However, like just about everything else in America it can only actually be solved from the top. Which in theory is controlled by the people, but we know that's not really true, especially as we remain so apathetic.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10329
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:41 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:New procedure: if a cop cannot practice their job without racial profiling, fire them.

It's not even a question of "does this make them a bad person" -- the chief duty of a cop is to make sure that the law is applied impartially and fairly. If they can't do that, they are fundamentally incompetent for the job.

A lot of the problem relates to people much bigger than the average street cop. Stop and Frisk was implemented by the Police chief and expanded upon by request of multiple mayors.

Before we can even imagine getting the hire ups to fire the low level enforcers for terrible behavior, we have to elect and replace the people at the top who create, incite and perpetuate terrible behavior.

This thread is valuable for gaining greater perspective on how broken our justice system, laws and enforcement policies are. However, like just about everything else in America it can only actually be solved from the top. Which in theory is controlled by the people, but we know that's not really true, especially as we remain so apathetic.

Before we can even imagine getting the hire ups to fire the low level enforcers for terrible behavior, we have to elect and replace the people at the top who create, incite and perpetuate terrible behavior.

But! We Can't Do That!
That's not Fair!

We can not elect people that will represent us and do it while Hiring and Firing Authority Figures.
Why?

Because! Damn it!
By the time a person gets their butt in a position of power, they are tied and gagged if not by Blinding Fear, then by Money!
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.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Zcorp » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:49 pm UTC

addams wrote:
Zcorp wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:New procedure: if a cop cannot practice their job without racial profiling, fire them.

It's not even a question of "does this make them a bad person" -- the chief duty of a cop is to make sure that the law is applied impartially and fairly. If they can't do that, they are fundamentally incompetent for the job.

A lot of the problem relates to people much bigger than the average street cop. Stop and Frisk was implemented by the Police chief and expanded upon by request of multiple mayors.

Before we can even imagine getting the hire ups to fire the low level enforcers for terrible behavior, we have to elect and replace the people at the top who create, incite and perpetuate terrible behavior.

This thread is valuable for gaining greater perspective on how broken our justice system, laws and enforcement policies are. However, like just about everything else in America it can only actually be solved from the top. Which in theory is controlled by the people, but we know that's not really true, especially as we remain so apathetic.

Before we can even imagine getting the hire ups to fire the low level enforcers for terrible behavior, we have to elect and replace the people at the top who create, incite and perpetuate terrible behavior.

But! We Can't Do That!
That's not Fair!

We can not elect people that will represent us and do it while Hiring and Firing Authority Figures.
Why?

Because! Damn it!
By the time a person gets their butt in a position of power, they are tied and gagged if not by Blinding Fear, then by Money!

Further discussion on this subject will move us off topic but yes. It sucks.
Which is why we actually need to care about education, why it needs to be priority one in every election. With campaign finance reform right behind it possibly, as it seems there are good arguments for this actually changing some things. Instead we keep getting distracted by getting stuck in small stupid fights instead of focusing on the big ones.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10329
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:29 pm UTC

yeah. ok.
Education First.

The Police People in this Nation must Prove they have an Education, every so often.

We have Got to start testing those guys in a Public way.
We have Got to shine a light on the boring yet necessary training and education those guys get.

How? oh, How?
How about we back way up and catch up with The World?

Every little Boy and Girl, in many if not most Nations, have Police Training as a Rite of Passage.
They serve their Nations and The World as beautiful malleable younglings. We could do that.

That would make almost everyone an Insider.
From the Inside we can soften our fist.
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.

Indy
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Indy » Tue Dec 02, 2014 10:52 pm UTC

Am I right in understanding that US police officers who shoot and kill someone are not automatically subject to a review by an independent body? Because that sounds like a recipe for disaster. And mistrust, and corruption, and all the bad things.

Zcorp wrote:Instead we keep getting distracted by getting stuck in small stupid fights instead of focusing on the big ones.


I see what you're saying, but forests are made up of trees. In order to improve policy we need to examine both the broader statistics and individual cases to see where justice was or was not done. The Wilson-Brown matter serves to highlight a host of issues that might normally pass under the radar. Particular cases set precedents, so if this one gets dealt with rightly it could lay a good foundation for future decisions.

Spoiler:
I would love to see a change to (what seems to me as an outsider) the crazy US gun obsession. New Zealand police don't usually carry guns.
Manuka in bloom may breed despair

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:16 pm UTC

leady wrote:Sure he may have made a mistake, but you have to show where and how such a mistake occurred and the evidence for it.

What about the fact that he killed someone, you fucking despicable racist piece of crap?

Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you just trolling, or are you really so bigoted that you think killing people is perfectly fine as long as they are black or poor or from some otherwise not important sub-group?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:05 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
leady wrote:Sure he may have made a mistake, but you have to show where and how such a mistake occurred and the evidence for it.

What about the fact that he killed someone, you fucking despicable racist piece of crap?

Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you just trolling, or are you really so bigoted that you think killing people is perfectly fine as long as they are black or poor or from some otherwise not important sub-group?

No, he thinks it's perfectly fine to kill someone so long as they deserve it. Leady is refusing to admit that racism has any part in it, so it's perfectly ok for cops to continue to mistakenly kill black people. Others think there is racism, but you should only prosecute cops who kill the equivalent of black Jesus. Well, bad example, he was often found near prostitutes, probably a pimp and deserved to be shot for being so threatening.
In either case, nobody gets punished, and nothing changes.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:11 am UTC

Chen wrote:What exactly is the point of a Grand Jury? From what I've been reading they're usually criticized in the opposite direction, in that they usually result in indictments. I'm not clear why there's this mini pre-trial where only one side, the prosecution, gets to basically be involved. Especially if the prosecution can, in general, just lay charges without a grand jury.


There's really not much point anymore; the federal and state systems have gutted the power of the grand jury until, in effect, they are the purest of rubber stamps (though the pendulum is starting to swing the other way in some states). Nevertheless, the form remains, because it is a mandatory Right under the U.S. Constitution (Fifth Amendment):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, [...]

The US Supreme Court, in Mackin v. United States, held that, "a federal crime punishable by imprisonment in a prison or penitentiary, with or without hard labor, is an infamous crime." Google says, "felony [is] a crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death." Taking these in combination, therefore a felony is an infamous crime.

In the federal government, and in most states (including apparently Missouri) the prosecutor has absolute control over the proceeding, decides unilaterally what evidence is presented and which witnesses are heard, usually presents only culpable evidence, is allowed to present hearsay, and tells the grand jury how the law applies. In the shortest form, he says, "This man is guilty under the law," and the jury then decides on that basis whether there is probable cause to believe "this man" committed a crime, which he obviously did. In the federal level, the result is uniformly true bills; the 11-of-162,000 cases where the prosecutor is handed a dunce cap, can be regarded as mere glitches. The process is so proforma these days that indictment is often waived by defendants (more than half the time at the state level).

Above, I reported on my attempts to find stats on state-level indictments, in which I drew a blank. However, saying that the states are "much less successful than the federal government" is saying nothing at all, since pretty much anything is less than the federal government's success rate of 99.993%. Perhaps Missouri only has a 99% percent success rate; and that neither gives a defendant comfort, nor does it satisfactorily explain the failure to indict Wilson.

That failure probably was due to McCulloch's presentation of exculpatory (defense) evidence, which is almost unheard of in grand juries (as far as I can tell, he had no duty to do this under Missouri law) and a gross error in law presented to the jurors, corrected in a confusing manner. Give McCulloch a dunce cap: All he had to do was say, "Wilson is guilty under the law," and...indictment.

Trebla wrote:The internet tells me (and this may vary by jurisdiction) that a grand jury must indict before a person can be charged with a felony. Just an extra safeguards to protect people from senseless prosecution, maybe?


As grand juries were originally constituted under English common law, the grand jury conducted its own inquiry. The prosecutor would not be allowed to be present most of the time; the jury could investigate anyone it wished; call witnesses it required; and issue presentments. The latter meant, for example, that the grand jury could literally decide not only that the defendant was innocent (by refusing to indict), but could report that the prosecutor was guilty of malicious prosecution and probably get him prosecuted. That's probably the main reason grand juries were reined in by the states: Too many challenges to authority.
In all fairness...

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Zcorp » Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:22 am UTC

Indy wrote:Am I right in understanding that US police officers who shoot and kill someone are not automatically subject to a review by an independent body? Because that sounds like a recipe for disaster. And mistrust, and corruption, and all the bad things.

Some of them, and then often the review is a half-hearted attempt. This Ferguson case and the lack of effort from the prosecutor to get the indictment feel pretty par for the course for a lot of things here. Police do something stupid or abusive and the system protects them.

Zcorp wrote:Instead we keep getting distracted by getting stuck in small stupid fights instead of focusing on the big ones.


I see what you're saying, but forests are made up of trees. In order to improve policy we need to examine both the broader statistics and individual cases to see where justice was or was not done. The Wilson-Brown matter serves to highlight a host of issues that might normally pass under the radar. Particular cases set precedents, so if this one gets dealt with rightly it could lay a good foundation for future decisions.

Agreed, however as much as Wilson should be put on trial for his actions, that won't fix the greater issue. We can slowly force our way through these incidents, fighting each one to gain small ground on citizen vs police behavior. Another example is the DHS refusal videos, enforcement frequently overstep their bounds in significant ways and average people don't know how to handle it or just comply so they lessen the harassment. However, what really needs to happen is people becoming informed enough, resistant enough to manipulation and feeling like they are empowered enough to actually participate in the democracy, and then do so. This only happens through education, through teaching history, philosophy, at least enough psychology to be somewhat self-aware and greater thinking skills. Otherwise we win one fight, and they subtly expand power somewhere else and we have to fight another.

CIA Waterboarding to PRISM+ is a great example of consistent overreach that we keep having to fight against.

I would love to see a change to (what seems to me as an outsider) the crazy US gun obsession. New Zealand police don't usually carry guns.

It is more of a culture of fear. A culture where we are consistently told how terrible things are and how we should be scared. Then all evidence suggest that the people who are supposed to actually be dealing with that are consistently incompetent, lie to us, trample our rights and all the while they are making the world hate us.

The desire to have guns is a byproduct of that and a history of freedom, hunting and a respect for the skill of use and skill of craft in making them.

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:30 am UTC

Assume for a moment that instead of a Grand Jury that the DA had taken the issue to court in a preliminary hearing instead of a Grand Jury, does anyone think that a judge would have taken it to trial. And had he, that there was sufficient evidence(beyond reasonable doubt) that Wilson had committed murder. And would anything but a conviction stop the protests. I know what the legal scholars I have read have said. They took the man that shot Trayvon Martin to court and lost. George Zimmerman was acquitted. And he was a private citizen.

Coyne wrote:That's probably the main reason grand juries were reined in by the states: Too many challenges to authority.
Yeah there is a lot of that going around. If the Wikipedia is to be believed we are the only ones still kicking that dog.

Diadem wrote:you fucking despicable racist piece of crap?
I see you think like The Mighty Thesaurus.

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 2:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Chen wrote:Police being investigated as thoroughly as non-police when it comes to self-defense (or defense of others) is certainly a must. Clearly dash/body cameras would be a huge boon too. I'm not convinced a flat monetary penalty (the unpaid leave) regardless of whether its justified or not is ok though. Imagine a case similar to this one where the evidence was a bit more concrete but still went to a Grand Jury. Seems like it'd be a bit long to deprive someone of their salary, especially if it turns out in the end the person was justified in the killing.
So reimburse some portion of it if the ruling is that it was justified.

I'm sorry for caring less about whether a cop gets months of paid vacation than I do about the fact that he killed a person.

Surely you recognize the difference between thinking that we should find someone guilty before punishing them and "caring more" about a mild punishment than a heinous crime.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:04 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Chen wrote:Police being investigated as thoroughly as non-police when it comes to self-defense (or defense of others) is certainly a must. Clearly dash/body cameras would be a huge boon too. I'm not convinced a flat monetary penalty (the unpaid leave) regardless of whether its justified or not is ok though. Imagine a case similar to this one where the evidence was a bit more concrete but still went to a Grand Jury. Seems like it'd be a bit long to deprive someone of their salary, especially if it turns out in the end the person was justified in the killing.
So reimburse some portion of it if the ruling is that it was justified.

I'm sorry for caring less about whether a cop gets months of paid vacation than I do about the fact that he killed a person.

Surely you recognize the difference between thinking that we should find someone guilty before punishing them and "caring more" about a mild punishment than a heinous crime.

It depends if you are a believer in shaping of human behavior, even despicable ones. If docking the pay of racists cops reduces the death rate in young blacks, it might have merit. The hard part is its complete fantasy, and thus data is very hard to come by.

Indy
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Indy » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:18 am UTC

Spoilered for OT
Spoiler:
Zcorp wrote:The desire to have guns is a byproduct of [a culture of fear] and a history of freedom, hunting and a respect for the skill of use and skill of craft in making them.


That's part of what's so strange, that in the US gun-toting is indicative of freedom in theory and of fear in practice. You'd expect freedom from fear to be high up on everyone's list of desirable liberties. Yeah, it's a complicated part of the national psyche and can't be magicked away. I guess we'll have to take your more difficult road of education, and lots of it. Producing critical thinkers who know their history would go a long way to fixing things.
Manuka in bloom may breed despair

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 3:56 am UTC

Coyne wrote:Above, I reported on my attempts to find stats on state-level indictments, in which I drew a blank. However, saying that the states are "much less successful than the federal government" is saying nothing at all, since pretty much anything is less than the federal government's success rate of 99.993%. Perhaps Missouri only has a 99% percent success rate; and that neither gives a defendant comfort, nor does it satisfactorily explain the failure to indict Wilson.

Or maybe Missouri has a 75% percent "success" rate. I take it that if you're going to raise questions about explaining an unusual event, it's on you to show that the event is actually unusual.

As for the idea that a true bill is "success," I reject the premise, along with the suggestion that prosecutors ought to ignore exculpatory evidence for the sake of getting indictments. A prosecutor has an ethical responsibility to refrain from pursuing charges which she knows are "not supported by probable cause" (ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct) or cannot "be substantiated by admissible evidence at trial" (NDAA National Prosecution Standards). If anything, prosecutors should be more willing to present exculpatory evidence before grand juries. I can't see why anyone would want them to slide the other way, to cherry-picking the evidence presented to the grand jury when the full body of evidence would undermine their case.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10329
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:26 am UTC

Indy wrote:Spoilered for OT
Spoiler:
Zcorp wrote:The desire to have guns is a byproduct of [a culture of fear] and a history of freedom, hunting and a respect for the skill of use and skill of craft in making them.


That's part of what's so strange, that in the US gun-toting is indicative of freedom in theory and of fear in practice. You'd expect freedom from fear to be high up on everyone's list of desirable liberties. Yeah, it's a complicated part of the national psyche and can't be magicked away. I guess we'll have to take your more difficult road of education, and lots of it. Producing critical thinkers who know their history would go a long way to fixing things.


Yes.
Spoiler:
Yes. A person would think that Freedom from Fear would be high on our list of important stuff.
It was for a while.

The Four Freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear


We wanted to be The Good Guys.
We did not have Wi-Fi. Radio was for Fancy City People.
That speech was published in the News Paper in its entirety.

Not all people in all homes gave a flying fuck.
In many homes those things were read out loud and discussed.
Fat chance that would happen, today.

Those words were uplifting.
We were pulling together for the good of our people and for the good of the world.
It was ennobling.

Looking back in context; I don't know...
We listened to those words, and we walked into a World War.


Well...Our hearts were in the right place, I guess.
We ran full speed ahead into a World War we started in the 21st century.

Guns are a fearful machine.
Spoiler:
Jeeze.
Guns and a lot of them Do Not make people safer.
And; I know for a Fact, Guns and a lot of them Do Not make most people feel safer.

We do an awful lot of Saber Rattling.
I know in many American communities it is best to have it be known, "Yes. I have a Gun. Yes. I know how to use it and will use it."
People don't have any respect for a person that can not and will not Kick Their Ass. I know it sounds bad. It IS bad.

I know this to be Fact.
Having a bunch of Guns around in irresponsible hands does not leave a person with that relaxed Peaceful feeling.

Take courage.
Here is a funny little thing I have noticed.

Most civilians shoot people they know.
Hardly ever do we go off shooting strangers.

If your friends are AssHoles and You are an AssHole your chances of being shot go way up.
The house I am siting in at this very moment has history.
Three drug dealers had a Drug Dealer's Hoe Down, here.

I love this story. It cracks me up.
I've met two of these Drug Dealers.

They are Horrible to one another.
They would treat you worse.

Back to The Story.
The Drug Dealer's Hoe Down was a night of bickering and fighting.
There were shots fired, then one of them Roared away in a car.

That one got to thinking about 'Things'.
He came back and tried to shoot his little friend while his little friend was standing at the kitchen sink.

This is the funny part.
He Missed!

At night at any range the stupid Drug Dealer wanted; He Missed.

I was not here, at the time.
I've heard the story from several sources.

I think of it from Time to Time.
That window is still broken.
It is the window I look through when I do dishes.

It's a wonder there are not more Gun Deaths.
We are not good shots.

Everyone thinks they are good shots.
Most of us are Wrong.

As the rest of the US fixes the Wilson vs The People case,
I will prattle on about what I have seen with my own eyes.

In one Police agency, the Office Staff acts with integrity and belief in the Officers.
That belief is not well placed. Terrible things go on and are not seen. (shameful)

In another Police agency, the Officers are pretty darned good.
The Office staff sabotages them. That is shameful, too.

I think the US needs help.
Think about what a Big Job fixing this would be.

There is no shame in asking for help.
No one, not even a Big Weak Nation like the US, can go it alone.
Last edited by addams on Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:56 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:30 am UTC

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:
Image
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)

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:36 am UTC

Personally speaking, I don't think you're gonna get me there gmalivuk. That example in particular seems a bit nitpicky.

But instead of focusing on this minor disagreement between us... I'm going to move towards the Lets go to the root of the problem.

http://pando.com/2014/11/25/officer-dar ... -requires/

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. Why then, was Darren Wilson called to testify during his Grand Jury proceeding? You can look at the transcripts all you like, or claim that the Jury was rigged. But that is missing the problem. The problem is that in this particular case, the prosecutor was not an adversary. The prosecutor, the representative of the people, was not an adversary to Darren Wilson.

Where prosecutors have before gone too far (Ex: Aaron Swartz), the prosecutor here was far too lenient.

Darren Wilson should not have been called in as a witness. That should have been saved for the trial. Darren Wilson's testimony is irrelevant for demonstrating probable cause.

The injustice occurred right there. If you or I went to trial, we would not be allowed to testify during our Grand Jury proceeding.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/expl ... s-unusual/
In this case, the prosecutor did not bring charges against Darren Wilson. Instead, the prosecutor used the grand jury in an investigative role to determine whether to indict Darren Wilson. Under existing law, the prosecutor has discretion to proceed in this way. Unlike a regular grand jury hearing where a prosecutor presents just enough evidence to support probable cause, the grand jury heard all of the evidence that the prosecutor had on the case as it considered.

[snip]

Indeed, in United States v. Williams(1992), the US Supreme Court observed that the accused neither has a right to testify nor to have the prosecution present exculpatory evidence (favorable to the defendent) to the grand jury.


TL;DR: The prosecutor was not trying to prosecute. Darren Wilson is not a witness for the prosecution, and the prosecution did a very poor job representing the people's concerns.

PS: Darren Wilson did not have a trail. This was supposed to be an initial hearing designed to make sure that the prosecutor has a case before the trial begins. Remember that: Darren Wilson never even got to trial under the current system.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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 5:57 am UTC

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.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:21 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.


Yes, I recognize that it is the prosecutor's discretion to determine which cases he or she should follow. For example, in the Federal Government, Eric Holder can go lenient with "prosecutorial discretion" to go easy on the War on Drugs or Immigration issues. Its within the power of the prosecutors / attorney of the state to prioritize which cases get through, and which ones they should be more lenient with. I recognize that.

What I'm saying is Robert McCulloch failed his county and failed his constituents. He went too lenient on Darren Wilson. He SHOULD have been pushing for trial much much harder than what he did.

Now note, the St. Louis county prosecutor position (held by Robert McCulloch) is a democratically elected position. So the answer is pretty damn simple actually. Vote him out. He failed his constituents here, so his constituents should vote him out. Its that simple.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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 6:24 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:What I'm saying is Robert McCulloch failed his county and failed his constituents.

What you actually said is that McCulloch has an obligation to do things that are in fact contrary to his duties as a prosecutor.

If you want to instead say that he should have pushed harder for an indictment, then give an actual argument for that. One that isn't predicated on patent falsehoods about the role of prosecutors in the justice system.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:36 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:What I'm saying is Robert McCulloch failed his county and failed his constituents.

What you actually said is that McCulloch has an obligation to do things that are in fact contrary to his duties as a prosecutor.

If you want to instead say that he should have pushed harder for an indictment, then give an actual argument for that. One that isn't predicated on patent falsehoods about the role of prosecutors in the justice system.


Okay, fine then.

The only one who can push for an indictment is the Prosecutor Robert McCulloch. Period. The Judge doesn't investigate. The Jury itself also is just there to make a decision. The only one making an argument, on behalf of the people... was Robert McCulloch (and his team). The fact that Robert McCulloch allowed Darren Wilson to testify to the Grand Jury is pretty damn rare.

Now that I'm using the correct terminology, lay off. Do you dispute my primary point?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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 6:41 am UTC

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.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:34 am UTC

Hmm.... this is a very unusual case. Not only because of the Grand Jury Exculpatory Evidence and all, but also because of how thorough the investigation was.

EDIT: The infographic is filled with inconsistencies. (Note the dates: 8/9 was the incident, but one of the dates is claimed to be wtf 8/5. Darren Wilson's testimony is also incorrectly dated as 8/19. Darren Wilson's interview was conducted on 8/10 however)
Spoiler:
Image


I'll give you this point: the Prosecution conducting as large and wide-scale of an investigation like this is unprecedented. Furthermore, the majority of witnesses agree that Brown attacked Darren Wilson in the car when the first shot went off. Furthermore, most say Brown charged at the Darren Wilson. So be that what it may, Brown attacked Darren Wilson.

One particular witness independently recreated Darren Wilson's perspective almost entirely. This Witness #10 holds some very special weight... especially because they were recorded so close to the event. (Witness #10: dated 8/11.

Darren Wilson's initial interview is dated 8/10, which is one day after the incident.

The raw interviews and data can be found here: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson ... dence.html

PBS Newshour made the graphic: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/new ... -shooting/
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:53 am UTC, edited 4 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:38 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Diadem wrote:
leady wrote:Sure he may have made a mistake, but you have to show where and how such a mistake occurred and the evidence for it.

What about the fact that he killed someone, you fucking despicable racist piece of crap?

Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you just trolling, or are you really so bigoted that you think killing people is perfectly fine as long as they are black or poor or from some otherwise not important sub-group?

No, he thinks it's perfectly fine to kill someone so long as they deserve it. Leady is refusing to admit that racism has any part in it, so it's perfectly ok for cops to continue to mistakenly kill black people.

You're being way too charitable to leady. He explicitly said he does not think the cop made a mistake. I mean the guy was black and did not immediately comply to the cop's every whim. Of course he deserved to die.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:43 am UTC

Diadem: There are 6 witnesses that claim that Michael Brown was doing something to Darren Wilson's car at the driver's seat.

That's pretty fucking clear evidence that Michael Brown was doing stuff he wasn't supposed to be doing. IE: He was assaulting a police officer at the very least. Lets keep the facts straight.

EDIT: I'm seeing claims that the first gunshot wound was on Michael Brown's hand, when the gun went off in the car. Apparently Michael Brown tried to grab the gun, which got him shot in the hand at that time. I'll double-check this real quick...

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... rt-01.html
The deceased body sustained multiple gunshot wounds; [snip] One (1) wound to the inside of his right hand near his thumb and palm


Collaborating with Darren Wilson's Interview on 8/10 (one day after the incident), and multiple accounts from numerous witnesses that state that the first gunshot was within the confines of the Police Car.

Um, I tried again. It fired. When it fired, my window had been down the entire
time. Glass shot up. The first thing I remember seeing is glass flying and blood
all over my right hand on the back side of my hand. Um, he looked like he was
shocked initially but, and he paused for a second and then he came back into my
vehicle and attempted to hit me multiple times.


(Talking about the first gunshot within the car. Page 8 of Darren Wilson's Interview)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:55 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:45 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:What I'm saying is Robert McCulloch failed his county and failed his constituents.

What you actually said is that McCulloch has an obligation to do things that are in fact contrary to his duties as a prosecutor.

If you want to instead say that he should have pushed harder for an indictment, then give an actual argument for that. One that isn't predicated on patent falsehoods about the role of prosecutors in the justice system.


The prosecutor's job is to bring those who commit crimes to trial and present evidence against them, so as to obtain a conviction. Nothing else.

Of course, if McCulloch truly believed that Wilson was innocent, his correct course of action was to DTP (decline to prosecute) in effect refusing to bring it before a grand jury.

The apparent kid gloves to the Wilson grand jury is not just McCulloch, not unusual. Nationwide, we see a similar pattern: Prosecutors that are fire-breathing dragons when it comes to turning possession of a "joint" into a indictment for "intent to sell" (40 years) all of a sudden turn into Captain Pathetic when it comes to indicting a police officer, even for murder. In that, I guess, McCulloch isn't unusual...but that doesn't make it right.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:As for the idea that a true bill is "success," I reject the premise, along with the suggestion that prosecutors ought to ignore exculpatory evidence for the sake of getting indictments.

Prosecutors have a job. If the prosecutor seeks an indictment as part of that job and the grand jury refuses a true bill, that is regarded as a failure on the part of the prosecutor. Therefore, prosecutors regard indictments as "success" and it only makes sense therefore to use terms like "success rate" or "failure rate". Your rejection is pure nit-picking.

And I agree with you about exculpatory evidence, but this is the way it is. From Justice Scalia's opinon on whether or not a prosecutor must (as opposed to should) present exculpatory evidence: "As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

Got that? You have no Constitutional right to have your exculpatory evidence heard by the grand jury. It is entirely up to the prosecutor whether it is heard or not, and if the prosecutor presents it he gets a failure, so he doesn't. The federal rate is 99.993% precisely for this reason; federal grand juries are literally kangaroo juries. At the state level, only a handful of "reform" states require presentation of exculpatory evidence; in the "traditional" states it is routinely omitted, just like it is at the federal level.

(Three guesses whether Missouri is a "reform" or "traditional" state and the first two don't count. Search Missouri Revised Statutes chapter 540 if you're interested.)
In all fairness...

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 7:54 am UTC

Coyne wrote:Of course, if McCulloch truly believed that Wilson was innocent, his correct course of action was to DTP (decline to prosecute) in effect refusing to bring it before a grand jury.

I agree, but that would be a complaint for Wilson to raise against McCulloch. It wouldn't support the claim that Wilson was allowed to walk without facing a proper investigation. It would support the claim that the case only made it to the grand jury in the first place because of popular pressure.

Coyne wrote:The apparent kid gloves to the Wilson grand jury is not just McCulloch, not unusual. Nationwide, we see a similar pattern: Prosecutors that are fire-breathing dragons when it comes to turning possession of a "joint" into a indictment for "intent to sell" (40 years) all of a sudden turn into Captain Pathetic when it comes to indicting a police officer, even for murder. In that, I guess, McCulloch isn't unusual...but that doesn't make it right.

Sure. Prosecutors should exercise more restraint. And in many cases they should be more aggressive in prosecuting police officers. It is, for example, abominable when charges are dropped after an officer is caught on camera assaulting someone. But I don't think they should start pursuing more cases where the evidence isn't on their side, for the sake of leveling things out or whatever. As someone who follows some news about how things are normally done, I'm amazed to see people inferring that this grand jury was improper from the fact that it was unusual.

Coyne wrote:Prosecutors have a job. If the prosecutor seeks an indictment as part of that job and the grand jury refuses a true bill, that is regarded as a failure on the part of the prosecutor. Therefore, prosecutors regard indictments as "success" and it only makes sense therefore to use terms like "success rate" or "failure rate". Your rejection is pure nit-picking.

If the prosecutor seeks an indictment, right, that's a failure; that's the definition of a failure. But prosecutors don't always recommend indictments, right? This case, as I understand it, was unusual, but not unprecedented. So insofar as the suggestion is that an indictment is something that McCulloch was or ought to have been pursuing, that's a nit I'll gladly pick.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:25 am UTC

I can see why a lot of blogs are talking about this Witness #10 guy. His story really does match up exactly what Darren Wilson said.

I took my tools, went into I came back outside to get some
more stuff and I looked down the street and I seen the police car at a slant and I
seen Mr. Brown in the window of the police car looked. . . it appeared as they
were wrestling through the window and one gunshot had let off. And, Mr.
Brown took off running and my first thought was like ?oh my gosh? did I
actually just witness a police officer being murdered because it took a while for
the police officer to get out of the car and pursue the-the suspect. And, I wanna
say maybe six seconds, but it seemed like it was forever after the-the-the first
gunshot. So, the police officer exited the vehicle with his weapon drawn
pursuing Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was quite a distance and he stopped and when
he stopped, he didn?t get down on the ground or anything. He turned around
and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or
anything. I can?t recall the movement that he did. I?m not sure if he pulled his
pants up or?or whatever he did butI seen some type of movement and he started
charging towards the police officer. The police officer then returned fire, well,
not returned fire, open fire on Mr. Brown. Um, if I had to guess the shots and
the-the distance between him and, a, Mr. Brown, it would have to be five to ten
yards and the shots that were fired was four, five to six shots fired and Mr.
Brown was still standing up. Um, and my thoughts was while he's missing this
guy this close, is he-is he hitting him or because Mr. Brown there was no
reaction from him to show that he was been hit. Um, after that, Mr. Brown then
paused. He-he-he stopped running and when he stopped running the police
officer stopped firing. And, then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge
towards him and after that the police officer returned fire and um well not
returned, I'm using wrong. . .a started to fire once more at him. Um, if I had to
guess the rounds that were fired then it would be four to five more shots and
after that Mr. Brown collapsed and fell to the ground.


Witness #10 stands out. It is among the most detailed report (aside from Darren Wilson's), and it almost perfectly matches up with Darren's. (Darren Wilson story also contains the "charge - stop - charge" detail).

Witness #32 has one of the best detailed reports, until the witness heard the gunshot and ducked inside of a car for cover. Ugggghhh. All #32 saw was the fight by the driver-side window, heard the first gunshot, and then #32 hid inside his/her car. (and heard 3 or 4 more gunshots after that).

A lot of the other witnesses were like "Then I ran to get my phone to record it, but when I got back it was all over" (Witness 12, Witness 16). Witness #14 is quite detailed though, but the earliest date on that person is like 8/12 or so. Witness #10 is the earliest and most detailed simultaneously. (8/11). BTW: The PBS Graphic has horribly wrong typs. The incident occured on 8/9. Darren Wilson's account was on 8/10. They dated one of the accounts (Witness #14) as 8/5, but that's just blatantly wrong (a witness testamony before the event?) Come on PBS, fix them typos. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Anyway, just double-check those dates on the infographic. Its useful, but I'm definitely finding mistakes.

With that said, the earliest Witness account that is anything like the media-attention is Witness #14, dated 8/12 (at least, among the stuff that I've been looking at). Most of the earlier interviews seem to be checking out with Darren Wilson's story... or are incomplete. I've only read through maybe... a dozen or so of the interviews. So my opinion is far from comprehensive. But here it is if you're curious.

1. Early Witness Testimony (8/9, 8/10, or 8/11 interviews) exclusively state that Michael Brown started the fight.
2. Virtually all witnesses who saw the start note that the first gunshot was inside of Darren Wilson's car.
3. Autopsy reports corroborate with the testimony: As Michael Brown was grabbing Darren Wilson's gun, Darren Wilson shot him in the hand.
EDIT: At this point: Michael Brown runs away from the car. I can say with 100% certainty that Michael Brown ran away from Darren Wilson... for at least a little bit at this point.

4. Witness accounts begin to get fuzzy here: most witnesses are either ducking for cover (they heard gunshots and are getting down), or have started looking for cell phones (so they don't see what happened next).
EDIT: Michael Brown turns to face Darren Wilson again. Some witnesses claim it was because he was shot. Others just mention him turning around without gunshots. Autopsy says all of Darren Wilson's wounds were from the front, so I'm taking the Autopsy report on this point.

5. Whether or not Michael Brown turns around to charge again is up for debate. Witness #10 (along with Darren Wilson) claim that Michael Brown charged at this point. Other witnesses (#14) however claim that Michael Brown had his hands up.

Michael Brown was most definitely facing Darren Wilson at the time of his death. Michael charging towards Darren Wilson is debatable, but seems more plausible based on how well Witness #10 seem to match up with Darren Wilson's story. Point #4 / #5 is the difficult one, because so many witness testimonies are irrelevant on this point. Most people only heard these last gunshots, they didn't see it (kinda hard when most people want to run away from gunshots).

In any case, 1 through 3 makes this a solid self-defense case to say the least. Darren Wilson had reason to believe his life was in danger, as Michael Brown grabbed the gun from him. Multiple witnesses corroborate on elements of Darren Wilson's story, with Witness #10 almost matching it word for word.

-------------------

There's also some criticism over the PBS chart going around the internet. I dunno, I still find the PBS chart to be very useful. But please remember, read the interviews yourself. It is clear that some interviews (like Witness #12) need to be discounted almost entirely. Witness #12 just wasn't paying attention very well compared to others.

I wouldn't say PBS is "lying" with its chart, but its definitely making some witnesses seem more important than others. (Witness #12 has three short, terrible interviews. Filled with "I guess", and "guestimates"). But Witness #12 takes up three slots on the infographic, making you think his opinion is somehow useful or worthwhile. I don't think PBS was trying to misdirect, they just went through the interviews one by one and gave them each one line. But personally speaking, I'd just ignore all three of Witness #12's interviews entirely. (Read them though, they're short so it won't take much of your time)

Also, some like Witness #48 claim that Brown raises his hands (about chest-high)... but still claims Brown charges at Darren Wilson. So "Hands were Up", but reading the witness account it didn't mean "surrender". PBS Infographic marked #48 as "Hands Up" (to be fair, 48 claims hands were physically up while Brown was charging at Darren Wilson).

Witness#48: He was still down the street, he was running back, he did like did like, he put his hands up for a few seconds and then put his arms down and he kind of put them close to his chest and he started running.

[snip]

Detective: Um, and then did you hear the policeman shoot, uh, at all when he was when he was running away?

Witness#48: No.

Detective: Or only when he was coming back?

Witness#48: Only when he was charging at him.


Also, the dates are just wrong. I can't get over this fact... the dates are just... wrong. So... pay attention to that as well.

We exist in a day and age where we can just read the primary data ourselves and make our own opinion. It is very dry work reading through the interviews, but its the only way to get a comprehensive view on what happened here.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:48 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:30 am UTC

Diadem wrote:What about the fact that he killed someone, you fucking despicable racist piece of crap?

I don't want to see more personal insults like this, from anyone. It's a loaded topic. If you can't restrain yourself, stay out of the thread.

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:54 am UTC

Just wanna note that #30 wasn't the interview I thought I read. It was some... other one... that I'm getting confused about.

I've edited my previous posts about Witness #30. Rereading the interview, #30 was was someone "a few blocks away", and thought that Michael Brown had a gun. (Obviously, not a reliable witness). I must have gotten confused with one of the other witnesses. No one has responded to my posts yet, so I just edited them, removing #30 from my points. Just in case yall wonder what those edits were about...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:39 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
sardia wrote:
Diadem wrote:
leady wrote:Sure he may have made a mistake, but you have to show where and how such a mistake occurred and the evidence for it.

What about the fact that he killed someone, you fucking despicable racist piece of crap?

Seriously, what's wrong with you? Are you just trolling, or are you really so bigoted that you think killing people is perfectly fine as long as they are black or poor or from some otherwise not important sub-group?

No, he thinks it's perfectly fine to kill someone so long as they deserve it. Leady is refusing to admit that racism has any part in it, so it's perfectly ok for cops to continue to mistakenly kill black people.

You're being way too charitable to leady. He explicitly said he does not think the cop made a mistake. I mean the guy was black and did not immediately comply to the cop's every whim. Of course he deserved to die.


and in a nutshell a good example of why its so difficult to reform certain areas of public policy :)

To be clear, the cop did not make a mistake based on the facts available to him on the ground (in a realm of perfect knowledge maybe yes, maybe no). No the suspect didn't deserve to die, but neither do I shed tears when criminals do stupid things. In case its not clear I'm also perfectly happy when white criminals get blown away nor do I overly concern myself when the british armed police blow away nutters running around with samurai swords.

People can throw contradictory to physical evidence, witness testimony links at me all they want. Unless you want to add another layer of conspiracy to the convoluted model in that the bullet casings were moved etc then they dismiss themselves. Similarly links to general articles about racism in society are irrelevent to an individual case. I kind of get that some folks will have an emotional attachment, although its a bit strange the most viseral reactions are from people 2000 miles away.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:46 pm UTC

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.)

- - -

Yes, the majority of witnesses agree that Brown "interacted directly with" the police car.

That doesn't get you to "assaulted Darren Wilson", though.
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
addams
Posts: 10329
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:16 pm UTC

I was reading KnightExemplar's post and I find it Amazing, over and over.
The first shot was fired while Wilson was Still Inside The Car, into The Car.

Do you know what That Means?
Think about it.

Have you ever been around a car?

EDIT: I can't help but think about it.
Is it common knowledge?

It keeps being stated that Mike Brown was running toward Wilson, after he was shot.
I keep thinking, "He wasn't running. He was falling."

Think about it.
When a large animal is shot in the heart, it goes down.
The legs crumple. Any large animal.

That's what happens when an Elk is shot in the heart.
Elk, Deer, Goat, Human. They are all animals.

I've heard hunters say to Not shoot an animal in the head.
It's a hard shot to make and the animals will Run.

Even the little bastards, like chickens, will run when they have had their heads cut off.
I know it is a gross thing to talk about.

But, from what I read, Mike was shot in the side and then in the head.
Do I have to read the Medical, again? Wilson did Not make the Heart Shot.

We all have the last moments of Mike Brown's life in our imaginations.
Maybe, the reason he was hit in the head so many times is because he was falling forward as his legs kept working.

That is the way it is with Animals.
Human Beings are a kind of Animal.
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.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:04 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, the majority of witnesses agree that Brown "interacted directly with" the police car.

That doesn't get you to "assaulted Darren Wilson", though.


so given this, the two shell casings at the car, the gun shot wound to the suspects hand, the residue on the suspects hand (showing a close range shot), the residue being in the car (showing the shot was from within), what is the alternative explanation?

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Grop » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:06 pm UTC

Wilson assaulted Brown?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:46 pm UTC

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).
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)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:16 pm UTC

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


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests