FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown
 

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The FBI has officially opened an investigation into the shooting of a teenager by a police officer in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, a U.S. law enforcement official tells CNN.

Federal investigators are joining the U.S. Department of Justice in assisting local authorities to garner the facts surrounding the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was shot Saturday night.

Tensions have been high in the town of 21,000. Dozens took the streets Monday to march and chant, "No justice, no peace!" A vigil for the teen devolved into chaos Sunday when violence and looting broke out among protesters.

Witnesses to Brown's shooting said he had been unarmed and had his hands in the air.

More

Pretty great twitter hashtag has sprung up from this called #iftheygunnedmedown. It exposes the different ways we view victims/criminals based on the images served to us by the media.

Regardless of who the blame lies with the actions of the protesters last night is inexcusable. Does more harm then good. I read during the riots/ looting they ripped an ATM machine from a gas station. How exactly does that show support for any cause?

Doesn't that assume that everyone in a crowd is a protester? I'm going to assume that there are just some folks wanting to cause trouble, too.

SI

Let's just hope it's a fair investigation rather than one with a predetermined outcome.

You're right. I hope the investigation doesn't pretend that cops are above the law.

People do crazy shit when they are feeling angry/scared/marginalized.

As observers I think we have to be smart enough to not let the protests tinge our view of the tragedy that fueled them.

It's funny how if you didn't know Jon you could read this one way, but if you do know him you read it 180 degrees the other way.

Election season coming up, a "Justice" department under the watchful eye of the current administration ... yeah, I don't think there's much chance that law & order will be getting the benefit of the doubt on much on this one.

Well, my "under" bet has already lost out. Thread still alive, and not really even a tire fire yet...who knew?

Might want to keep an eye on the ATM machine.

Odd how fast "protesting" turns into "give me free stuff" in certain communities.

I was just listening to the radio, and they were talking about a resident on the TV being interviewed. He was saying it is a model community with the diversity it has. He said he didnt recognize any of the looters.
The talking heads then proceeded to talk about how much the community has improved in the last 10 years.

Why? Why do we have to be anything? What does our personal view of the tragedy matter at all?

That's a philosophical question to which I don't really have an answer. I suppose I'm just trying to understand why this happened. I want to take meaning from it. I want others to understand and take meaning from it so it won't happen again. My concern about Lathum's comment is that people will focus on ancillary events like the protests/riots/looting and lose sight of the tragedy of what happened. Doing that keeps us from reaching a solution. I don't know. That's all I have.

Good luck with that.

I don't think anyone is denying or losing sight of the tragedy, but the tragedy and the way the community acts are tied together. If the kid was a part of a community that just showed the capacity to become violent very quickly, then the perception is, as a part of that community, the kid has that capacity.

Not saying it is my opinion or how I feel. Regardless, I stand by my comments that it is inexcusable to ac that way. Did some come looking for trouble, most certainly, but there are likely many others who went to protest and got caught up in the mob mentality, and I think that is going to hurt the cause of this young man in the long run.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI was doing some COINTELPRO shit again.

We don't know what is and isn't a tragedy yet. We know that innocent business owners who had their places destroyed are victims in this tragedy. We know that taxpayers who had no part in this but will have to cover the costs are victims in this tragedy. But we don't have nearly enough evidence in the case to determine whether the shooting was justified or not.

As for the riots afterward, it is natural to "consider the source". If the people telling me that this was a senseless act are the same people who are running around committing senseless acts, it's fair to question the position.

I've been told it was a black cop. Shouldn't change the storyline one bit but I wonder if Mr. Sharpton will cancel his trip.

(And I am not a big fan of overzealous cops, sure thinks it sounds like this cop was in the wrong, but am not naïve enough to think the story/outrage has to do with this at all)

What's the police version of the story. The family's is basically that he was walking home doing nothing (probably on his way back from feeding the poor and rescuing a fireman from a tree...). Sorry, I get that family is going to say that type of stuff but it always makes me roll my eyes.

From CNN, the story begins the same for both police and witnesses:


The police version, which does not include what happened after police confronted Brown and his friend, includes a struggle inside the police car with Brown trying to apparently take the officer's gun, and ends with the Brown shot multiple times some distance from the police car. At least one shot was fired from within the car.

Hard to know what is fact or fiction, but both stories seem to end with Brown with no weapon and his hands in the air being shot multiple times.

I imagine both stories are exaggerated in opposite directions, but I find it pretty hard to give the benefit of the doubt to the police here... I don't condone rioting or any of that stuff, but at the same time I understand the anger given these don't seem to be blue moon events.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of factual evidence floating around on either side. The police don't seem to be helping themselves out by being so hush hush. When you don't get out and control the story early, it lets other people create the story. It also does sort of look like they are covering up something.

The other side has your race hustlers running in trying to turn the story the way they want it portrayed. Doesn't help that there is a local politician going around to the media with conspiracy theories about the shooting being recorded and the police arresting the person who recorded it and hiding her in jail where no one can get to her.

I'd probably wait till more stuff comes out. Seems like each media outlet has a narrative they want to run with on the story. Each side has a different version of events.

When people are abused by the Police, govt., etc. and they have no way to legally make change, this is what happens.

Every day there are stories of Police brutality and abuse of power against common Americans. Most stories involve the Police officer saying he/she was in fear for their life when they committed the act. It usually ends with the authorities saying upon review they see it as an acceptable use of force. Case closed!

As this type of thing occurs, what do you think is going to happen? Not everyone will just walk to the slaughter politely.

And in the enormous majority of cases I agree with them.

I certainly have a great deal more faith the Generic Police than I do in Generic Mob.

So that makes it OK to become a criminal and destroy innocent peoples property?

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Solid reference

I would give the protesters some credit if they took up arms and looted the police stations. That would be Boston Tea Party like. Burning down the gas station and robbing hair extensions from a beauty supply shop? Not sure John Adams would have supported that.

Seems a bit odd that the police haven't interviewed Brown's friend and the primary witness yet.

Eyewitness to Michael Brown shooting recounts his friend's death | MSNBC

Hair extensions?

SI

Yeah we get all the local coverage here so they go pretty in depth. :) And of course they are stirring up racial problems by being specific about "hair extensionss".

Rumor has it that the Mike Brown's name was circulating after being caught on camera shoplifting from the local QT. Local police found him and kid ends up dead. QT burned down in protest. Of course who knows what is rumor and what is fact (I have also heard the cop was black) but sounds like the QT being a target makes a little more sense.

I have said all along that the situation of an unarmed person being shot multiple times by a cop is at minimum excessive force. However I find the rioting and protest completely unworthy of trying to justify in any way.

No taxation without tresses elongation

He wasn't excusing their actions. He was supplying context to their actions.

When LA burned after the Rodney King thing, it was the local minority stores and houses that burned, not of those who perpetrated the act. Blind rage is simply that, blind. It's stupid, but those who feel helpless against police brutality will tend to lash out in irrational ways.

I've already taught my son that the police are not his friend and they are not interested in "justice". 4 out of 5 cops on the force may be good, but that leaves 20% who are total dirtbags (like a cousin of mine) with the bigger problem being that the other 4 will stick up and lie for the dirtbags.

I'm a pretty big skeptic about police and government overreach but unless your son is older your lesson is often what leads to nonsense like the QT burning down.

He is a teenager, which is old enough to understand why cops aren't your friends. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be anything but polite to an officer, but he also needs to understand why you don't answer their questions without your attorney present, you don't submit to searches of your car or person, why they will lie to try to trap you and so forth.

Sure, their anger may have been misdirected. But the idea stands that sometimes, actions like those* are the only ones that seem to get attention. But they no doubt hit easy targets - I don't think targeting a police station would have lasted very long or come out very favorable for them.


* I still think there's a nice bit of hypocrisy here where it comes to some 2nd Amendment defenders. It's ok to open carry in a Target. At the same time, you might be shot in a Walmart for holding a toy gun. You need to be armed to protect yourself against an oppressive government. But you have to be quiet and do what the police tell you to do and accept that they may be a little overzealous at times and eh, gun you down.

The local police turned over the investigation, so it would be tampering if they interviewed anyone.

And you have this public statement from Holder that the "FBI will help local authorities undertake a “thorough, fair investigation.” Which different agencies can take different ways, and who knows what is being said behind the scenes. It makes sense to be deliberate even for the outside local agency, and if you're super-cautious, you consult the feds on everything, and maybe try to get them present at interviews, which takes some time. You can see how cynical people are about police investigations. No matter what happens, there will be people who think it's rigged. You can't do anything about them, but you can at least be as thorough and organized as possible to at least mitigate the risks that you're perceived as influencing the people you're interviewing.

Which is why the whole idea that the "police", as a broad unit are covering anything up here already is silly. There was at least a couple of police witnesses, and at least a couple of civilian witnesses. Most likely, in high stress situations, everyone will perceive things a little differently. Everyone can tell what they believe to be the truth and still tell different stories. But I know one thing for sure, if the officer committed a crime, or knows he exhibited poor judgment under stress bordering on criminal activity, he's not going down to his superiors and breaking that down in detail. He'll be in touch with his union rep and go home. The information that the "police" have right now will be from anything that was called in before and right after the incident. That's probably why they were able to say that there was some kind of physical conflict prior to the shooting. But that information only comes from that officer and any other officer at the scene. It could be made up, or exaggerated, or an incorrect account based on stress. There may never be a way to know for sure. But there will be plenty on "both sides" who have already made up their mind just based on the headline. (Putting "both sides" in quotes just because I hate that there's "sides" on something like this, but that's what it is. )

Just like there's only such much information "the police" can know at this point, we can't really attribute anything to the "black people" in this town either. They weren't collectively rioting. Just like whenever there's unrest, or a sports championship, there were some criminals who acted out. Some are just regular criminals, some are maybe people who see businesses as part of the governing structure of their lives, along with the police. It's irrelevant to what happened. Unless this is a violent city generally, in which case officers might be a little more stressed and a little more prone to poor judgment, but I have no idea if that's the case, and even if it is, it doesn't really say anything about fault on either side, it just provides realistic context.

The thing people need to understand these riots and looting is in most instances, the businesses people are destroying aren't owned by locals, but carpetbaggers making a buck there.

There's lots of discussion about how this itself is problematic, but...when people are mostly renters, the banks don't contain local money (if there ARE banks) and the police are almost outsiders too, it's easy to see why people would feel powerless or a lack of ownership about their communities when for all intent and purpose they're just visitors who happen to live there.

A lot to unpack here, but...



This isn't from Halo

Carpetbaggers? I'm pretty sure their tax dollars count the same as everyone else. I'm sure the jobs they offer are real jobs.

I can't wait to hear the next story about food deserts or how businesses don't want to setup shop and offer jobs in the community. At least now we have video evidence as to why they won't.

This point should not go unnoticed.

What difference does that make? Does it make their lawlessness any less criminal or wrong because the business they are destroying isn't a Mom and Pop shop?

It's also pretty lawless for a thug cop to gun down a civilian.

so 2 wrongs make a right?

That's funny, I don't remember saying that.

And if that "civilian" attacks the cop?

Gets very gray really quick when that happens. No, wait, it doesn't.

then please elaborate on your point.

Simply that the rioters weren't the only lawless ones here.

Do they not have votes in that city? Are they not able to run for local office? Are they not able to file lawsuits? There are plenty of ways to legally make change.

Now there are a lot of issues with today's police. I'm not denying that. But the only change burning down local businesses accomplishes is less tax revenue for your city, less jobs for your residents, and cops who are even more on edge. The riotining/looting didn't bring about positive change, it actively makes the community a worse plays with less opportunity.

Additionally, tying is into the previous pictures, in what way are these businesses symbols of our government?