FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cartman

The main parts of the story that seem to be agreed upon are that the officer was inside the car when he called Brown over to talk to him. One story has Brown trying to force his way into the car, the other has the officer pulling him into the car. Brown may or may not have been trying to get the officer's gun at this point. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that Brown did not take the officer's gun out of the car. If the officer was alone, at what point in the decision process did it seem like a good idea to get out of the car, with no backup called? That seems to go counter to any LEO training I have been a part of.

I have no clue but I've wondered that same type of question. Why do that after things settled down with him walking away? Pride? Let's also be honest, this police department doesn't strike me as a group doing things by the book.

[chadritt]

Maybe he felt he didnt need backup. He had a gun after all so he knew hed be safe /s

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by nol

The autopsy showed a bullet wound through the top of his skull, which could be interpreted as Darren Wilson shooting a down/surrendering Brown for the sixth time, or that Brown, by virtue of being black, 300 pounds, and having smoked marijuana at some point in the 24 hours prior to his death, is not a human being but a rhinoceros that puts his head down and charges at someone who has already shot him four times. You can guess who's on what side.

Or just as plausible is that Mr. Brown was hit in the face by the first head shot and was hit by a following round as he was falling forward.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Or just as plausible is that Mr. Brown was hit in the face by the first head shot and was hit by a following round as he was falling forward.

And the other 4 shots that hit?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am questioning the need to shoot an unarmed black male, at range in the middle of the street in broad daylight under any circumstances, especially given that this is not proper in the escalation of use of force that all departments have. I'm also questioning the lies told by the police department and their attempt at character assassination. I'm also questioning their reaction to the protest marches/looting with them trying to instigate things with protesters, firing rubber bullets and tear gas at the media, pointing sniper rifles from the tops of trucks at civilians and running around with assault weapons drawn and pointed at people like a poorly trained paramilitary force.

If that's the way the force is run, then why wouldn't Wilson gunning down an unarmed black man be such a stretch?

I don't quite understand the range thing. I'd think a point-blank shot would be much more suspicious. If someone is charging you, the idea would be to shoot them BEFORE they got close enough to do damage.

What lies has this department told in its official statements? It's possible I missed something.

As for Wilson "gunning down an unarmed black man", that's obviously not a stretch, it happened. But Wilson having the criminal intent to murder someone - that would be unusual enough statistically that I don't think how competent you think the department he works for is should tell us too much either way. You just said we're not assuming things about these people as individuals, but here, it seems like you're doing exactly that.

There's also a ton of potential ground here between totally justified, and murder. Like, poor judgment based on stress and a sincere fear for personal safety. Or just something that a better officer would have handled differently. That would still be potentially criminal as well, or civil liability if there was department policy violations, but it would definitely something different than the race-based execution a lot of people are assuming here. And it definitely makes a difference in terms of how we judge other officers based on this incident. And what it says about "society" or whatever. That middle possibility isn't even really considered because it doesn't fit so neatly into either side's narrative - whether he's either a racist murderer or a heroic cop.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And the other 4 shots that hit?

By reports, they were arm shots, no? If the officer's version is to be believed, he may be a lousy shot who realized his body/arm shots weren't slowing Mr. Brown down.

I think we'll get a firm picture of the situation here in the next couple weeks. I think you'd agree we're dealing with mostly guesses as to the motives of both people until then.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure what the exact escalation is. It sounds like you're in the know in that regard, so I'll defer to you on that.

With that said, IF a 6'4", 300 lb. person who you have an altercation with and then pursue turns around and charges you, I have a hard time putting myself in a position to judge you if you choose to use lethal force in that instance. If he doesn't use lethal force in that instance, that cop is going to end up hurt very badly if not killed. Putting myself in that situation, I'd definitely fear for my life.

If the kid just threw his hands up and was shot down, of course it's wrong.

Escalation of force is the guiding principle by which determinations are made on what to use in a situation. Officers have other means at their disposal to subdue a suspect. In a situation like this - with an obviously unarmed subject - a taser is appropriate, not a gun. A taser will bring down anything short of a buffalo. It'll bring down a 300 pound man. Officers are tased so they know what happens for this very reason.

Tasers have cartridges with a range of 15 to 35 feet - plenty enough range to bring down the subject before he gets to the officer even if he's charging at full speed. In short, if he could raise his weapon and fire at least 6 times (probably more, it's likely a couple missed) at a subject, then he had plenty of time to draw the taser and bring him down.

So drawing his firearm? I can't figure that one out. And Cartman makes a good point - if there was a struggle for the gun and then the subject ran, where was his call for backup? That would be the FIRST thing you'd do.

There's a lot here that simply doesn't make sense in isolation. Maybe there's a plausible explanation. But right now the most likely one seems to be the way the force is run.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Escalation of force is the guiding principle by which determinations are made on what to use in a situation. Officers have other means at their disposal to subdue a suspect. In a situation like this - with an obviously unarmed subject - a taser is appropriate, not a gun. A taser will bring down anything short of a buffalo. It'll bring down a 300 pound man. Officers are tased so they know what happens for this very reason.

Tasers have cartridges with a range of 15 to 35 feet - plenty enough range to bring down the subject before he gets to the officer even if he's charging at full speed. In short, if he could raise his weapon and fire at least 6 times (probably more, it's likely a couple missed) at a subject, then he had plenty of time to draw the taser and bring him down.

So drawing his firearm? I can't figure that one out. And Cartman makes a good point - if there was a struggle for the gun and then the subject ran, where was his call for backup? That would be the FIRST thing you'd do.

There's a lot here that simply doesn't make sense in isolation. Maybe there's a plausible explanation. But right now the most likely one seems to be the way the force is run.

Make sense. With that said, I have seen that something far less than a buffalo can withstand a taser.......

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Escalation of force is the guiding principle by which determinations are made on what to use in a situation. Officers have other means at their disposal to subdue a suspect. In a situation like this - with an obviously unarmed subject - a taser is appropriate, not a gun. A taser will bring down anything short of a buffalo. It'll bring down a 300 pound man. Officers are tased so they know what happens for this very reason.

Tasers have cartridges with a range of 15 to 35 feet - plenty enough range to bring down the subject before he gets to the officer even if he's charging at full speed. In short, if he could raise his weapon and fire at least 6 times (probably more, it's likely a couple missed) at a subject, then he had plenty of time to draw the taser and bring him down.

So drawing his firearm? I can't figure that one out. And Cartman makes a good point - if there was a struggle for the gun and then the subject ran, where was his call for backup? That would be the FIRST thing you'd do.

There's a lot here that simply doesn't make sense in isolation. Maybe there's a plausible explanation. But right now the most likely one seems to be the way the force is run.

I'm guessing that you are drawing on your vast law enforcement experience when you talk about identifying a threat, selecting the appropriate response, and then making that response in the space of a couple of seconds?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

In short, if he could raise his weapon and fire at least 6 times (probably more, it's likely a couple missed) at a subject, then he had plenty of time to draw the taser and bring him down.

You're assuming that all 6 shots happened consecutively while Brown was possibly charging the officer. Some of the witnesses have said that the first few shots took place near or in the car, and then there were others some time later further away. The whole "charging" sequence, if it happened, probably happened very quickly.

[molson]

This could possibly be Wilson's version. Someone claiming to be a friend of his reported this version to the media, and a source close to the investigation told CNN that this matched what Wilson has told investigators.

Michael Brown rushed officer, radio caller says - CNN.com

The St. Louis prosecutor says that witnesses will start to testify before the grand jury as soon as Wednesday.

Edit: In Missouri, the prosecutor's office can either go through a grand jury, or bring a charge themselves and try to show probable cause in a preliminary hearing. In a case like this, I think the grand jury is the best route. Not just because of the politics involved, but in any case where "reasonableness" could be the determining factor. Where the line of criminality might be grey, and where actions are judged against societal opinions of reasonableness.

[molson]

I was talking about this Idaho case with someone the other day. It might be interesting in a discussion about lawful officer force, and there's a video.

This guy was chased for several miles by both county officers and tribal officers. Eventually they managed to stop the vehicle with a spike strip. The driver fired once out the window. The tribal police lit up the car with gunfire, the county police held their fire. Then the driver surrendered, and left the vehicle, without a weapon. He stood with his arms raised for about 3-5 seconds, and was then shot and killed by one of the tribal officers.

YouTube

The FBI investigated and declined to bring criminal charges. (they would have had jurisdiction because this involved tribal police, and took place on a reservation) The local county prosecutor charged the tribal officer with voluntary manslaughter. But the case didn't get past the preliminary hearing stage. The judge dismissed the case, ruling that the state failed to show probable cause.

Not the same facts as Brown, of course. The Brown facts could be better for the police, or worse, depending on who you believe. Clearly, the shooting by the tribal officer wasn't necessary, and none of the county officers there saw fit to fire any shots at all. But I think this goes to show how far second-guessing can get you in law enforcement force and self-defense cases sometimes. And that whether a shooting is necessary isn't the standard for criminal activity. These are situations that most of us will never experience. When it comes to criminal charges, and analyzing split-second decisions in stressful situations, courts can and should be careful, both with law enforcement officers, and with civilians exercising self-defense. I'm sure this officer will never be hired by a regular county police department, but I'm not positive he's a criminal either. If you're one of those people who believe its better than 100 guilty people go free than it is that 1 innocent person be imprisoned, you should really struggle with these kinds of cases. You can think someone broke policy or acted too recklessly, but whether someone's conduct fits a criminal statute, and whether we take away their freedom is heavy shit. But if we decide we want to imprison police officers even if we can't prove criminal intent, we should do the same for doctors, who kill tens of thousands every year with malpractice.

It would have been great to have a video like this in the Brown case. There probably would still be disagreement about whether the officer was justified, but things are so much smoother when everyone is on the same page with the facts.

[CU Tiger]

Do we know that the officer had a taser?
They aren't standard issue everywhere.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

This could possibly be Wilson's version. Someone claiming to be a friend of his reported this version to the media, and a source close to the investigation told CNN that this matched what Wilson has told investigators.

Michael Brown rushed officer, radio caller says - CNN.com

The St. Louis prosecutor says that witnesses will start to testify before the grand jury as soon as Wednesday.

"CNN Airs ‘Officer’s Side of Story,’ as Recounted by Friend of Darren Wilson"

Well yeah, of course the caller's story is going to match what Wilson told her. This isn't exactly a witness at the scene.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

"CNN Airs ‘Officer’s Side of Story,’ as Recounted by Friend of Darren Wilson"

Well yeah, of course the caller's story is going to match what Wilson told her. This isn't exactly a witness at the scene.

I didn't say she was an eyewitness. She was just an anonymous caller. The only reason this is remotely newsworthy is the fact that the source told CNN that this version from the radio caller was the same version Wilson told investigators. Otherwise, you or I could call up a radio station and give them "the officer's account." I don't think we've heard yet what Wilson told investigators, at least to this detail, so I thought that was newsworthy. I didn't say it was correct, I emphasized that this was his version.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: In Missouri, the prosecutor's office can either go through a grand jury, or bring a charge themselves and try to show probable cause in a preliminary hearing. In a case like this, I think the grand jury is the best route. Not just because of the politics involved, but in any case where "reasonableness" could be the determining factor. Where the line of criminality might be grey, and where actions are judged against societal opinions of reasonableness.

It also depends on state law. In Georgia in order for a police officer to be prosecuted the case must be presented to a grand jury. The officer also has the right to be present when the case is being presented and to testify on his own behalf.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Or just as plausible is that Mr. Brown was hit in the face by the first head shot and was hit by a following round as he was falling forward.

Not sure how that works with the reported angles of entry...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

By reports, they were arm shots, no? If the officer's version is to be believed, he may be a lousy shot who realized his body/arm shots weren't slowing Mr. Brown down.

I think we'll get a firm picture of the situation here in the next couple weeks. I think you'd agree we're dealing with mostly guesses as to the motives of both people until then.

If he's that lousy a shot that he was winging the guy in the arms then no way was he hitting him in the head while he was running at him.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If he's that lousy a shot that he was winging the guy in the arms then no way was he hitting him in the head while he was running at him.

When shooting in a stressful situation your aim decreases by about fifty percent.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Shepp

When shooting in a stressful situation your aim decreases by about fifty percent.

Exactly. So he managed to wing the guy in the arms and twice in the head and not hit center-mass at all (or were there center-mass wounds? I didn't see the news on the autopsy)? That doesn't seem very probable...

[Shepp]

Unless the shooting was done during the struggle. I would assume that Mr. Brown would be trying to keep the gun from being pointed directly at him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Shepp

Unless the shooting was done during the struggle. I would assume that Mr. Brown would be trying to keep the gun from being pointed directly at him.

LOL

Exactly why the cop would be aiming at the center of his VERY broad body, not at his arms or his head.

Keep digging though.

[cartman]

I'd be surprised if there were only 6 shots fired by the officer, with all of them hitting Brown. As Shepp mentioned, there are numerous studies done of situations where a LEO has fired a weapon. The range is 30-50% of shots fired hit their intended target. Interestingly, the fewer police present, the higher the accuracy. But more intuitively, when the officer is the only party firing a weapon, their accuracy is much, much higher than when the suspect is also firing.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LOL

Exactly why the cop would be aiming at the center of his VERY broad body, not at his arms or his head.

Keep digging though.

When your accuracy decreases you don't hit what you are aiming at. Even if you are aiming at center mass you won't hit it. If you don't hit center mass then you may hit around the periphery like the arms, legs, and head. If your accuracy decreases by fifty percent during stressful shooting, then even a one hundred percent shooter only has a fifty percent chance to hit center mass.

How deep of a dig was that?

[Groundhog]

Even the death of the kid aside, firing a gun that many times at an unarmed suspect on a public street, given the horrible accuracy of handguns at the best of times, seems kinda reckless to me. Those misses end up somewhere, hopefully not in the head of someone sitting in their car nearby.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Shepp

When your accuracy decreases you don't hit what you are aiming at. Even if you are aiming at center mass you won't hit it. If you don't hit center mass then you may hit around the periphery like the arms, legs, and head. If your accuracy decreases by fifty percent during stressful shooting, then even a one hundred percent shooter only has a fifty percent chance to hit center mass.

How deep of a dig was that?

Statistically how likely is that that none of the shots would hit center mass?

I mean we don't know because we don't know his baseline accuracy, his accuracy in that situation, etc., but I submit that it's not very likely.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Statistically how likely is that that none of the shots would hit center mass?

I mean we don't know because we don't know his baseline accuracy, his accuracy in that situation, etc., but I submit that it's not very likely.

So either he's aiming for the head and arms or there was some kind of struggle? What's the implication you're getting at?

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Statistically how likely is that that none of the shots would hit center mass?

I mean we don't know because we don't know his baseline accuracy, his accuracy in that situation, etc., but I submit that it's not very likely.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are trying to make. Personally, I am far more interested in knowing where each person was in relation to the other and what they each were doing, when the shots were fired, than where Mr. Brown was hit.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If he's that lousy a shot that he was winging the guy in the arms then no way was he hitting him in the head while he was running at him.

I used to coach soldiers on the M9 back in the day and I can assure you that a poor (or off-center) shot grouping can easily be coupled with a miracle head shot...but typically your aim gets amazingly better the closer your target is to you. So I'm okay with the bullrush theory. On the same note, knowing how inaccurate a poorly aimed handgun can be in ideal situations, I wouldn't be surprised if Brown started to flee, the cop fired at his back, and missed but got Brown to initially surrender only to find he's become target practice by the now panicked cop...which initiated the alleged Brown Bullrush. In a quickly escalating scenario that first involved close-quarters conflict, I wouldn't be surprised if both parties were panicked after the initial gun-struggle and gun-fire.

Couple of notes.

1. Not all black people are thugs, but this one was.
2. Not all cops handle intensely stressful situations like John McClane, and this one didn't.

Bottom line, I'm ready to write the entire episode off as dumb vs dumber at this point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

As noted by Mr. Biden who did the independent autopsy, the arm wounds could also be defensive in nature. For all we know, it might have been six head shots with four of them being stopped by his arms when he put them up after hearing gunfire.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As noted by Mr. Biden who did the independent autopsy, the arm wounds could also be defensive in nature. For all we know, it might have been six head shots with four of them being stopped by his arms when he put them up after hearing gunfire.

True, I still have some faith that the eye-witnesses aren't making shit up and they had a separation of some 15-30 feet at some point in this altercation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

True, I still have some faith that the eye-witnesses aren't making shit up and they had a separation of some 15-30 feet at some point in this altercations.

Well, one of the witnesses said he was shot twice in the back, so we should at least put that one in the non-credible pile. Everybody agrees on that separation though.

[Logan]

I can't understand why someone would allegedly fight for a gun, run away, stop, and then run back at the person with the gun.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Logan

I can't understand why someone would allegedly fight for a gun, run away, stop, and then run back at the person with the gun.

Panic, anger, adrenaline...but yeah, nothing logical. EDIT: Survival?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Panic, anger, adrenaline...but yeah, nothing logical. EDIT: Survival?

Which can all happen if the officer starts chasing you, or even possibly, shooting.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by molson

Which can all happen if the officer starts chasing you, or even possibly, shooting.

Agreed.

Forgot one, death wish. He clearly had a serious case of "I don't give a fuck" that day.

[nol]

Where the privilege/arrogance comes in is when someone like MBBF is able to pat himself on the back because he once got pulled over without cause and didn't escalate the situation. Two of my friends from St. Louis have related their experiences of being pulled over without cause multiple times (most commonly Ferguson and Ladue, so this isn't related to the demographics/crime rate in a particular locality). They've handled these instances even better than MBBF or anyone else here has; anyone can make a free throw, but going 20-20 is a different story.

For everyone playing the "not all cops handle things perfectly" card, that goes double for any other group in society that isn't specifically trained in how to handle potentially lethal situations. If some small fraction of the cops one could encounter are hotheads who take things too far and some small fraction of people are hotheads who will escalate things further, there will be a certain proportion of situations (1 in 10,000 encounters, whatever you want to call it) that result in a needless loss of life. Loss of privilege is knowing you have to prostrate yourself in the face of law enforcement, no matter how unjust the circumstances, because your skin tone and the neighborhood you're in already means you're on strike 2.

It's the feeling my friends have when they know that just because it's happened to them 15-20 times and they've dealt with it the "right" way each time, they can't pat themselves on the back because the exact same thing will happen again. It's the feeling my friends have where they think back on the 15-20 times they've been stopped without cause and realize that if they were having a bad day one of those times and deviated in the slightest from just sitting there and nodding, that could have been all some officer needed to claim that some amount of force (lethal or otherwise) was justified. It's the feeling that in those situations, their prior history (which includes graduating from Ivy League universities and attending medical school, for the dog whistle crowd ready to post the usual crap about "durr they'll see where that victim mentality gets them in life") means nothing and they're just as expendable as any other black kid.

[Shepp]

Originally Posted by nol

Where the privilege/arrogance comes in is when someone like MBBF is able to pat himself on the back because he once got pulled over without cause and didn't escalate the situation. Two of my friends from St. Louis have related their experiences of being pulled over without cause multiple times (most commonly Ferguson and Ladue, so this isn't related to the demographics/crime rate in a particular locality). They've handled these instances even better than MBBF or anyone else here has; anyone can make a free throw, but going 20-20 is a different story.

For everyone playing the "not all cops handle things perfectly" card, that goes double for any other group in society that isn't specifically trained in how to handle potentially lethal situations. If some small fraction of the cops one could encounter are hotheads who take things too far and some small fraction of people are hotheads who will escalate things further, there will be a certain proportion of situations (1 in 10,000 encounters, whatever you want to call it) that result in a needless loss of life. Loss of privilege is knowing you have to prostrate yourself in the face of law enforcement, no matter how unjust the circumstances, because your skin tone and the neighborhood you're in already means you're on strike 2.

It's the feeling my friends have when they know that just because it's happened to them 15-20 times and they've dealt with it the "right" way each time, they can't pat themselves on the back because the exact same thing will happen again. It's the feeling my friends have where they think back on the 15-20 times they've been stopped without cause and realize that if they were having a bad day one of those times and deviated in the slightest from just sitting there and nodding, that could have been all some officer needed to claim that some amount of force (lethal or otherwise) was justified. It's the feeling that in those situations, their prior history (which includes graduating from Ivy League universities and attending medical school, for the dog whistle crowd ready to post the usual crap about "durr they'll see where that victim mentality gets them in life") means nothing and they're just as expendable as any other black kid.

So you are saying that in a town that is majority black, that when the police stop someone who is black, it is because the officer is picking on them?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

True, I still have some faith that the eye-witnesses aren't making shit up and they had a separation of some 15-30 feet at some point in this altercation.

You know eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable? Not necessarily by intent.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

You know eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable? Not necessarily by intent.

Sure. And in this particular case, I'm really leaning towards "way off the mark", but I'm not confident everybody is on board with that just yet.

[Matthean]

"How could you shoot him? His hands were raised."
"He was running towards me with his arms up and swinging like a crazy person."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Matthean

"How could you shoot him? His hands were raised."
"He was running towards me with his arms up and swinging like a crazy person."

Which fits pretty well with the alleged background noise description from that videotape. (The one that led to the discussion of the meaning of the word "dumpin' ")

[cuervo72]

There has to be some non-lethal options for restraint. Right?

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Family-...271760921.html

Seriously - there have been enough of these through the years that if - God forbid - any of my family members ever go temporarily bonkers, I am probably going to attempt to deal with it myself and not call the police.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

There has to be some non-lethal options for restraint. Right?

In the moment where they're swinging a hammer?
That is an entirely appropriate response.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Shepp

So you are saying that in a town that is majority black, that when the police stop someone who is black, it is because the officer is picking on them?

I was under the assumption that the relevant statistics were widely available and could be interpreted by anyone with more than a middle-school education in math.

If you're really that lazy, try this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/op...ite-power.html

With primarily white police forces that rely disproportionately on traffic citation revenue, blacks are pulled over, cited and arrested in numbers far exceeding their population share, according to a recent report from Missouri’s attorney general. In Ferguson last year, 86 percent of stops, 92 percent of searches and 93 percent of arrests were of black people — despite the fact that police officers were far less likely to find contraband on black drivers (22 percent versus 34 percent of whites). This worsens inequality, as struggling blacks do more to fund local government than relatively affluent whites.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by nol

I was under the assumption that the relevant statistics were widely available and could be interpreted by anyone with more than a middle-school education in math.

If you're really that lazy, try this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/op...ite-power.html

Arrests do not occur strictly for contraband nor does the snippet mention the causes for the stops nor the searches.

[Dutch]

With primarily white police forces

I can't say that I've thought too much about this before, but if predominantly black communities truly have this much distrust for white police officers, then I have to ask the question...do communities such as Ferguson (66% black) at least try and be a part of their communities police forces (<5% black)? Are they being denied job opportunity? What gives?

[nol]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Arrests do not occur strictly for contraband nor does the snippet mention the causes for the stops nor the searches.

Yeah, you can also get stopped for going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, having a broken taillight, putting the sticker on your license plate a week too late, and a litany of other things. Have a look at the actual report and then tell me you honestly believe that black people are committing traffic violations more than 3.6 times as often as white people in Ferguson.

http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf

Take special note of the "reason for stop" statistics. As much as you'd like to imagine that every black person in Ferguson who wasn't caught with contraband must have been guilty of extreme DUIs and/or vehicular homicide, the black/white ratio of people stopped for equipment or license violations is 3x more skewed than the ratio for moving violations. You'll also see that once stopped, black drivers were searched twice as often as were white drivers despite the aforementioned disparity in finding contraband.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Arrests do not occur strictly for contraband nor does the snippet mention the causes for the stops nor the searches.

How about if I'm two?

County will not pay medical bills for toddler hurt in... | www.wsbtv.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

How about if I'm two?

County will not pay medical bills for toddler hurt in... | www.wsbtv.com

{shrug} Legal matter. It's quite possible that short of a finding against them the county attorney is correct & that the board of commissioners cannot legally pay the expenses. The county sheriff's office had previously said they would like to pay the expenses but that's not something that's at their discretion, it would be a matter for the county commission to handle since they control the expenditures.

I won't pretend to know the ins & outs of the specific law that might apply here and the local bi-weekly newspaper there hasn't run a story on the latest development, that won't happen until Wednesday so I don't know the precise citation (if the attorney could even give one since this is presumably a matter under litigation). Off hand I imagine their insurer would have a cow if they did something off the cuff as well.