FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The grand jury is supposed to happen relatively soon, so we're going to get a lot of information in the coming 10-14 days one would guess.

Good Lord, let's hope not. I would hope at least one branch of the various levels of the Missouri government could run a proper and just procedure, without (strategic or negligent) leaks. For the sake of both the officer and the victim.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by digamma

We do? I'm a member of the bar and can't say that I begin to understand the many facets of the law that will come into play in this case (to the extent it becomes one).

Sorry - perhaps I should have rearranged my words. I forgot that lawyers would be reading them.

"We all understand that the minutiae of the law will come into play in this case."

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

I'll stay with the null hypothesis of "it's about the same" and will be closer to the truth than "there's a greater than 10:1 disparity." Not to mention that something like driving with expired tags is something that takes a much keener eye than catching somebody speeding (unless you're just pulling people over for DWB and, would you look at that, they hadn't renewed their license. Aw, shucks.)

Median income in Ferguson is $36,000, so it's not like anyone there is doing particularly well - we already saw that the white people stopped are even more likely to have contraband on them. That's the beauty of small government; when a place like St. Louis is divided into however many municipalities the rich people don't have to move far to take their tax dollars out of the redlined neighborhood. Then the cycle continues where the PDs of police departments have to do what they can to get revenues up.

That's the thing - it's all covered up in so many layers of BS that at the bottom of it all, sure, you can say "An individual police officer/department isn't racist for pulling black people over at a disproportionate rate because the department doesn't have enough funding and they're statistically more likely to get some citation $$ for pulling over a black person."

So what's your solution to all this? I bet it's not very different than mine, and the things I actually try to do. The only difference is the rhetoric.

[molson]

Originally Posted by digamma

Good Lord, let's hope not. I would hope at least one branch of the various levels of the Missouri government could run a proper and just procedure, without (strategic or negligent) leaks. For the sake of both the officer and the victim.

Ya, I was thinking that. Law requires confidentiality of the grand jury proceeding, but we'll still get angry posts and articles about the police and prosecutor not releasing that information.

[Subby]

Heh, right on cue, this shows up in my timeline:

How Strong Is the Legal Case Against Darren Wilson? (Newsweek)

[BillJasper]

I don't understand why Wilson would be trying to pull Brown into his car? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Subby

The Right Wing Has Its Own Upworthy And You Won't Believe How Well It's Doing

Crime reporter from St. Louis Dispatch also reporting it. She does say it doesn't meet standards for publication yet.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Christine...56693382094848

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe I'm just reading too much into nothing but a random notion just hit me:

I wonder if the National Guard was brought in to be prepared for the grand jury decision? They've been pretty quiet to this point, almost uninvolved best I can tell from what I've read. So was this prevention or preparation?

[saldana]

this just in:

Man dead after officer-involved shooting in St. Louis - CNN.com

this time the guy was bringing a knife against the officers

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Subby

molson - If a police officer uses his or her weapon to kill a person, there should be an outside, independent investigation. That doesn't happen for the most part (which is described in this great piece on Politico). Life is sacred. When you take someone's life you better have a damn good reason.

And with respect to the taser - my second most pressing question, albeit far behind why the kid needed to be shot 6 times. It mystifies me why it wasn't used. What about that situation required lethal force?

I'm not trying to get into the center of an argument but I asked earlier and I havent seen any confirmation here or elsewhere that Officer Wilson had a taser in his possssion when the incident occurred.

Has that been reported and confirmed somewhere and I missed it?

Again I obviously dont live in Missouri but here in rural SC tasers are not wie spread. In fact from emailing a few friends today it sounds like none of the "county" officers around here have tasers and "about 3 out of 32 of the city have them and the training to allow them to carry"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'm not trying to get into the center of an argument but I asked earlier and I havent seen any confirmation here or elsewhere that Officer Wilson had a taser in his possssion when the incident occurred.

I searched for this a bit yesterday (or day before), closest I could find was family/supporters asking why they didn't just tase him instead of shooting him. That seems to presume they were being carried but really doesn't confirm it either.

[Subby]

I am guessing there are strong feelings here about the op-ed below.

I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. - The Washington Post

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

I am guessing there are strong feelings here about the op-ed below.

A nice, simple, plain-English summary of how things work.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Subby

I am guessing there are strong feelings here about the op-ed below.

I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. - The Washington Post

Probably needs to be put out more places than just the Washington Post. It is a reality check that I think some people need. Cops aren't always right but they are the ones with the guns and the legal authority to use them.

Nothing good can come from physically challenging them during a stop.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Subby

I am guessing there are strong feelings here about the op-ed below.

He comes off better in the next to paragraphs. Though I still dislike his general, "obey, citizen" attitude he's presenting throughout.

I know it is scary for people to be stopped by cops. I also understand the anger and frustration if people believe they have been stopped unjustly or without a reason. I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves. I also believe every cop should use a body camera to record interactions with the community at all times. Every police car should have a video recorder. (This will prevent a situation like Mike Brown’s shooting, about which conflicting and self-serving statements allow people to believe what they want.) And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave. Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go. Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Though I still dislike his general, "obey, citizen" attitude he's presenting throughout.

That's reality. Got a beef, there's recourse after the fact.
But during? Bad idea.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

I am guessing there are strong feelings here about the op-ed below.

I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me. - The Washington Post

I think I know why you quoted that part but that's absolutely good advice.

He's not saying he has every right to kill you if you swear at him. I'm sure that's how that will be twisted. Challenging a cop with violence or hostility never works. If you believe the officer is violating your rights, you may be right, you may be wrong, but you will never win by being hostile. Once you make things hostile, or physical, THAT is the thing the officer is responding to, and your rights involving whatever you were mad about to begin with are going to be severely compromised.

Evidence gets suppressed every day because police make mistakes. Sometimes they're arguable mistakes, sometimes the judge is wrong that they made a mistake, sometimes the mistake is innocent, sometimes the mistake is stupid, and sometimes the mistake is reckless. I know people believe that never happens, but it does. You have recourse. That recourse goes out the window when you bring hostility or physical aggression to a situation. However bad you think your odds are in court (I know some defense attorneys who would be offended at the belief you can't beat police in court), your odds are a lot better there than they are trying to beat up an officer, or to change his mind by insulting him, or threatening him, or whatever. 99.9% of the time you won't get shot, but you'll also look like an idiot later when you try to suppress evidence or defend against the charges.

Other good stuff in the article about the restraint officers show, about the kind of situations they get involved in, the acknowledgment that bad cops exists and how you should deal with them, his support of more video devices to record things, and above all, the importance of mutual respect. If you decide an officer is racist and evil before they even do anything, you have no right to bitch about the ones who think you're dangerous and hostile before you do anything. You're just as wrong as they are.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's reality. Got a beef, there's recourse after the fact.
But during? Bad idea.

I'm not disagreeing that's the reality. I simply don't like the prevailing attitude that we should lay down like obedient little sheep and do everything a LEO tells us to do, without question.

Most cops are perfectly decent people, have a tough job, and deserve to be treated with respect. It's the small percentage bad seeds who get the headlines.

However, the second any otherwise good cop covers up for his bad buddy, all bets are off. You're in an authority position of public trust, with the right to effectively ruin (or take) the life of any number of human beings. Breaking that trust, or covering up for someone who breaks that trust places you among the scumbags of the world.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'm not disagreeing that's the reality. I simply don't like the prevailing attitude that we should lay down like obedient little sheep and do everything a LEO tells us to do, without question.

What exactly do you want to be able to do to police officers that you don't feel you're allowed to do now? Somebody else posted earlier about how their friends have to be all polite at traffic stops as if that's some kind of huge sacrifice. What do you think we should be allowed to do instead? Edit: And really, you're allowed to yell at police officers. I don't see what good it does, and that combined with other things might justify force eventually, but you're certainly allowed to do it.

The whole concept of law enforcement makes no sense if there's no authority.

[CU Tiger]

I get what Jon and molson are saying. Intellectually I do.

However, I can only say this. The way I was raised and the product that I am still today (this is not a statement of right or wrong just an acknowledgement of my own self awareness and self assessment)I would rather be beat senseless or even die standing up for my rights than to get off scott free by cowering like a little bitch.

I suspect that same sentiment is what lead to Michael Brown's death.

With no evidence I suspect the LEO stopped him and thumped his badge and acted like an asshat. And I suspect that Michael Brown responded to the challenge to his manhood. In the end one is dead and the other will walk free. I'm not saying either side is right. And I suspect that Michael Brown is a POS as a human and the planet may be better off without him (as controversial as that statement likely is)...but I think the real cultural divide comes in this.


Cops say kiss the ring and everything will be alright. The other side says Id rather die than kiss the ring. Then the survivor's family and friends are outraged at the audacity.

I am doing a poor job of making my point in that last bit, but what I am trying to say is despite my convictions (stated above) I have come to acknowledge that it is a choice I CAN make...I know how to meekly surrender my dignity but I choose not to and will willingly accept the consequences of that choice. I am not 100% sure that everyone in certain cultures even realizes they have that choice.

[rowech]

Not sure I trust the places I'm seeing this being reported but it's being reported at some places that the officer has a broken orbital bone.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Cops say kiss the ring and everything will be alright. The other sde sas Id rather die than kiss the ring. Then the survivor's family and friends are outraged at the audacity.

I am doing a poor job of making my point in that last bit, but what I am trying to say is despite my convictions (stated above) I have come to acknowledge that is a choice I CAN make...I know how to meekly surrender my dignity but I choose not to and will willingly accept the consequences of that choice. I am not 100% sure that everyone in certain cultures even realizes they have that choice.

I'm not sure I see being polite as 'kissing the ring' or surrendering my dignity. I'm sure in the Hell ain't going to do something stupid because I get pulled over for supposedly doing 61 in a 55 zone. No matter how smug the cop is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I simply don't like the prevailing attitude that we should lay down like obedient little sheep and do everything a LEO tells us to do, without question.

"Failure To Obey" is on the books in a whole lot of places. "Obstruction" is pretty universal. "Interfering" is another one.

Some, but not all, including the modifier "obey a lawful command" ... but the street generally isn't a great place to argue that point. You'll lose the argument most of the time, an improper command just doesn't buy you an extra/more serious charge later.

That's not an attitude, it's law.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

What exactly do you want to be able to do to police officers that you don't feel you're allowed to do now? Somebody else posted earlier about how their friends have to be all polite at traffic stops as if that's some kind of huge sacrifice. What do you think we should be allowed to do instead? Edit: And really, you're allowed to yell at police officers. I don't see what good it does, and that combined with other things might justify force eventually, but you're certainly allowed to do it.

The whole concept of law enforcement makes no sense if there's no authority.

There is a difference between being polite with mutual respect and being polite for fear of not trying to press a button.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by molson

What exactly do you want to be able to do to police officers that you don't feel you're allowed to do now? Somebody else posted earlier about how their friends have to be all polite at traffic stops as if that's some kind of huge sacrifice. What do you think we should be allowed to do instead? Edit: And really, you're allowed to yell at police officers. I don't see what good it does, and that combined with other things might justify force eventually, but you're certainly allowed to do it.

The whole concept of law enforcement makes no sense if there's no authority.

There's a difference between treating LEO's with decency and bending over and submitting without question, because They Are The Law. No, it's not a sacrifice to be polite. Hell, if I was a cop, and someone started screaming at me before I even opened my mouth, I'd be more inclined to act like an ass, too. However, if I treat Joe LEO with respect, I damn well expect to be treated with the same respect.

The proper response to a calm and rational questioning of an officer's decision is not to be treated as a hostile suspect, beaten, and drug off in cuffs. It happens. It's wrong. If you believe you're in the right in a situation (that isn't in the middle of some massive rioting or something), you have the right and the duty to not be complicit in following a cop's demands - as long as you are calm and reasonable. And you should receive the same treatment in return.

Sadly, like with many things, how it Should Work, and how Reality Works are very far apart.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Failure To Obey" is on the books in a whole lot of places. "Obstruction" is pretty universal. "Interfering" is another one.

Some, but not all, including the modifier "obey a lawful command" ... but the street generally isn't a great place to argue that point. You'll lose the argument most of the time, an improper command just doesn't buy you an extra/more serious charge later.

That's not an attitude, it's law.

The whole "Failure to Obey", to me, is a horseshit law in the first place, that has no place in this country.

Though again, see my post right above, re: Reality and How It Should Be.

But yes. All of this should be tempered with common sense. Trying to have a discussion of how far an officer's authority goes in the middle of people throwing molotovs and looting building isn't exactly smart, and isn't going to end well.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by rowech

Not sure I trust the places I'm seeing this being reported but it's being reported at some places that the officer has a broken orbital bone.

Still alive!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Their lack of regard for law harms all of society. Our failure to accept this reality -- largely in part due to an overall lack of willingness to condemn unacceptable behavior -- has been an enormous part of our societal downfall. And no, before anyone asks, I have zero problem extending this to drunk drivers & such either. The oft-maligned "war on drugs" failed because it was fought with lightweight half-measures, a tactic destined to failure.

I think it's a serious problem, and erodes the authority of the state, when you make things illegal that a majority of the population doesn't think should be. It sure feels like the majority of police work is tied up in drug enforcement or traffic stops.

I'll take traffic because it's the easier one - (almost) everyone drives, and (almost) everyone breaks at least one traffic law every single day. So it would make a lot more sense imo for the speed limit to be like 80 on the highway, with harsh penalties for going above that. Instead it's set at 65, with pretty much everyone including police officers I know saying there's like a 10-15 mph grace period they won't pull you over for. So now 95% of the population is breaking the law, they're conditioned that it's okay, and whenever anyone does get pulled over they think they're being unfairly or unluckily targeted or the cop is being a dick "because everyone's doing it". Then you throw in that a large part of moving violations are there for revenue generating purposes and not safety, and it's no wonder there's an adversarial relationship between police and drivers. If it was set at like 80 and you only ever saw the police pulling over the asshole going 100 or weaving between cars, people would be applauding them.

Drugs are trickier, but it certainly doesn't seem to make sense to punish people for marijuana when the majority of the population disagrees with that. Most people drank for 150 years in this country and saw nothing wrong with drinking. A vocal minority did, convinced the government to enact prohibition, and did it result in alcohol consumption going down? No, it just made millions of Americans criminals overnight and led to the biggest decade of lawlessness in the 20th century, because everyone who drank was effectively lumped in with and put on the same side of the law as all the really bad criminals. That's basically where marijuana is at this point - at least with the 15-40 year old crowd that are responsible for most police interactions.

The key to effective policing is to separate that 5-10% that is really bad from the much bigger middle group of people who may cross a line here and there, but aren't going to kill, or rape, or burn shit down.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm not a religious man, but ye olde Golden Rule (or whichever religious rule of reciprocity you want to substitute) sure does wonders when dealing with pretty much every other human on the planet. 'Course, that goes both (all?) ways. Lots of interactions/communication these days (e.g. the internets) seem to be based on confrontation first.

Yup, which is why it's really frustrating when dealing with any asshole in a position of authority. I've experienced firsthand the disparity from the same groups of police officers to the same person (me!) based off how they perceive me. I went to HS in the town I coach in now, and now multiple officers know me as a Responsible Member of the Community or whatever, so when they see me at a football game they'll say hi or just have a normal interaction. Then I see them barking at or giving HS kids dickish glares, just like they did at me and my friends when I was in HS - and I'm really not that different a person than I was then. And some of those HS kids are assholes, and all do immature shit here and then, but for the most part if you treat them like a normal person and give them some responsibility and respect they'll return it. You treat them like they're beneath you, and they'll resent you and your interactions with them will be adversarial.

I went to UMass and the same shit happened. You do have a semi-hostile community from the start because the police spend most of their time enforcing a policy (no drinking under 21) that literally everyone was breaking, but it still came down to attitude. I lived off-campus in 2 different places. One of them was a pretty residential neighborhood and we actually met the cops who usually patrolled it and were able to have a great relationship with them. We'd throw parties, but we'd make sure no one was wandering through the neighborhood, do our best to make sure no one drive drunk, and then if there was a noise complaint we'd make sure they didn't have to come back a 2nd time -and everything worked out. The other place I lived at the cops would come in like stormtroopers, all hell would break loose, and the same shit would happen every weekend.

I then worked as a bouncer for 3 years in Boston, and again I know it's not an exact parallel, but I could've provoked a confrontation and started a fight pretty much every night if I wanted to. But I never felt I had anything to prove, so I managed to go 3 years with nothing more than a couple shoves against me, because I adhered to two rules. If a person was doing something borderline, I'd talk to them and usually whichever of their friends looked most sober calmly and gave them a warning. Then if someone had to be thrown out, we'd make sure we went with more guys than they had in their group, but we'd still talk calmly, but insistently.

Back to Ferguson, I'm not in the group that thinks he coldly executed some black kid or even thought that was a potential outcome going in, but some of the actions only make sense if it's done by a jackass who thought he could boss people around and treated Brown like he was beneath him. Even if Brown did try to reach for the gun (while the officer was in the car?) or he charged the officer (after being shot/shot at?) that's how you turn jaywalking into a national news story with a dead person.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm not sure I see being polite as 'kissing the ring' or surrendering my dignity. I'm sure in the Hell ain't going to do something stupid because I get pulled over for supposedly doing 61 in a 55 zone. No matter how smug the cop is.

Neither am I and I'll be polite. But I'll do the following:

• I'll video record all interactions with the officer. This is a Constitutional right guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
• I won't speak to the officer without my attorney present. I won't respond to any statements because they're legally allowed to lie. I will immediately ask for an attorney present.
• I won't trust the officer or anything they say. Again, they're allowed to legally lie to entrap you.
• I will refuse to be searched or have my possessions searched.
• I will continue to ask "am I being detained and arrested". If I am not, I am free to leave.
• I will not allow them in my place of residence without a warrant.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

The whole "Failure to Obey", to me, is a horseshit law in the first place, that has no place in this country.

That makes no sense. Then people would just get in their cars and drive away whenever stopped, would keep walking down the street and so on.

No one would care about those flashing lights behind them if there wasn't some hammer that forced them to pull over.

[Coffee Warlord]

Sorry. Failure to Obey. Not Failure to Obey a Lawful Order.

edit: To expand. I've heard of this charge being levied at people who were fully within their rights to refuse the command, and/or it was an unlawful command to begin with. I find this to be bullshit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

That makes no sense. Then people would just get in their cars and drive away whenever stopped, would keep walking down the street and so on.

No one would care about those flashing lights behind them if there wasn't some hammer that forced them to pull over.

I wonder what % of people agree with their arrests at the moment of arrest. I can't even imagine the environment if all of those people were allowed to physically resist arrest. All warrants would have to be no-knock warrants. Officer trigger fingers would be even itchier.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Sorry. Failure to Obey. Not Failure to Obey a Lawful Order.

What kind of scenario are you talking about?

[Subby]

I am fine with using any non-lethal tactic when a person is resisting arrest. Prior to that? Arguing, name calling, questioning (all reasons the op-ed writer cited) should not be enough to justify any use of force. Police need to act like professionals, not thugs. Yes, they are human and make mistakes but being a police officer means being held to a higher standard.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Neither am I and I'll be polite. But I'll do the following:

• I'll video record all interactions with the officer. This is a Constitutional right guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
• I won't speak to the officer without my attorney present. I won't respond to any statements because they're legally allowed to lie. I will immediately ask for an attorney present.
• I won't trust the officer or anything they say. Again, they're allowed to legally lie to entrap you.
• I will refuse to be searched or have my possessions searched.
• I will continue to ask "am I being detained and arrested". If I am not, I am free to leave.
• I will not allow them in my place of residence without a warrant.

This is a good part of any community outreach program, to inform people of their rights. Maybe it takes some of the fear away, in some situations, when you understand what power you have.

Then you can make choices whether to assert those rights or not. If an officer is polite, I will try to help out however I can. I'll offer as much info as I can about anything if I think it will reduce my odds of a speeding ticket. And plenty of times officers are sincerely looking for information about a lost child or elderly adult with dementia. If they're questioning me for a crime, then my analysis may be different.

Officers are allowed to lie about some things but not others. They can lie about facts, like, "hey, your buddy other there came clean about the whole meth operation, what do you have to say about that." They can't law about the legal stuff though. "Hey, if you admit you touched that girl, I'll make sure you only get probation." Nope, confession tossed, case thrown out. "Hey, this is just between you and me talking, this doesn't leave this conversation". Nope, confession tossed, case thrown out.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

I am fine with using any non-lethal tactic when a person is resisting arrest. Prior to that? Arguing, name calling, questioning (all reasons the op-ed writer cited) should not be enough to justify any use of force. Police need to act like professionals, not thugs. Yes, they are human and make mistakes but being a police officer means being held to a higher standard.

Word alone, except maybe threats, would never justify use of force. The writer didn't say that they do.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Officers are allowed to lie about some things but not others. They can lie about facts, like, "hey, your buddy other there came clean about the whole meth operation, what do you have to say about that." They can't law about the legal stuff though. "Hey, if you admit you touched that girl, I'll make sure you only get probation." Nope, confession tossed, case thrown out. "Hey, this is just between you and me talking, this doesn't leave this conversation". Nope, confession tossed, case thrown out.

I think this creates a huge trust issue between police and the public. They simply shouldn't be allowed to lie, at all.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

So what's your solution to all this? I bet it's not very different than mine, and the things I actually try to do. The only difference is the rhetoric.

The difference in rhetoric is the difference between knowing what should be done and knowing what can/will be done. It's a good talking point to say "the police needs to be demilitarized or better trained in not escalating conflict," but when it comes election season middle America is going to vote for the "WAR ON DRUGS TOUGH ON CRIME" candidate every time. The evolution of police forces from the 60s to today bears direct witness to that.

Something more feasible is the police officer/department being found liable on at least a civil level rather than being able to hide behind subjective procedural crap like "Well, we can't disprove that the officer genuinely thought lethal force was necessary." Anything that gives the next officer pause before abusing the use of force continuum.

edit: and the nice thing about that would be that the lesson to police departments across the country is absolutely free, as opposed to something like outfitting all officers with cameras or giving them better community outreach training that could be waved off as "You know, that sounds like a really good way to begin to address the problem, but unfortunately our department doesn't have the funds for that."

[Subby]

Originally Posted by molson

Word alone, except maybe threats, would never justify use of force. The writer didn't say that they do.

My reading comprehension must be out of whack, because that is how I read this passage:

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

"Hey, this is just between you and me talking, this doesn't leave this conversation". Nope, confession tossed, case thrown out.

I believe you are not correct about this. "Off the record" conversations are permissible in court.

SJC affirms admissibility of ‘off the record’ remarks to police - The Boston Globe

Unless you know of a Supreme Court ruling that overturns this. In short, the police are generally allowed to lie about virtually anything and the responses are permissible. There are limits, but they are very vague and very few.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by rowech

Not sure I trust the places I'm seeing this being reported but it's being reported at some places that the officer has a broken orbital bone.

Was this the same report that then went on to definitively state "Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown"?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

This is a good part of any community outreach program, to inform people of their rights. Maybe it takes some of the fear away, in some situations, when you understand what power you have.

I've wondered if it wouldn't be helpful to have a set of Miranda-like traffic rights that the officer reads off to the suspect first thing. I imagine that a lot of conflict starts at these traffic stops when suspects think that their rights are being abused, but aren't 100% clear on what those rights are. Likewise, asserting/questioning your rights doesn't always seem to illicit the most polite police response (especially if you're not clear on what those rights actually are), and perhaps starting every stop with a declaration of those rights would reduce conflict.

[cuervo72]

So not only did an ambulance not arrive for a shooting fatality, it didn't arrive for an officer with a broken bone in his face?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

being a police officer means being held to a higher standard.

Being a police officer means they are authorized (generally) to use one level of force above that which they face.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So not only did an ambulance not arrive for a shooting fatality, it didn't arrive for an officer with a broken bone in his face?

According to the police chief's first press conference on Friday, while there was no call for an ambulance, one happened to show up at the scene after being on the way back from another call.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I believe you are not correct about this. "Off the record" conversations are permissible in court.

SJC affirms admissibility of ‘off the record’ remarks to police - The Boston Globe

Unless you know of a Supreme Court ruling that overturns this. In short, the police are generally allowed to lie about virtually anything and the responses are permissible. There are limits, but they are very vague and very few.

Interesting. My state actually might be tougher on confession-based deception. I do know they've interpreted the 5th Amendment more stringently in a lot of other circumstances. (Edit: And also, telling someone something is "off the record" doesn't impact voluntariness as much as say, telling someone that their words will not be used against them, when you're required to inform them the opposite pursuant to Miranda, when they're in custody). But, really, I don't disagree at all with your reasoning for not talking to officers, that's your right.

(In my state, if there's a trial, and an officer testifies "I attempted to talk to the defendant", then any conviction is going to get vacated, because the officer is implying that he tried to talk to the defendant, but that the defendant asserted his rights. Therefore, the state is using his silence against him at trial.....I know other states are not that strict, but I certainly tell every officer group I teach about that case. It can be a totally innocent slip-up, but it's something officers have to know).

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

What kind of scenario are you talking about?

I'll give you an example from my life of when failure to obey needs the "lawful order" attachment.

When I had my contractor business I was taking an employee home. An employee whom I had just terminated. He was single and until he lost his job had a company vehicle. Rather than make a now unemployed man pay for a cab or walk 25 miles home I gave him a ride.

After dropping him off in a very bad neighborhood (I was driving my wife's 1 week old SUV at the time) a cop began following me and eventually pulled me over.

I was never informed what I was pulled for.

I didnt identify that I was a CWP holder and had weapons in the car. The officer asked me to step out of the vehicle and bega questioning me about why I was where I was. I assume he thought I was buying drugs, but there was no way to answer that qustion without informing him that a local resident had lost his job. Which was none of his damn business. I asked what law I had broken and he replied "You are about to be resisting arrest and obstructing justice if you dont answer my damn question." I informed him I wanted a lawyer immediately and that he was now unlawfully seaching my vehicle.

I was handcuffed and placed under arrest for "suspicion of intent to purchase drugs"

All charges were dropped. It cost me $6,000 in lawyers fees and 4 days out of work. The state owed me nothing. They damaged our new car when they towed it. Again no restitution. One of my handguns has NEVER been recovered. The material report showed 3 handguns were taken from my car (the correct amount) 2 were returned and I was told "the report was in error"

This was clearly an age and racial issue as my 31 year old pasty white ass didnt belong in the ghetto especially driving a new luxury car. Despite the fact that at the time I owned a business and employed 70+ people. Despite the fact that my company had been the EC on the precinct and the new courthouse where this jack ass worked. In the end he was "reprimanded and forced to issue an apology"...he left the apology on my voicemail "This is Officer Bostick calling to comply with my mandated apology for your treatment. You can call me back if you want."

Sorry I went off on a tangent there but my blood still boils when I think about it. The problem with "arguing your point later" is that it is at YOUR expense and your peril.

[RainMaker]

Many cops are dicks who abuse their powers because there are zero repercussions for it. Just about everyone has a story about a cop being an asshole and/or fucking them over in some way.

Sure there are racial components to everything, but I think cops are dicks to pretty much everyone and it comes out worse in areas that are naturally more antagonistic to cops.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I've wondered if it wouldn't be helpful to have a set of Miranda-like traffic rights that the officer reads off to the suspect first thing. I imagine that a lot of conflict starts at these traffic stops when suspects think that their rights are being abused, but aren't 100% clear on what those rights are. Likewise, asserting/questioning your rights doesn't always seem to illicit the most polite police response (especially if you're not clear on what those rights actually are), and perhaps starting every stop with a declaration of those rights would reduce conflict.

That's actually a really good idea

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Sorry I went off on a tangent there but my blood still boils when I think about it. The problem with "arguing your point later" is that it is at YOUR expense and your peril.

But you did argue your point later. You didn't get everything you wanted. But your situation would have been a lot worse if decided to fight the officer. If you had yelled at, threatened, or physically attacked the officer, things wouldn't have gone any better.