FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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.

While I agree with you for the most part in your earlier statement about sticking up for yourself, I think here's where you either

a) Should have offered more information. You didn't have to say "employee lost his job" but how about "dropping off an employee at his house because he is a good employee"

b) if you didn't want to do that - you should have pressed things further and gotten the restitution for the gun and the damage to the car

I sympathize though, that definitely sucks.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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.

Yes, you were quite within your rights to play it the way you did, or you could have told the truth and who knows, maybe it would have played differently?

Of course, it may also have been he didn't believe you and it would have been exactly the same, but generally telling the truth in situations is the best way forward: to the officer it would have looked like you were being evasive, which = suspicious.

No excuse for failing to hand back your property though, that's poor.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.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.

This is a fantastic post. Every little part of it. Completely agree with when you talk about when the police try to work with people rather than coming in like hardasses more good gets done. It allows people to take ownership of issues rather than feeling its being put on them by jackasses (such as in the case of drunk driving or loud music at parties).

[molson]

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.

If I was chief in a department in a place like Ferguson, I'd consider doing something like that by choice. Inform someone of their rights, and also that the entire encounter is being recorded (audio or video) for everybody's protection.

You'd have to keep it very brief, to avoid risk of unconstitutionally extending a stop (I can see the argument that the warnings are just a way to stall before the drug dog gets there). But I'd be happy to go down in flames on an argument like that, it'd be great for PR in the community and the cost of drugs in someone's trunk.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

but there was no way to answer that qustion without informing him that a local resident had lost his job.

How about. "I was dropping off an employee."

[RainMaker]

Not answering questions you don't legally have to answer is not grounds to arrest you on a bogus charge. The cop should have lost his job in that case but because you really can't lose your job as a cop the police department continues to employ an incompetent person.

It's just mind-boggling that people make excuses for incompetence so often when it comes to the police. Like it's impossible for taxpayers to setup a system where they can fire the poor performing employees they pay for.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

That's a good perspective and I think it gives you good insight to what officers do. Because the role and appropriate mindset is similar. Suspects give officers justification to use some kind of force all the time. It's better to find other ways to resolve the issue though, and most of the time, they do. But I'm sure there are excellent bouncers in the united states who have occasionally had to use force. There are probably also good bouncers who fucked up in a high-stress situations. There are also terrible bouncers who look for conflict.

[nol]

Originally Posted by 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.

CU's example is a good case of how a revenue-maximizing police department, when faced with the joint problems of only having X number of man-hours to make stops or arrests and having some proportion of fines/citations/charges end up being successfully appealed, would rationally consider it wiser to target a group of individuals who are less likely to have the resources to fight the charges.

Something like that offers enough plausible deniability to claim that police officers aren't racist as a whole, but the net effect on the community is still the same and like you mention, ends up creating a cycle of self-fulfilling prophesies.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

While I agree with you for the most part in your earlier statement about sticking up for yourself, I think here's where you either

a) Should have offered more information. You didn't have to say "employee lost his job" but how about "dropping off an employee at his house because he is a good employee"

b) if you didn't want to do that - you should have pressed things further and gotten the restitution for the gun and the damage to the car

I sympathize though, that definitely sucks.

"Dropping off an employee" would have been a lie and opened me up to further criminal charges.

Stating he had been terminated could have opened me up to a civil suit.

Regarding the damage, in SC there is no restitution..they get carte blanche "during a lawful arrests" to do whatever they want. As the judge told us in court "Sir I sympathize with your position but if he would have felt it nevessary to bust the windows out of your car to arrest you, even if you are found not guilty, so long as the action was justifiable it is your responsibility to repair the vehicle."

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Yes, you were quite within your rights to play it the way you did, or you could have told the truth and who knows, maybe it would have played differently?

Of course, it may also have been he didn't believe you and it would have been exactly the same, but generally telling the truth in situations is the best way forward: to the officer it would have looked like you were being evasive, which = suspicious.

No excuse for failing to hand back your property though, that's poor.

Here is my big issue.
Innocent until proven guilty. Now my situation was different than the Ferguson one because Michael Brown was guilty of Jaywalking at the time of his confrontation. I did nothing wrong.

I will however bet you that at some point in his life Michael Brown had been harassed for doing nothing wrong. That doenst excuse his actions that night but I hope it offers some perspective.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

"Dropping off an employee" would have been a lie and opened me up to further criminal charges.

Stating he had been terminated could have opened me up to a civil suit.

Regarding the damage, in SC there is no restitution..they get carte blanche "during a lawful arrests" to do whatever they want. As the judge told us in court "Sir I sympathize with your position but if he would have felt it nevessary to bust the windows out of your car to arrest you, even if you are found not guilty, so long as the action was justifiable it is your responsibility to repair the vehicle."

Oh, because he had been terminated? Alright.

How about "Dropping off someone who used to be an employee of mine" if you want to be 100% truthful.

"He doesn't have a car. He needed a ride."

I mean - it sounds like the cop would have probably given you a hard time anyways based on the neighborhood and all, but who knows.

Just curious - why would stating he had been let go open you up to a civil suit? Is that some funky SC law or something?

The damage to, and theft of, your property though is just inexcusable. And that's a fucked up law given that there was no real basis for the arrest. I could understand it if the charges stuck and all, but that's just messed up IMO.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Here is my big issue.
Innocent until proven guilty. Now my situation was different than the Ferguson one because Michael Brown was guilty of Jaywalking at the time of his confrontation. I did nothing wrong.

I will however bet you that at some point in his life Michael Brown had been harassed for doing nothing wrong. That doenst excuse his actions that night but I hope it offers some perspective.

I'm sorry that's not the point. Innocent until proven guilty is what applies in a court of law. Police have to have reasonable grounds (just cause) to stop someone. If 'innocent until proven guilty' is the premise for everything they wouldn't be able to stop and question anyone unless they were proven to be guilty beforehand, which means no-one would be stopped unless physically caught in the act, so policing would become 100% reactive rather than having any prevention aspect at all.

From the cops POV it seems he saw a well to do white bloke driving a nice car in a poor black area known for drug dealing. When stopped the person driving was evasive and could provide no good reason for being in the area. Seems suspicious to me, and worthy of further investigation.

Yes is sucks a bit when you are the person stopped and inconvenienced, but in the bigger picture if they didn't investigate potentially suspicious behaviour society would be a lot worse.

As before, he may have been a dick, and they were definitely wrong to not return all of your stuff, but I don't have a problem with them stopping you, or for detaining you following your reaction to being stopped, or for all charges being dropped when you no doubt provided further information after being arrested.

Innocent until proven guilty is a different attitude to 'nothing to hide' - the former is defensive, the latter open, and the latter is more likely, but not guaranteed if the cop was a tool, to get a reasonable attitude in return

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good summation of the legal process in cases like this.

St. Louis Public Radio

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I'm sorry that's not the point. Innocent until proven guilty is what applies in a court of law. Police have to have reasonable grounds (just cause) to stop someone. If 'innocent until proven guilty' is the premise for everything they wouldn't be able to stop and question anyone unless they were proven to be guilty beforehand, which means no-one would be stopped unless physically caught in the act, so policing would become 100% reactive rather than having any prevention aspect at all.

From the cops POV it seems he saw a well to do white bloke driving a nice car in a poor black area known for drug dealing. When stopped the person driving was evasive and could provide no good reason for being in the area. Seems suspicious to me, and worthy of further investigation.

Yes is sucks a bit when you are the person stopped and inconvenienced, but in the bigger picture if they didn't investigate potentially suspicious behaviour society would be a lot worse.

As before, he may have been a dick, and they were definitely wrong to not return all of your stuff, but I don't have a problem with them stopping you, or for detaining you following your reaction to being stopped, or for all charges being dropped when you no doubt provided further information after being arrested.

Innocent until proven guilty is a different attitude to 'nothing to hide' - the former is defensive, the latter open, and the latter is more likely, but not guaranteed if the cop was a tool, to get a reasonable attitude in return

I have a problem with it. There was NO PROBABLE CAUSE to make an arrest. I would argue that the officer didn't even have reasonable suspicion, which is what is needed to pull him over. But even if he did, that's not enough for an arrest.

Refusing to answer the questions is not probable cause and is not grounds for an arrest. Being white in a black neighborhood is not probable cause. Having a rich car in a poor neighborhood is not probable cause.

Essentially you're justifying arresting people over their skin color just because you think they don't belong. That's not just bad policy, that's illegal. Maybe arresting people for their skin color is legal in England, but that's not the law in the USA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I have a problem with it. There was NO PROBABLE CAUSE to make an arrest. I would argue that the officer didn't even have reasonable suspicion, which is what is needed to pull him over. But even if he did, that's not enough for an arrest.

FWIW, South Carolina courts (I'm taking a guess that might have been where this occurred, could be wrong) have consistently, and rather forcefully imo, upheld the right of police to search based on reasonable suspicion. And the threshold for "reasonable" is relatively low IMO.

State v. Burgess :: 2011 :: South Carolina Court of Appeals Decisions :: South Carolina Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

Illegal Search and Seizure | Criminal Lawyer | Rock Hill | Fort Mill

Now the arrest on that charge as phrased here, darned if I can find that charge in SC, but the search seems almost certain to be well within prevailing law.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FWIW, South Carolina courts (I'm taking a guess that might have been where this occurred, could be wrong) have consistently, and rather forcefully imo, upheld the right of police to search based on reasonable suspicion. And the threshold for "reasonable" is relatively low IMO.

State v. Burgess :: 2011 :: South Carolina Court of Appeals Decisions :: South Carolina Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

Illegal Search and Seizure | Criminal Lawyer | Rock Hill | Fort Mill

Now the arrest on that charge as phrased here, darned if I can find that charge in SC, but the search seems almost certain to be well within prevailing law.

Different facts - the case you cited has the jeep around the back of a building, the occupants weren't eating and there was an obvious hand off between the passengers of different cars. Those aren't remotely the actions described in the story above. The other case you cite has the suspect fleeing from police. Again, that's an entirely different situation. In this case you have a simple case of "driving while white". That's not reasonable suspicion.

But let's argue the police had reasonable suspicion. That's a far cry from probable cause to arrest him and in the above case there was ZERO probable cause. In short, the above action was illegal and wrong and he probably should have sued the police department for it. Often times, a suit is the only way to force officers to follow the law as their insurance companies put pressure on them to stop overstepping their boundaries.

By the way, if the officer had done nothing wrong then he wouldn't have been reprimanded and forced to apologize, would he? After all, the union wouldn't have allowed an officer to take heat for doing nothing wrong, would they?

[Noop]

This whole thing is sad. I think the value of black life is not worth much anymore.

[molson]

There definitely was no probable cause, and based on the way the officer behaved, I don't believe there was reasonable suspicion either. But, just for fun, it is possible to get reasonable suspicion with a lot of little things added up. Again, I don't believe any of this happened here, but if CU Tiger's employee lived at a drug house, and he stopped in front of it, and they talked for a while outside, and CU reached for something the car, and maybe the employee left, came back, whatever, and the officer was familiar with the employee because he had done parole checks at that house, then, things can add up. A lot of places also have really stupid laws about how long you have to activate your turn signal. It's 5 seconds where I am, and nobody does that. Still, it's cause for a stop.

Even then, the stop can only last as long as to confirm or dispel the reasonable suspicion. If you pull someone over and nothing's amiss, that's it. You can't even call for a drug dog and wait for it, that would be an illegal extension of the stop. But if you had a drug dog with you, or if one showed up while you were lawfully doing a license check, then you could run the drug dog around the car, since that doesn't count as a search. That's how drugs are found most of the time, in my jurisdiction.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Different facts - the case you cited has the jeep around the back of a building, the occupants weren't eating and there was an obvious hand off between the passengers of different cars. Those aren't remotely the actions described in the story above. The other case you cite has the suspect fleeing from police. Again, that's an entirely different situation. In this case you have a simple case of "driving while white". That's not reasonable suspicion.

Reasonability is based in part around the experience of the officers involved (notice how heavily that was cited in the SC Supremes ruling). Given the description of the circumstances I honestly believe any reasonable person, much less one with law enforcement experience, would have found the scene "suspicious". I'm hard pressed to imagine any court in SC would have ruled differently on the search / questioning.

But let's argue the police had reasonable suspicion. That's a far cry from probable cause to arrest him and in the above case there was ZERO probable cause.

I attempted to note in my previous post that I couldn't defend the arrest based on what we know here since I couldn't even find the applicable statute that allows the charge. Maybe I didn't note that clearly enough.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

This whole thing is sad. I think the value of black life is not worth much anymore.

It is when he's killed by an officer, the whole country stops. When blacks kill blacks, yes, people seem to expect that and nobody cares.

[molson]

Kind of an interesting take on officer training and how it can be improved:

Why did Ferguson cop need 6 bullets? (Opinion) - CNN.com

"They are trained as soldiers and expected to perform as social workers at least 90% of the time. And then in a split of a second, they have to be soldiers again. It's quite a trick."

I don't know what the answer to that would be. Maybe the police role could be split into two jobs and each side could focus on one aspect. There would still be overlap though. I've tried to emphasize the social work-side of things in my own interactions with officers.

[Blackadar]

Gotta love these Ferguson cops. This is Officer Go Fuck Yourself, so named because they won't name their cops and this seems to be his favorite phrase, telling the media that he's going to "fucking kill them".

#OfficerGoFuckYourself Threatens to Kill Ferguson Livestreamers - YouTube

Officer points gun at me and other media on W. Florissant #ferguson - YouTube

How the fuck is this guy not in jail for making terrorist threats and assault with a deadly weapon? What the hell kind of training did he get to point a loaded assault rife at multiple people?

Sadly, this isn't the exception for police behavior in poor minority communities.

[Blackadar]

Oh, and the dozen witnesses to the shooting supporting the police version?

Complete Bullshit

Christine Byers has been on FMLA leave since March, hasn't been at the P-D offices in that time and is in no way working any story related to Ferguson or Michael Brown. Today she tweeted a complete retraction of this, as did the newspaper's editor in chief, who said the information in any event "Didn't meet the standards for print in our newspaper." In other words--she made this up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sadly, this isn't the exception for police behavior in poor minority communities.

Neither is violent criminal behavior ... but that seems to be a-ok with a lot of folks.

At most what do we really have here? A dead criminal.

All of this? Over that? Seriously?

We have lost our f'n minds in this country.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Neither is violent criminal behavior ... but that seems to be a-ok with a lot of folks.

At most what do we really have here? A dead criminal.

All of this? Over that? Seriously?

We have lost our f'n minds in this country.

I think shooting a kid six times for jaywalking *might* be a violation of the Eighth amendment. Maybe.

[Subby]

I mean, I'm no lawyer.

[cuervo72]

http://www.online-paralegal-programs...our-rights.png

[Suicane75]

Except that's not at all what likely happened, and you know that.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

It is when he's killed by an officer, the whole country stops. When blacks kill blacks, yes, people seem to expect that and nobody cares.

Black People Are Not Ignoring 'Black on Black' Crime - The Atlantic

[DaddyTorgo]

This sounds like a real fucked up town where they rely on over-policing in order to raise revenues. And keep in mind this is NEWSWEEK, not some left-wing online blog or something.

http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-pro...hooting-264744

“Despite Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of 2,635,400,” according to the ArchCity Defenders report. And in 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court issued 24,532 arrest warrants and 12,018 cases, “or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.”

Exacerbating the problem, the report says, are "a number of operational procedures that make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts." A Ferguson court employee reported, for example, that “the bench routinely starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official hour, a practice that could easily lead a defend net arriving even slightly late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear.”

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Black People Are Not Ignoring 'Black on Black' Crime - The Atlantic

There are great people who are doing more than complaining on message boards, and who are actually doing things to try to change the situations in these communities. I should have mentioned them. I wish them and their success stories got more media and recognition.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

I think shooting a kid six times for jaywalking *might* be a violation of the Eighth amendment. Maybe.

Psst ... cigars.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sadly, this isn't the exception for police behavior in poor minority communities.

I'd say it isn't the exception in any community. It's one of the only professions where it is almost impossible to be fired. There is no profession I can think of where you could speak like that to your customers and retain a job.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Subby

I think shooting a kid six times for jaywalking *might* be a violation of the Eighth amendment. Maybe.

Jon is being Jon and we know what we're going to get from him.

I just don't get the rhetoric on this. People have lost their minds. People are having trouble reading. It's kind of scary. When this kind of thing happens with non-police defendants, when we get this kind of mob mentality that makes assumptions and exaggerates what we know - we all recognize and see how scary that is. Shooting him for jaywalking? I don't think even Brown's friend's account is that the officer saw him jaywalking and killed him for committing that offense.

I can't be the only one that thinks this, I just think there's this idea that if you're on the right side, you can exaggerate and make assumptions if those lead to justice in the end. Which is that wild west mob mentality. Blackadar has been very vocal about the Ferguson police, and he theorized a situation earlier that I think is very plausible and at least borders on criminal. It was not that this officer killed this guy because he was jaywalking. So, there's a fundamental disagreement between Blacklader and Subby on this. But that disagreement will never come up here, because they're on the same side against the real enemy, this officer. So we just go with it. That becomes the new truth. That's how you get assumptions and unjust convictions. When this happens to black defendants, and it does, we recognize that injustice. Nobody sees even the possibility of it here. Somebody must be strung up. The facts, what intent can be proven, don't matter at all. There must be justice, which means someone must be strung up.

Edit: Those on the other side can be guilty of the same thing here. There were initial reports that the officer was black, and then that this reporter claimed sources told her that 12 witness agreed with the officer. Some people were a little too excited about those stories that sure smelled like bullshit. (There's one floating around now that Brown's friend has changed his story and supports the officer's version - I'd be shocked if that's not made-up bullshit as well). Once you're locked into a side on this, none of the evidence matters. If it supports your side, it's huge, if it doesn't, it's made-up or flawed. That's a dangerous place to be, that's how injustice happens.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Oh, and the dozen witnesses to the shooting supporting the police version?

Complete Bullshit

Christine Byers has been on FMLA leave since March, hasn't been at the P-D offices in that time and is in no way working any story related to Ferguson or Michael Brown. Today she tweeted a complete retraction of this, as did the newspaper's editor in chief, who said the information in any event "Didn't meet the standards for print in our newspaper." In other words--she made this up.

And the main eyewitness (Brown's friend) has a lengthy criminal record that includes filing a false police report. Has already had his version of events discredited by the autopsy the family commissioned. And conveniently failed to mention in all his interviews that him and his friend were knocking up a convenient store an hour earlier.

There is zero chance they can put him on a stand in a trial. He would be eviscerated by a competent defense.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This sounds like a real fucked up town where they rely on over-policing in order to raise revenues.

http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-pro...hooting-264744

“Despite Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of 2,635,400,” according to the ArchCity Defenders report. And in 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court issued 24,532 arrest warrants and 12,018 cases, “or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.”

Exacerbating the problem, the report says, are "a number of operational procedures that make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts." A Ferguson court employee reported, for example, that “the bench routinely starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official hour, a practice that could easily lead a defend net arriving even slightly late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear.”

So basically what you have is a police force that largely doesn't reside in the town, drawing salaries from money made by shaking down the town's residents?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Psst ... cigars.

Which wasn't known by the officer at the time

And even still - shooting someone six times for a unarmed robbery (and that's if he didn't pay for them - which the longer video leave the question open about in some peoples' minds).

[RainMaker]

The officer claimed he was being charged by the offender after a physical confrontation in the car. He wasn't shot for cigars or for jaywalking. Now whether you believe his version of events is a different matter, but it's disingenuous to state he shot Brown over cigars or jaywalking.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So basically what you have is a police force that largely doesn't reside in the town, drawing salaries from money made by shaking down the town's residents?

Seems to be that way I suppose.

It's really not that unusual I guess, but it's certainly an issue.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I just don't get the rhetoric on this. People have lost their minds. People are having trouble reading. It's kind of scary. When this kind of thing happens with non-police defendants, when we get this kind of mob mentality that makes assumptions and exaggerates what we know - we all recognize and see how scary that is. Shooting him for jaywalking? I don't think even Brown's friend's account is that the officer saw him jaywalking and killed him for committing that offense.

And no one here has said he was shot for jaywalking. Well, at least I didn't. He was stopped for jaywalking. Now how does that escalate into an unarmed boy/man getting shot 6 times at range? That's what I want to know.

Originally Posted by molson

Blackadar has been very vocal about the Ferguson police, and he theorized a situation earlier that I think is very plausible and at least borders on criminal.

Yep, and I've tried to back up my assertions with facts and videos.

Originally Posted by molson

But that disagreement will never come up here, because they're on the same side against the real enemy, this officer. So we just go with it. That becomes the new truth. That's how you get assumptions and unjust convictions.

And this is where you go off the rails. Actually, you'll notice I've attacked the Ferguson police department for the actions, abuse and lies. I've asked hard questions about the circumstances around this case. However, I have yet to attack the officer himself or his personal motives. THIS COP isn't the enemy. He may be guilty of a crime - that may be very well likely - but the enemy is the entire system of police militarization, the thin blue line and their overreactions to situations.

Originally Posted by molson

When this happens to black defendants, and it does, we recognize that injustice. Nobody sees even the possibility of it here. Somebody must be strung up. The facts, what intent can be proven, don't matter at all. There must be justice, which means someone must be strung up.

Bollocks.

"We recognize that injustice"? Maybe, in passing, when statistics are presented that are so irrefutable that people can't ignore them anymore or yet another young kid dies by some overaggressive, undertrained or racist cop because the system allowed it to happen. Recognizing that injustice and doing NOTHING doesn't do a damn thing.

You know what justice is? It's recognizing the conditions that allows this to happen repeatedly and FIXING them. The police are not a paramilitary force. There is no reason why SWAT incursions have increased 1400% in the last 20 years. It's time to go back to "protect and serve", not "arm and intimidate". It's actually doing something about the huge disparity in sentencing between white and black defendants for the same crime. That's justice...or at least the start of it.

EDITED TO REMOVE HYPERBOLE.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The officer claimed he was being charged by the offender after a physical confrontation in the car. He wasn't shot for cigars or for jaywalking. Now whether you believe his version of events is a different matter, but it's disingenuous to state he shot Brown over cigars or jaywalking.

I read that as a direct response to Jon's "He's a dead criminal. So what?" post and not an actual belief of what happened.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And the main eyewitness (Brown's friend) has a lengthy criminal record that includes filing a false police report. Has already had his version of events discredited by the autopsy the family commissioned. And conveniently failed to mention in all his interviews that him and his friend were knocking up a convenient store an hour earlier.

There is zero chance they can put him on a stand in a trial. He would be eviscerated by a competent defense.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, since this has nothing to do with my post.

By the way, his version of the shooting isn't discredited by the autopsy. The examiner said that it is possible that one or more of the the gunshots to the arms could have come from behind. I don't think you can put him up on the stand as your primary witness but he could certainly reinforce other testimony as to the nature of the shooting:

Shawn L. Parcells, who operates a forensics company based in Kansas, assisted Baden during the more-than-three-hour autopsy Sunday. Parcells, who joined Baden Monday to discuss their findings, said the autopsy showed Brown could have had his back the shooter or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position.

Did Michael Brown have his 'hands up' when killed by police? Private autopsy can't say : News

Independent Autopsy Finds 'No Signs of Struggle' in Michael Brown Death - The Wire

[larrymcg421]

Thanks for pointing that out. So the live tweeter isn't discredited either.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And no one here has said he was shot for jaywalking.

Subby said he was shot for jaywalking. That was the whole point of my response.

You definitely did not say that, and that was part of that point. You've made some very good points. Your theory posted earlier was done without blind emotion and was pretty plausible.

But then you went off the rails. You keep saying how you're so objective and how you don't look at all police as the enemy and then you say stuff like this.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's actually uncovering the truth. As I've stated before, I think it's going to be hard to actually justify this shooting but it won't matter. I think it will get swept under the rug or not prosecuted for "enough evidence". That's what always happens.

So you have already made up your mind. And it will be covered up because that "always happens". Good to know we can close the book on that here. And the prosecutions of officers I've been involved with must have been false memories or something.

I feel like you're expressing a lot of blanket anger about police generally, and maybe it's totally separate to the conversation about what happened in this individual case. I love to talk about ways to improve police departments. I believe I actually have improved police departments, have improved police officers, have improved the criminal justice system and made it more fair and more ethical in my little pond. But I feel like I'm still part of your target. And I feel like I can't really even have those conversations here because people are so hostile.

I asked somebody earlier about what they would do to improve things, because I was sure we'd do the exact same things, and have actually already worked towards doing similar things. I don't think there was a response. I think people just enjoy ranting. It gives them a feeling of power they feel they've lost. I bet you and I would also agree, a lot, on things that could be done to improve situations. The rhetoric is just so different. You come to it with anger and blame and hostility and blanket attacks. How can I even productively respond? It's hard to not just be defensive, especially when you have all the "he was shot for jaywalking" stuff going around. People like that are going to think everything I post is bullshit anyway. People like that don't want ethical officers. There's no bucket in their head that such a thing can even exist. They just want an enemy. When you assume bad things about officers as a group, then the good officers are invalidated, they don't matter. When you take those same assumptions and apply them to a criminal case, things get scary. It's very similar to the assumptions that cause so many unjust convictions of black defendants. When there's blanks in a criminal case, biased jurors will just fill in those blanks with their assumptions of whatever group the defendant belongs to. That's happening in this thread to an amazing extent.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Subby said he was shot for jaywalking. That was the whole point of my response.

And in that he's wrong. But note I don't see this particular officer as the enemy.

Originally Posted by molson

So you have already made up your mind. And it will be covered up because that "always happens". Good to know we can close the book on that here. And the prosecutions of officers I've been involved with must have been false memories or something.

I feel like you're expressing a lot of blanket anger about police generally, and maybe it's totally separate to the conversation about what happened in this individual case. I love to talk about ways to improve police departments. I believe I actually have improved police departments, have improved police officers, have improved the criminal justice system and made it more fair and more ethical in my little pond. But I feel like I'm still part of your target. And I feel like I can't really even have those conversations here because people are so hostile.

I asked somebody earlier about what they would do to improve things, because I was sure we'd do the exact same things, and have actually already worked towards doing similar things. I don't think there was a response. I think people just enjoy ranting. It gives them a feeling of power they feel they've lost. I bet you and I would also agree, a lot, on things that could be done to improve situations. The rhetoric is just so different. You come to it with anger and blame and hostility and blanket attacks. How can I even productively respond? It's hard to not just be defensive, especially when you have all the "he was shot for jaywalking" stuff going around. People like that are going to think everything I post is bullshit anyway.

Excuse my hyperbole. That happens a LOT. You know it and I know it. And even if he does go to trial, it'll get moved to a lily white jurisdiction where he'll be acquitted because of the cultural differences. And even if he does get sentenced, he'll get out quick if he serves time at all. Look at Johannes Mehserle - a cold-blooded execution caught on camera and he ultimately served what, one year? And the family of Oscar Grant wasn't even notified of the parole hearing?

Why would anyone have faith in the criminal justice system? The cops close ranks, the DA doesn't want to piss off the cops, most of the judges are former DAs and it's easy enough to sit a jury of 12 white, middle-class people most of whom don't have the slightest idea what happens out there and you know what? They really don't care. It doesn't impact them. The cops keep the poor, drug-crazed, gang bangers away and that's all they know or care about. How it's done doesn't matter. The system is broken.

As for making suggestions, I did about 4 pages ago. All police officers should have to wear a body cam and by law the footage must be kept (in short, no mysterious disappearances of the video). In the jurisdiction I mentioned, use of force went down by 2/3rds and complaints went down 80%. Put 'em on camera is the fastest and most effective way to curb abuse AND reduce false complaints.

Mind you, it's not I hate cops. I've said that a number of times. I remember having to testify (for the prosecution) in trial of the death of a SLED cop back in the early 90s and I didn't like that either. I still remember his name - Sgt. Harrison.

[RainMaker]

When did hispanics and native americans become white? Is this a recent development?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Excuse my hyperbole. That happens a LOT. You know it and I know it. And even if he does go to trial, it'll get moved to a lily white jurisdiction where he'll be acquitted because of the cultural differences. And even if he does get sentenced, he'll get out quick if he serves time at all. Look at Johannes Mehserle - a cold-blooded execution caught on camera and he ultimately served what, one year? And the family of Oscar Grant wasn't even notified of the parole hearing?

Why would anyone have faith in the criminal justice system? The cops close ranks, the DA doesn't want to piss off the cops, most of the judges are former DAs and it's easy enough to sit a jury of 12 white, middle-class people most of whom don't have the slightest idea what happens out there and you know what? They really don't care. It doesn't impact them. The cops keep the poor, drug-crazed, gang bangers away and that's all they know or care about. How it's done doesn't matter. The system is broken.

That's why productive conversation here is ultimately impossible. And why productive improvement in the system is ultimately impossible. Because you've already made up your mind.

Of course bad things happen, unethical things happen. But let's assume, there's some other hypothetical situation where an officer justifiably uses force. Let's assume that ethical police and ethical prosecutors review the case, and finds the force was justifiable. Doesn't matter to you. Because bad things happen, and because we shouldn't have faith in the criminal justice system generally, you, and the similar-minded people of this thread will believe that those ethical police and ethical prosecutors are actually evil and unethical. Because of what other people in that group have done. So there's no point. Ethical police and ethical prosecutors can not exist in your world, in your mindset. They're automatically unethical, because hey, look what happened in this other case.

[molson]

Dola, Johannes Mehserle - those unethical and racist prosecutors tried him for murder! The jury came back with the lesser included of voluntary manslaughter. I suppose you assume they rigged the case or something and lost it on purpose. So even hypothetically, if you go after a police officer for murder charges, it doesn't matter, once you're locked into that mindset. The good prosecutors are the same as the bad, once you make that assumption that they're all the same and the system is rigged, or at the very least, we should assume they're unethical because they're part of a broken system.

And whatever happened there shouldn't have any impact on what happens to Officer Wilson. In any other context, with any other kind of defendant, you'd see how inappropriate that is to fill in the blanks in that way. Here, wherever there's blanks, you will fill them with assumptions based on your dislike of the group, supported by examples of others in the group doing bad things. Racist jurors do this all the time. Those racists don't necessarily "hate all black people". But if there's a grey area, any doubt, they're fill in the blanks with their beliefs about how black people generally act. That's terrible, but in the context of police, you're actually advocating for that approach. In a message board, that doesn't matter too much, I know that's a poster that's not going to respect me, but whatever. In a criminal trial, even a civil trial, the stakes are much higher, and that mindset is wrong.

[RainMaker]

Mehserle also was convicted of a crime. A jury found that it wasn't an "execution" but a tragic mistake. He served time for it and a lawsuit ended up in a large settlement for the family. Now you can argue that the sentence should have been longer (I believe he got 2 years and it could have gone up to 4), but I don't see what else could be done in that situation.

It also wasn't an all-white jury.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

That's why productive conversation here is ultimately impossible. And why productive improvement in the system is ultimately impossible. Because you've already made up your mind.

Of course bad things happen, unethical things happen. But let's assume, there's some other hypothetical situation where an officer justifiably uses force. Let's assume that ethical police and ethical prosecutors review the case, and finds the force was justifiable. Doesn't matter to you. Because bad things happen, and because we shouldn't have faith in the criminal justice system generally, you, and the similar-minded people of this thread will believe that those ethical police and ethical prosecutors are actually evil and unethical. Because of what other people in that group have done. So there's no point. Ethical police and ethical prosecutors can not exist in your world, in your mindset. They're automatically unethical, because hey, look what happened in this other case.

And here's where you're wrong and you've been wrong for many, many pages now - frankly, I can't tell if you just don't get it or you're purposely being a troll. I wouldn't assume that all cases of justifiable force are cover-ups. A young black man was shot yesterday (or was it the day before). He had a knife. He was approaching the police. It was a clear case of suicide by cop. Have I posted about that? Well, not until now!

I also stated numerous times that in my experience 4 out of 5 cops were good ones. Did you miss that? I only posted it maybe 3 or 4 times.

Seriously, the one who is incapable of having a discussion here is YOU, because as soon as someone makes any generalization you instantly take it to a "YOU HATE THEM ALL!!!!" level. The false dichotomy you present is not only inaccurate, it's insulting. So seriously, stuff a sock in it.

By the way, you can still have good people in a broken system. You don't have to demonize them for it to break.