FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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.

I don't think you hate them all, I have read all your posts. But it's clear if there's a grey area, any doubt, you're assuming the worst, because of what happened in other situations. That's why you keep bringing up those other situations, that's why they're relevant to you. You assume the investigation will be unfair. You've talked about Mehserle in the context of how the system is broken and how the system will sweep things under the rug. When he was tried for murder! Those assumptions invalidate the efforts of the prosecutors and police who are ethical. Their investigation are doomed from the start in your mind. They can try an officer for MURDER and you still assume they're sweeping something under the rug.

[RainMaker]

Claims of it being swept under the rug don't hold water when just about every person in higher office in the State of Missouri has spoken about the case. You have the Attorney General of the United States in Ferguson today. The President of the United States has spoken on it extensively. And over 40 FBI agents working on this case alone. That would be the opposite of "swept under the rug".

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by 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.

Was there an African-American on that jury? No.
Was the trial moved? Yes - 400 hundred miles away.

How long did he serve? 1 year. Tell you what, find me another "accidental" shooting by someone who is trained in firearm use who executes an unarmed man on the ground and gets 1 year. Oh, and the judge threw out the firearm conviction (3-10 years) and gave him double credit for time served.

Yea, the system worked.

[Noop]

Blackadar you sound like a public defender.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Was there an African-American on that jury? No.
Was the trial moved? Yes - 400 hundred miles away.

How long did he serve? 1 year. Tell you what, find me another "accidental" shooting by someone who is trained in firearm use who executes an unarmed man on the ground and gets 1 year. Oh, and the judge threw out the firearm conviction (3-10 years) and gave him double credit for time served.

Yea, the system worked.

You brought up that case as an example of law enforcement being generally evil and covering things up, like you've already decided will happen in the Wilson case, regardless of how the facts shake out from here. But that rigged investigation in Mehserle resulted in a MURDER TRIAL.

It's hard to get a murder conviction. You have to prove a particular intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the defendant is a police officer. The system is set up to give the defendant every benefit of the doubt. A jury cannot find that intent based on what other officers have done.

[nol]

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.

No, I responded on the previous page. Your reading comprehension combined with your tendency to do stuff like echo the "Black people only care when it's a white person killing another black person" trope is pretty concerning for someone who is theoretically trying to improve our criminal justice system.

You've just latched onto the position of "I work with cops so I have the exclusive knowledge that they're regular people who have to do a really tough, thankless job," and everyone discussing injustice gets their argument twisted to say they harbor some specific animus against the police.

Everyone else knows that too, but they're saying that because these are tough situations for normal people to navigate, the police should be either better trained or not receive as much unchecked power and authority. Everyone else knows that nothing will change if the standard for law enforcement remains "don't be actively evil" rather than "be extremely aware that even good people can abuse power/be unjust in these circumstances."

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think you hate them all, I have read all your posts. But it's clear if there's a grey area, any doubt, you're assuming the worst, because of what happened in other situations. That's why you keep bringing up those other situations, that's why they're relevant to you. You assume the investigation will be unfair. You've talked about Mehserle in the context of how the system is broken and how the system will sweep things under the rug. When he was tried for murder! Those assumptions invalidate the efforts of the prosecutors and police who are ethical. Their investigation are doomed from the start in your mind. They can try an officer for MURDER and you still assume they're sweeping something under the rug.

Good, then you can stop trying to project me demonizing everyone because it's tiresome (at best). Of course I'm going to expect the worst. Because it happens all too often. Especially if you're poor and especially if you're a minority. That's why you raise kids not to trust cops - because the worst case scenario isn't all that rare. It may still be the exception and not the rule, but it only takes one time for it to ruin your life (or deprive you of it). And if you're poor and/or a minority, the chance is high enough that it's not worth taking. Dealing with the police is like Russian Roulette. The odds work for you, but the consequences aren't really pleasant. Except as a minority, there are more bullets in the gun *and* you're going to end up taking more turns pulling the trigger.

This isn't the discussion for Mehserle. But it's sad if you think justice was really done in that case. It doesn't get more cut-and-dried than that. It was an execution on tape. Anyone else goes to jail for Murder, no doubt. But giving Mehserle time before having to make any statement, moving the trial, the jury selection, throwing out the firearm charge, double credit for time served...if you think that was all part of justice being blind, well...I'm sorry for you. Go ask Oscar Grant's parents if they feel justice was done.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Was there an African-American on that jury? No.
Was the trial moved? Yes - 400 hundred miles away.

How long did he serve? 1 year. Tell you what, find me another "accidental" shooting by someone who is trained in firearm use who shoots an unarmed man on the ground and gets 1 year. Oh, and the judge threw out the firearm conviction (3-10 years) and gave him double credit for time served.

Yea, the system worked.

He was sentenced to 2 years in jail. The Judge could choose between 2-4 years by law. He only served one due to rules in California related to good behavior. This applies to all prisoners.

There do seem to be other cases that are sentenced in similar ranges. The person who was found guilty in the shooting death of Alexander Centeno only spent 18 months in jail. Your issue seems to be more with the sentencing guideline for involuntary manslaughter and time off for good behavior. For the record I do think Mehserle should have been given the 4 years (he would have been out in 2) but I don't find the decision a sign the system is broken.

[BillJasper]

I can't speak for what happened in Ferguson. I hope that the FBI and other agencies can get a read on what actually transpired and make sure there is justice for everyone in this situation.

I do believe Police officers have an incredibly complex and dangerous job. I wish communities would quit spending so much money on military grade equipment and use that cash to expand the number of officers, bring in better quality people and provide better training.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Claims of it being swept under the rug don't hold water when just about every person in higher office in the State of Missouri has spoken about the case. You have the Attorney General of the United States in Ferguson today. The President of the United States has spoken on it extensively. And over 40 FBI agents working on this case alone. That would be the opposite of "swept under the rug".

+1. I saw some earlier posts where people were saying there should be an independent investigation of the situation. The FBI may be officers of the law, but they're certainly not affiliated with the Ferguson PD in any way. It would appear to me to be far more independent than most investigations I've seen.

[RainMaker]

I'm also not apologizing for police behavior. In fact, my Aunt was murdered by two police officers 30 years ago (was a huge story and made into a TV movie). So I know firsthand that the police are capable of murder. And I've stated numerous times that I think there is an astounding amount of incompetence in today's police force and lack of accountability.

But cases like this also have a contingent that want to distort facts and create a false narrative. That the innocent angel who was minding his own business was shot. That all innocent young black men are in the crosshairs from police. And on the other side a noble officer serving and protecting the community was attacked for no reason. That the police only care about getting to the truth and not protecting their colleague.

I don't know where the truth is. But I know it's unlikely on either side of this. I'd rather let more facts come out and stop pretending that a story at the top of the national news being commented on by the most powerful political figures in the world is somehow being covered up.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm also not apologizing for police behavior. In fact, my Aunt was murdered by two police officers 30 years ago (was a huge story and made into a TV movie). So I know firsthand that the police are capable of murder. And I've stated numerous times that I think there is an astounding amount of incompetence in today's police force and lack of accountability.

But cases like this also have a contingent that want to distort facts and create a false narrative. That the innocent angel who was minding his own business was shot. That all innocent young black men are in the crosshairs from police. And on the other side a noble officer serving and protecting the community was attacked for no reason. That the police only care about getting to the truth and not protecting their colleague.

I don't know where the truth is. But I know it's unlikely on either side of this. I'd rather let more facts come out and stop pretending that a story at the top of the national news being commented on by the most powerful political figures in the world is somehow being covered up.

Fair enough.

I shouldn't say that it will get covered up. Not now. That's not accurate and so I'll amend my earlier post.

But if not for the protests, the media coverage showing how badly the Ferguson PD acts towards the citizens, the general outrage...I believe that this wouldn't be given more than a cursory examination before declaring the shooting justified and pinning a medal on everyone involved. Given what everyone has seen out of the Ferguson PD, does anyone really think differently?


Well, anyone besides Jon of course...

[Arles]

I have two good friends in the police force out here in Arizona. To be honest, I may be one of the few people on this planet not up on the facts in this case, so I don't think I would have much to add on this specific instance. But, I was talking with one of the cops last night and he just said how difficult it is in today's society to be a consistently bad cop. Maybe you can get away with something every now and then, but everyone has cell phones and there are a million cop watchdog organizations just waiting to pounce. I thought he made some good points and while I do think there are many cops out there who try to get away with things or have the wrong attitude/mentality - I think it is very difficult for police to consistently infringe upon the rights of anyone (minority or white) and not have to eventually pay the piper.

So, I would use the media/government response to this case as another example of how I think we have a better police force now than 10 years ago. That is a good thing and while that doesn't mean they are perfect, it does mean the system is currently setup to ensure many cases of abuse don't go undetected and that will continue to improve cop behavior.

[Subby]

Bad cop example:

Cop Pointing Rifle At Ferguson Protestors: "I Will Fucking Kill You"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Fair enough.

I shouldn't say that it will get covered up. Not now. That's not accurate and so I'll amend my earlier post.

But if not for the protests, the media coverage showing how badly the Ferguson PD acts towards the citizens, the general outrage...I believe that this wouldn't be given more than a cursory examination before declaring the shooting justified and pinning a medal on everyone involved. Given what everyone has seen out of the Ferguson PD, does anyone really think differently?


Well, anyone besides Jon of course...

I agree with that. I guess my point is that I think this isn't so much a race thing as a "cops will cover for cops" thing. We have countless cases in Chicago with cops covering up for DUIs, violent assaults, torture, and other serious crimes. The victims range widely in race and gender.

This was a pretty famous story locally.

Chicago Police Found Guilty of Covering Up Bartender Beating - ABC News

Cop got drunk, beat the tar out of some tiny white woman, and all his cop buddies helped cover it up. They tried to get the security camera, threatened her, and didn't fully investigate it. Only became an issue when the media got a hold of the tape and released it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Subby

Bad cop example:

Cop Pointing Rifle At Ferguson Protestors: "I Will Fucking Kill You"

And if his department had any integrity they would fire him immediately.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cop got drunk, beat the tar out of some tiny white woman, and all his cop buddies helped cover it up. They tried to get the security camera, threatened her, and didn't fully investigate it. Only became an issue when the media got a hold of the tape and released it.

That's a textbook example of why you need freedom of the press.

[NobodyHere]

If only the cops had to pay out the damages and not the taxpayers.

[RainMaker]

I always said damages should come out of their pension fund. You'd clean up the police force real quick.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I have two good friends in the police force out here in Arizona. To be honest, I may be one of the few people on this planet not up on the facts in this case, so I don't think I would have much to add on this specific instance. But, I was talking with one of the cops last night and he just said how difficult it is in today's society to be a consistently bad cop. Maybe you can get away with something every now and then, but everyone has cell phones and there are a million cop watchdog organizations just waiting to pounce. I thought he made some good points and while I do think there are many cops out there who try to get away with things or have the wrong attitude/mentality - I think it is very difficult for police to consistently infringe upon the rights of anyone (minority or white) and not have to eventually pay the piper.

So, I would use the media/government response to this case as another example of how I think we have a better police force now than 10 years ago. That is a good thing and while that doesn't mean they are perfect, it does mean the system is currently setup to ensure many cases of abuse don't go undetected and that will continue to improve cop behavior.

I'm not sure I feel the same way. Before I moved, I had 3 cops living in a one block radius. Safe neighborhood I guess.

One was a good friend named Awych (pronounced "H"). H rented a house, struggled to make ends meet, was an awesome guy - we'd BBQ together, get the kids together, etc. His wife finally went back to work and he absolutely was the kind of officer everyone would want to know. He was a huge teddy bear. He and his wife have a standing invite to come down and stay at our house any time they want.

A second one - Mike - lived in the cul-de-sac. Mike's house was twice the size of ours, he had new cars, a boat, jet skis, took expensive vacations and his wife didn't work. He was a regular line officer. Either someone in that family inherited a lot of money or he was on the take. For seven years that well never ran dry. He was smart though - he didn't drive a Lambo or anything like that. But his cars were always new, he had a large house, that boat was worth a couple hundred grand, lawn service, ate out all the time...you name it. Seems mighty odd...I mentioned it to Awych once and he just rolled his eyes and nodded his head in a "you know what's going on" manner.

A third one - can't remember his name - wasn't rich and lived around the block. But he was the epitome of the overaggressive, power hungry cop. He threatened people who didn't vote for him when he tried to take over the HOA. He had about 8 dogs in his backyard and let them bark all the time. He was always spoiling for a fight. Every time there was a shooting in Charlotte, I figured he was the one who did it. He had numerous complaints against him for excessive force, all swept under the rug - with this guy you could assume that he did it. He threatened his neighbor (because his neighbor called animal control on the dogs) with his service revolver. Guess what? No charges filed, even with witnesses.

Now mind you I worked with about 100 law enforcement agencies for 7 years in the 90s. The vast majority of the guys I met were pretty good. But I don't believe it's all that hard to be on the take or a bad cop. It appears that a couple of my neighbors found a way...

[Toddzilla]

You don't need to be a dickbag every second you're on the job to be a bad cop, just make poor decisions once in a while. Also, good cops make terrible decisions on occasion - like we all do.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

Your reading comprehension combined with your tendency to do stuff like echo the "Black people only care when it's a white person killing another black person" trope is pretty concerning for someone who is theoretically trying to improve our criminal justice system.

You use quotes, but I didn't say that. Noop said he thought the value of a black life wasn't worth much any more. I think this story shows that Brown's life did matter. The media, the situation on the ground, the attorney general is on the ground there now. Societally, there is not that kind of concern about gun violence in Chicago. I think that is rooted in societal racism to some extent. Obviously, there are people that care a lot about both situations, especially in the black community in those places, and I made sure to clarify that in a latter post because that first post was too broad.

[Toddzilla]

So that leads me to this - there are basically four scenarios if we choose between good cop / bad cop and good shooting / bad shooting:

Good Cop / Good Shooting: The officer's POV. This is the narrative that's being pushed recently, with the sudden influx of eye-witness accounts backing up the officer's story. I'd say 40% probable

Good Cop / Bad Shooting: Did the officer simply make a bad choice? Did he feel threatened when Brown had actually surrendered? "Hands up, don't shoot?" Seems possible, even plausible. I'd say 55%

Bad Cop / Good Shooting: Seems to me 0% likely. No reasonable scenario fits this.

Bad Cop / Bad Shooting: Was the officer willing to kill an unarmed kid and chalk it up as getting some scumbag off the street? Did the officer think "now that we got in a scuffle, I'm justified shooting this kid" and then did it regardless of if Brown was running away? I'm not inclined to believe this either, and the officer's history - what we know of it anyway - doesn't back this up. 5% possible.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think you're probably in the ballpark with your probabilities Todd.

I think it's the added wrinkle of "Bad PD" thrown in there being what's causing the majority of the issues. It's the appearance of improper response/coverup/whatever else that has inflamed things to this point.

If it had been dealt with better as it happened/in the immediate aftermath I don't think it gets this far out of control.

I get that they're all independent PD's, but it seems to me that this situation was really screaming for a more experienced/professional response from the PD from the instant after the shooting on.

Like there should be some county/state level officer who's job is to get called everytime there's an officer-involved shooting and coordinate everything from "okay yes there's an ambulance on the way. Okay, CSI is on the way" all the way through the PR. Because I think with an experienced person doing that you remove a lot of the flashpoints.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Good, then you can stop trying to project me demonizing everyone because it's tiresome (at best). Of course I'm going to expect the worst. Because it happens all too often. Especially if you're poor and especially if you're a minority. That's why you raise kids not to trust cops - because the worst case scenario isn't all that rare. It may still be the exception and not the rule, but it only takes one time for it to ruin your life (or deprive you of it). And if you're poor and/or a minority, the chance is high enough that it's not worth taking. Dealing with the police is like Russian Roulette. The odds work for you, but the consequences aren't really pleasant. Except as a minority, there are more bullets in the gun *and* you're going to end up taking more turns pulling the trigger.

This isn't the discussion for Mehserle. But it's sad if you think justice was really done in that case. It doesn't get more cut-and-dried than that. It was an execution on tape. Anyone else goes to jail for Murder, no doubt. But giving Mehserle time before having to make any statement, moving the trial, the jury selection, throwing out the firearm charge, double credit for time served...if you think that was all part of justice being blind, well...I'm sorry for you. Go ask Oscar Grant's parents if they feel justice was done.

I didn't say justice was done in that case. I relate most to the prosecutors there, the ones that charged him with murder. I did see that as a very difficult charge to prove in those circumstances, but still a very appropriate charge to pursue. I was disputing your use of that as an example of something being swept under the rug, and you've amended that now.

I can understand your perspective and distrust. And I do recognize that my experiences are going to give me an entirely different perspective that others aren't necessarily going to share. I think you're a smart guy and I do respect your perspective on this. That's part of why I really wanted you to at least meet me halfway. But I haven't gone about that the right way and I've been too defensive. So I think it's a good time for me to duck out of this because I think I'm having the opposite effect I really want to have. It's the whole deal where I'm trying to be understood when it's always more productive to try better to understand. My personal annoyance with what I feel are unfair assumptions, and how they relate to me, is ultimately petty and distracting from everything. Posters like Toddzilla with his breakdown two posts above are saying exactly what I want to say in a much more productive way. We're ultimately dealing with probabilities but assumptions about groups are what bring people into believing category 4 is fact (or 2, or 1.)

I stick by most everything I've said though. When negative things are assumed about people, or a process, just because of the group they're in or what the process is, improvement is really, really difficult. It's something you just can't break through without some concession on both sides. But there are lots of people that try their best anyway.

[AlexB]

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.

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.

No I'm not, and you know it, but way to play the race card - that came out the pack from nowhere.

Look at it this way: if you go into a meeting and shake someone's hand and smile, will you get a better reaction in return than if you punched them to the floor? Is the latter course of action a good idea, especially if that person does have the ability to make your life a hell for an extended period of time?

If as would appear to be the case the poster had literally nothing to hide, why not be open and honest instead of being evasive? Not answering questions meaning you can't be detained? That's madness, and again means no-one would ever be arrested unless they were caught in the act.

Asking for an attorney to be present clearly protects you, but also means that you are going to be detained for a longer time. If he had just explained what was going on, who knows, maybe the cop would have gone OK, sorry to have stopped you, away you go. It's happened to me a couple of times, and while it's annoying that it delays me a five or ten minutes, as I have nothing to hide I've got nothing to fear, so it's no problem: not everyone the police stop have done something wrong, but some will have - if they don't stop anyone, preventative policing will be hugely ineffective (or even more ineffective I guess depending on your viewpoint)

I grant you as a middle class bloke who grew up in a village rather than a town or city, my attitude is likely different to someone who grew up in a poor urban area, but i can't fathom why people think being obstructive, aggressive, belligerent or just plain dicks to the police is the way forward? Particularly if you have literally nothing to hide? Surely that just means that if you have been unlucky enough to draw one of the few bad cops on a bad day, they could try and find something and pin it on you? Better just to play the game and be answer the questions IMHO - doesn't mean you have to kow-tow or be a pussy, just answer the questions.

I will qualify that by saying the one thing that must make a big difference between here and the US is that both parties could well be armed, which must make both parties more twitchy, but that's another argument entirely.

[Subby]

Attorneys for Brown/Johnson also furious at spread of this image - which is NOT of Brown http://t.co/JLcZSKVCYj pic.twitter.com/qHeu2QXTB0

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 20, 2014

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AlexB

No I'm not, and you know it, but way to play the race card - that came out the pack from nowhere.

You provided 100% justification for it. Your reasoning absolutely leads to that. If you can't see it, go back and read what you wrote. You justified arresting someone - not just pulling them over, but detaining them - because their skin color and their car don't belong in that neighborhood. Where do you think that line of logic takes you? I'm not angry with you nor do I think you're a bigot but that's exactly where you go with your line of reasoning. That's exactly what will happen. If you really don't believe that, then it's incumbent upon you to change your logic or provide enough nuance in your reasoning that this isn't where this ends up.

Originally Posted by AlexB

Look at it this way: if you go into a meeting and shake someone's hand and smile, will you get a better reaction in return than if you punched them to the floor? Is the latter course of action a good idea, especially if that person does have the ability to make your life a hell for an extended period of time?

If as would appear to be the case the poster had literally nothing to hide, why not be open and honest instead of being evasive? Not answering questions meaning you can't be detained? That's madness, and again means no-one would ever be arrested unless they were caught in the act.

Asking for an attorney to be present clearly protects you, but also means that you are going to be detained for a longer time. If he had just explained what was going on, who knows, maybe the cop would have gone OK, sorry to have stopped you, away you go. It's happened to me a couple of times, and while it's annoying that it delays me a five or ten minutes, as I have nothing to hide I've got nothing to fear, so it's no problem: not everyone the police stop have done something wrong, but some will have - if they don't stop anyone, preventative policing will be hugely ineffective (or even more ineffective I guess depending on your viewpoint)

I grant you as a middle class bloke who grew up in a village rather than a town or city, my attitude is likely different to someone who grew up in a poor urban area, but i can't fathom why people think being obstructive, aggressive, belligerent or just plain dicks to the police is the way forward? Particularly if you have literally nothing to hide? Surely that just means that if you have been unlucky enough to draw one of the few bad cops on a bad day, they could try and find something and pin it on you? Better just to play the game and be answer the questions IMHO - doesn't mean you have to kow-tow or be a pussy, just answer the questions.

I will qualify that by saying the one thing that must make a big difference between here and the US is that both parties could well be armed, which must make both parties more twitchy, but that's another argument entirely.

And everything you just said? From a legal perspective, it's not supposed to matter. None of it. Essentially, your argument boils down to "if you have nothing to hide give the cop his answers". That's not the way the law is written. It's a BS response.

In the US, I don't have to speak to a cop without an attorney present. I don't have to allow him to search my car for no reason. Refusal to do so is not any indication that a crime has been committed. It is not reason for probable cause. It's not even cause for reasonable suspicion. Maybe the laws are different in England, but not here. There's a reason why suspects are read their Miranda warning here. It starts off with:

"You have the right to remain silent when questioned. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Do you understand what those words really mean? Make a misstatement? Stutter? Get confused in a stressful situation? Your words may lead you straight to jail. Every single defense lawyer in this country would say exactly what I'm saying - don't talk to the cops. Don't let them search you. Don't give them any information because they WILL put the worst possible spin on your words if you end up going to court over something. That's their job.

Your position is the same as the Op-Ed written by the cop and posted a couple of pages ago. The one that says "do what I tell you to do". Popehat has a great response to that and I suggest you read it:

Sunil Dutta Tells It Like It Is About American Policing | Popehat

[cartman]

[DaddyTorgo]

The flipside of that of course is though, that if you exercise those rights you run the risk of making your life more complicated (as happened to CU Tiger).

Not making any judgement about whether that's "right" or "wrong," just stating the fact.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting thing in this article that I hadn't heard thus far. Source said that cameras for cars in Ferguson were ordered and delivered, but hadn't been installed yet.

Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The flipside of that of course is though, that if you exercise those rights you run the risk of making your life more complicated (as happened to CU Tiger).

Not making any judgement about whether that's "right" or "wrong," just stating the fact.

But it shouldn't have DT and that's the point. I'm sure you agree. It may be a fact, but had CU pursued legal action against the officer and/or the department, perhaps it wouldn't happen to the next guy.

I'm a believer that if we don't assert our rights, they will get taken away. I'm not disrespectful to the police but I'll be damned if I'm going let them trample on my rights in the name of law and order.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting thing in this article that I hadn't heard thus far. Source said that cameras for cars in Ferguson were ordered and delivered, but hadn't been installed yet.

Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source | Fox News

Wow. I find it very interesting how the officers' injuries keep getting worse. At first it was just a struggle. Then he went to the hospital for a minor bruise or a "swolen face". Now he has broken bones and was knocked almost unconscious? Please excuse me if I remain highly skeptical of this. And note there is video footage of Darren Wilson after the shooting, who remained at the scene for quite a while and did not call for an ambulance. Yeah...sure.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But it shouldn't have DT and that's the point. I'm sure you agree. It may be a fact, but had CU pursued legal action against the officer and/or the department, perhaps it wouldn't happen to the next guy.

I'm a believer that if we don't assert our rights, they will get taken away. I'm not disrespectful to the police but I'll be damned if I'm going let them trample on my rights in the name of law and order.

I do completely agree.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some info to back up claims by Ferguson residents that the people destroying their town through looting are mostly people who don't even live in the area.

Report: Only 3 of 78 Arrested Protesters Were Ferguson Residents

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

This is a great video BTW.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You provided 100% justification for it. Your reasoning absolutely leads to that. If you can't see it, go back and read what you wrote. You justified arresting someone - not just pulling them over, but detaining them - because their skin color and their car don't belong in that neighborhood. Where do you think that line of logic takes you? I'm not angry with you nor do I think you're a bigot but that's exactly where you go with your line of reasoning. That's exactly what will happen. If you really don't believe that, then it's incumbent upon you to change your logic or provide enough nuance in your reasoning that this isn't where this ends up.

No - reread: yes it's one of the reasons why suspicion may have been aroused, and if you don't believe standing out compared to the surroundings(including, but far from limited to only, skin colour) plays no part in how people are perceived I don't know where to start. I never once said it was the reason to stop, and never even suggested it was a reason to detain - that was because the guy refused to/couldn't explain why he was there, hence not reducing the cop's suspicion.

The rest I take your point, but if you don't answer, you increase the likelihood of the stop being prolonged while further investigation is carried out, which was one of the poster's complaints.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And everything you just said? From a legal perspective, it's not supposed to matter. None of it. Essentially, your argument boils down to "if you have nothing to hide give the cop his answers". That's not the way the law is written. It's a BS response.

Supposed to and in actually are two different things. I have no knowledge of being in someone's shoes in a US-inner city and as I said maybe that has some bearing, and is certainly different to my upbringing, but I maintain that a large part of how people react to you is reflective of your attitude to them.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Do you understand what those words really mean? Make a misstatement? Stutter? Get confused in a stressful situation? Your words may lead you straight to jail. Every single defense lawyer in this country would say exactly what I'm saying - don't talk to the cops. Don't let them search you. Don't give them any information because they WILL put the worst possible spin on your words if you end up going to court over something. That's their job.

No it's not - their job is try and to find out the truth in that situation. That is clearly an idealised version of their job, but the job of the police is definitely not to pin anything and everything they can on the first law abiding citizen they can pull over which is how I read what you are saying?

To be frank, there is an aggression in your couple of posts on this which I hadn't noticed generally in your posts, so I can see that you feel strongly about this, but I have to respectfully disagree to the reality in my environment and to the principle in general, although as I've said a number of times I have no experience of any US neighbourhoods anything like Ferguson.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Some info to back up claims by Ferguson residents that the people destroying their town through looting are mostly people who don't even live in the area.

Report: Only 3 of 78 Arrested Protesters Were Ferguson Residents

On the VICE feed last night the guy was pointing out how a lot of the people on the streets were people he had seen protesting in New York and other cities. Basically professional protesters. He also mentioned the media outnumbered the protesters.

When you throw in the people showing up from out of town who want to be arrested too it kind of sucks what is happening to the town.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

This is just stupid. I've been pulled over 3 times in the last 4 years and have received 0 tickets. Why? Well, I was speeding, even over the "11 MPH guideline" in two of the three cases. So, I certainly could have received a ticket for speeding both times. But, in each, I simply told the officer the truth and that there really wasn't a good reason for me to speed, was nice and answered their questions. In both cases, I got a warning and went on my way. In the third instance, I made an illegal U-turn next to a line of bars on a Sat night (I hadn't been drinking). I had made a wrong turn and didn't realize this. The cop pulled me over, asked if I had been drinking and then let me go on my way when I answered each question politely.

Had I followed the genius advice above, I'd have atleast 2 speeding tickets and a potential "suspect DUI" to deal with. I can't believe people are this stupid to act like this "for all police interactions". Maybe if you have unlimited funds to spend on attorneys (which would explain why lawyers love this tactic), but even then it's not very smart. I get if a cop comes up to you out of the blue and says you are under arrest for murder - by all means lawyer up and be quiet then. But, for normal traffic stops? That's a quick path to a ticket or even other offense you didn't even realize.

[cartman]

People are stupid to invoke their 5th Amendment right? Interesting viewpoint to take.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Stuff

I'm sorry because I'm not trying to be "aggressive". It's just that your posts literally make me *facepalm* with the logic and reasoning you provide.

First, we'll disagree on where your logic takes you when you're stopping people for being the wrong color in a certain neighborhood and then arresting people when you don't like their answers.

Secondly, what you're saying about speaking to the cops is complete bunk. You're asserting the people should not protect their Constitutional rights because the police may violate them if you do? Instead we shouldn't assert or protect your rights at all because it may work out better for us? What kind of logic is that? Sorry, I'd rather assert my rights and know at least that legally I'm covered. If it agitates a cop that I'm following the law and expecting them to do the same, then that's his/her problem. If they make it mine, I will seek restitution.

And finally, I really suggest you watch the video linked. The first 10 minutes will tell you exactly why you don't talk to cops. Please.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by 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?

Good news on this.

Twitter / LauraKHettiger: Update from @stlcountypd re: ...

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cartman

People are stupid to invoke their 5th Amendment right? Interesting viewpoint to take.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

People are stupid to invoke their 5th Amendment right? Interesting viewpoint to take.

They are stupid to act like an obstructionist on a routine traffic or parking stop. A majority of these instances are at the officer's discretion as to whether you get a ticket (or worse). Openly defying them and refusing to interact is a quick path to lose any discretion on your behalf. And for what purpose? To feel all smug and good about yourself for being a dick? I don't get it.

You line up 20 traffic stops and have a person act polite and reasonable on the first 10 and "refuse to talk" for the other 10 and see who ends up with more tickets and overall level of hassle. I get it for really serious stuff, but having this attitude across the board just seems childish and stupid - not to mention actually hurting your chances of a positive outcome.

[CU Tiger]

[Hey guys was away from a computer all day. Came back and initially saw several questions/responses regarding my post from yesterday then a bunch of unrelatd conversation. I intended to let my sidebar drift away and not bump it but since it has been re-introduced in the last 5 or so posts, and since I am somewhat calmer now than when I posted yesterday I want to clarify a few things.]

- The charge on my ticket was "suspicion of intent to purchase drugs" I quoted that both times for a reason. No code identificaton number was provided and no charge exists on the SC Code of law related to that language. The criminal part of my trial lasted less than 10 minutes. My lawyer introduced a motion to dismiss since I was detained and arrested on a claim that was not a state law. And no code of law was identified. The judge asked the prosecution (BTW it was a bench trial not a jury trial...we hadnt even got to the point of requesting that yet which was coming next) to provide the formal charge. The DA asked for a recess to "get his notes from his office". He came back and only said "We do not oppose the motion"...that was it. I was dismissed from the charges that were fild that never existed. My Bond was returned some 90 days later in total over 6 months since I had paid it.
[It was a significant amount of money ($4,500) However if I would have been found guilty by law I would have had to pay the entirity of the fine within 7 days or be found in contempt of court....sorry for the side rant but that part still ticks me off as injust. I was blessed to be in a position where I could survive without that money I have often wondered what would have happened if I could not]

- I did bring civil charges for restitution. The Officer who arrested me was protected by "Qualified Immunity". I will let the lawyers on board explain that but as I understand it, since he was doing his job even though he did it poorly and incorrectly he was protected.

- Following that decision we brought civil charges against a couple entities
[BTW another aside SC law required only 1 defendant per claim so each agency was a separate charge and docket number and cost]
I will spare everyone a bunch of details but in the end they determined that I could not prove the damage to her SUV was caused by their actions. (Despite the fact that we submitted pictures of a utility pole directly across the street from where my truck was seized with matching paint at exact height, and testimony from a paint shop that certified the paint was a perfct match. AND testimony from the tow truck driver who said the officer told him he hit the pole while pulling the truck into a parking lot and asked him to make it look like it was damaged while towing)

Regarding the missing gun the court decided that the paperwork showing 3 weapons taken from the car "was likely erroneous despite it matching the claimant's testimony" but "if the department later discovered that the item was in evidence hold and misplaced it would be returned"
[ Another side bar...someone is wondering why I needed 3 guns and while it is my right to have as many as I damn well please, I will explain. 1 was my person CCW which is always on me. The 2nd was my wife's CCW which stays in her console. The 3rd (and the one that was lost) was a moderately expensive "collector" gun that was in the glove box that I had purchased that morning and hadnt taken home yet. I dont normally travel with a small arsenal.]

Several people have asked "Why not be 100% honest"
If I had it to do over again I probably would have done some things differently. But I had just dropped off an employee whom I had terminated earlier that day. In a neighborhood I was unfamiliar with. I had been followed by a LEO through 7 or 8 turns...in short I was already a bit tense myself. It wasnt a pleasant situation for me. And the officer was very hostile and aggressive from the get go. Add on to all that, I was in the middle of a workers comp case with another employee and had just gone through some communictaion training with my lawyer as it related to HIPPA and I was hesitant to even tell anyone I owned a damn company. I reacted professionally and calmly but my shields went up very quickly. Each side brings their own baggage and bias to any situation, unfortunately the law fully protects a LEO when he screws up. No one protects me when I do.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

They are stupid to act like an obstructionist on a routine traffic or parking stop. A majority of these instances are at the officer's discretion as to whether you get a ticket (or worse). Openly defying them and refusing to interact is a quick path to lose any discretion on your behalf. And for what purpose? To feel all smug and good about yourself for being a dick? I don't get it.

You line up 20 traffic stops and have a person act polite and reasonable on the first 10 and "refuse to talk" for the other 10 and see who ends up with more tickets and overall level of hassle. I get it for really serious stuff, but having this attitude across the board just seems childish and stupid - not to mention actually hurting your chances of a positive outcome.

How do you define acting like an obstructionist?

And when is asserting your Constitutional rights being a dick?

[cartman]

So using rights granted to you by the Constitution is stupid and obstructionist? If the officers are inconvenienced by someone invoking their rights, that isn't the person's problem. It is an officer looking for expediency, not what is right.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is just stupid. I've been pulled over 3 times in the last 4 years and have received 0 tickets. Why? Well, I was speeding, even over the "11 MPH guideline" in two of the three cases. So, I certainly could have received a ticket for speeding both times. But, in each, I simply told the officer the truth and that there really wasn't a good reason for me to speed, was nice and answered their questions. In both cases, I got a warning and went on my way. In the third instance, I made an illegal U-turn next to a line of bars on a Sat night (I hadn't been drinking). I had made a wrong turn and didn't realize this. The cop pulled me over, asked if I had been drinking and then let me go on my way when I answered each question politely.

Had I followed the genius advice above, I'd have atleast 2 speeding tickets and a potential "suspect DUI" to deal with. I can't believe people are this stupid to act like this "for all police interactions". Maybe if you have unlimited funds to spend on attorneys (which would explain why lawyers love this tactic), but even then it's not very smart. I get if a cop comes up to you out of the blue and says you are under arrest for murder - by all means lawyer up and be quiet then. But, for normal traffic stops? That's a quick path to a ticket or even other offense you didn't even realize.

This is also true. It's an overreaction to jump right to this for say a minor traffic infraction, but it's good to at least know what your rights are if things start to escalate (as for example it did in CU Tiger's case).

That being said - there's nuggets to take from this into even a minor traffic stop.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Wow. I find it very interesting how the officers' injuries keep getting worse. At first it was just a struggle. Then he went to the hospital for a minor bruise or a "swolen face". Now he has broken bones and was knocked almost unconscious? Please excuse me if I remain highly skeptical of this. And note there is video footage of Darren Wilson after the shooting, who remained at the scene for quite a while and did not call for an ambulance. Yeah...sure.

These are all referring to the same event, but just have different levels of spin. If you get into a scuffle with someone and end up with a shiner, there's a pretty good chance you've also suffered a minor orbital bone fracture (for example, I wouldn't be surprised if the person in the "what to do for a broken heart?" thread has a fractured orbital bone).

Even if you don't seek medical treatment for that, it heals on its own within a couple of weeks. In that case, you'd just put ice on your shiner and would be none the wiser when you're back to normal once the swelling disappears. If you did see a doctor, you'd just get something to help with the swelling and maybe an antibiotic, but you'd also gain the information of, "WHOA he broke a bone in my face!" which you could then use as you please.

[RainMaker]

If it is true there will be hospital/doctor records. Not really anything to fuss over now until the evidence is released.