FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by saldana

yup...thats me...authoritarian zealot...i have no internal drive to help other people at all...thats why now i facilitate the distribution of clinical trial drugs to underdeveloped countries that have substandard health care.

i am a horrible horrible human being...douche.

You do?!?!?

That's awesome!!!

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Oh come on. I'm exiting from this discussion as much as I can, because it's clear I posted with emotion and the end result was me unintentionally trolling.

But that is soooo far from the mark. I don't even know where you got it from.

You talked about the "low paying" job and how the only reason to take it was to get "authority".

What do you do for a living? What makes you morally superior to saldana? Let's get back to that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Maybe a more intrusive police presence is needed in those areas because so many of the residents are criminal scumbags who have no regard for the laws the rest of us live by? Yet that makes the police the bad guys. Got it.

No - that's not what I was saying.

I was saying that maybe if I grew up in that type of environment that I might have a different view of police and their presence.

Maybe not, but I'd certainly be more likely to then someone whose sole interactions with cops (since the whole "DARE" program in 5th grade) has been serving them coffee at Starbucks and getting pulled over like twice for speeding.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

No - that's not what I was saying.

I was saying that maybe if I grew up in that type of environment that I might have a different view of police and their presence.

I didn't mean to infer you were saying that.

I think it is absurd that the same people who hate the police are generally the ones causing the most problems.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by molson

You talked about the "low paying" job and how the only reason to take it was to get "authority".

What do you do for a living? What makes you morally superior to saldana? Let's get back to that.

I don't do anything that registers on the morality spectrum, bad or good, and is not relevant to the discussion. There are several reasons to deter people from being a police offer, pay is just one of them and the lack of pay does not make up for the others. Just like the others do not make up for the lack of pay. However the authority that comes with the job does balance out all those negatives. My problem is with the type of person that statement applies to, which in my opinion is the majority of police officers. I get it, you disagree with that point, I do not.

Now if you want to tell me 2 cops out of every 10 do it for the right reasons. Fine. Maybe Saldana is one of those. I know I'm giving him every reason to take it personally, but I was not directing statements at him specifically. I don't know him.

Now, like I said. I'm stepping out.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I don't do anything that registers on the morality spectrum, bad or good, and is not relevant to the discussion. There are several reasons to deter people from being a police offer, pay is just one of them and the lack of pay does not make up for the others. Just like the others do not make up for the lack of pay. However the authority that comes with the job does balance out all those negatives. My problem is with the type of person that statement applies to, which in my opinion is the majority of police officers. I get it, you disagree with that point, I do not.

Now if you want to tell me 2 cops out of every 10 do it for the right reasons. Fine. Maybe Saldana is one of those. I know I'm giving him every reason to take it personally, but I was not directing statements at him specifically. I don't know him.

Now, like I said. I'm stepping out.

Your perspective is so fucked it is mind blowing.

How do you feel about those low paid teachers just doing it so they can get the authority they crave?

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I don't do anything that registers on the morality spectrum, bad or good, and is not relevant to the discussion. There are several reasons to deter people from being a police offer, pay is just one of them and the lack of pay does not make up for the others. Just like the others do not make up for the lack of pay. However the authority that comes with the job does balance out all those negatives. My problem is with the type of person that statement applies to, which in my opinion is the majority of police officers. I get it, you disagree with that point, I do not.

Now if you want to tell me 2 cops out of every 10 do it for the right reasons. Fine. Maybe Saldana is one of those. I know I'm giving him every reason to take it personally, but I was not directing statements at him specifically. I don't know him.

Now, like I said. I'm stepping out.

Your job, and what you do to help others, if anything, is very relevant if you're going to throw around blanket accusations about the people in other professions as whole, and whether they do it for "the right reasons". What are the reasons you took your job? Why are they the "right reasons", in a moral sense? Statistically, you certainly believe you're morally superior to saldana (and me). You've now left open this possibility that maybe he's one of the rare good ones, but according to your odds, he's probably not. So for us, our jobs are on the table as far as our moral worth, and actually, your statistical presumption is that we're bad people based on those jobs. So your job (or whatever else you do to help others) shouldn't be off the table in that discussion.

[Subby]

Military veterans see deeply flawed police response in Ferguson - The Washington Post

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Lathum

That is crazy shit. Is that the local police or National Guard?

Please. National Guard units don't have equipment that sophisticated or modern. Unless things have changed significantly from the Iraq War.

[RainMaker]

Someone made a list of a ton of military tweets which seemed to have the same message. These guys are not trained well enough to be handling this kind of weaponry.

The stuff with the press is disturbing. There are photos of the Al-Jazeera people being gassed away and then the cops running over and dismantling their equipment. That's shit you'd see in Russia, not here.

It's not a good showing by the local police. That and their refusal to release information is a good sign something is not right there.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

After one "peaceful protest" turns into a night of looting, you lose the benefit of the doubt.

Too many people in this country forget that with freedom comes responsibility, and if you don't use your freedoms responsibly, you tend to lose them.

Now, all the stuff about "turn off your cameras" I get, that's stupid on the police's part. Not defending everything they are doing, but as with nearly everything else involved in this and similar stories, the pictures posted here are missing an awful lot of context. The police do have the job of defending the town from the looters.

The videos that came out last night (which I couldn't believe I could actually watch "live") were an army of police officers firing rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at a group of unarmed people standing in the street in protest.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know to what extent it's been attempted (I know it has is some places), but I've always thought police departments should more aggressively recruit in their own communities, particularly minority ones. Law enforcement is such a great career track for people who have societal and economic strikes against them, because you don't necessarily need a college degree, or to travel somewhere else, or to have gone to the greatest public school, etc, the qualifications are more practical. It's still not easy or anything but if someone manages to get through high school without getting in trouble, and has aptitude for law, and the right demeanor, and some of the tactical skills, they'd be a great candidate. And of course it would do wonders to break down some of the hostility in these communities. It's not about affirmative action, it's about more effective policing and better relationships with communities. Of course there will be resistance by a lot of people to join the police (and they'll be mocked by people like jeff061 for being poor), but even the recruiting process could make a difference in terms of positive outreach.

Just saw this link and thought of your post.

Where police forces don't resemble the community - Washington Post

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Logan

Anonymous has already released the name of the officer, with his photo, address, and more documentation still to come. Also posted this:

We have video of Mike Brown's body being shoved into the back of a PD SUV. No EMS was on the scene at all as we first thought. #Ferguson

— TheAnonMessage (@TheAnonMessage) August 14, 2014

They've released like 3 different names over the last week. Their "big scoop" yesterday was releasing dispatch tapes from a city that wasn't involved in the shooting. Dispatch tapes that anyone with a scanner app on their smartphone could hear.

I wish people would stop giving these kids the attention they crave.

[Logan]

Better late than never.

Missouri to change tone of response to Ferguson unrest, governor says - LA Times

(caution to any teachers out there: I stopped counting typos early, guessing this was rushed to publication)

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That and their refusal to release information is a good sign something is not right there.

It's no different than any other criminal inquiry. That's one of the few types of government records that's fully exempted from public record request laws.

I was surprised the St. Louis DA's office was this blunt about it:

"St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said Wednesday that details about the Brown shooting would not be released any time soon. He urged anyone with information to come forward and promised that every piece of evidence would be reviewed, presented to a grand jury and eventually made public.

By withholding details from the public during the criminal inquiry, investigators would be better able to gauge witnesses’ credibility, he said"

It's a criminal investigation, the officer is being investigated for criminal conduct. I know people get understandably frustrated when stuff with officers, (or with self-defense cases like Zimmerman/Martin) take more time than we're used to seeing for regular crimes. But they do take longer and it makes sense why. The inquiry isn't just about the facts of what happened, but also about whether the force that was obviously used was reasonable under all of the circumstances. You don't have to make those kinds of determinations in cases without police force and without self-defense components, so those things happen much faster.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's no different than any other criminal inquiry. That's one of the few types of government records that's fully exempted from public record request laws.

I was surprised the St. Louis DA's office was this blunt about it:

"St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said Wednesday that details about the Brown shooting would not be released any time soon. He urged anyone with information to come forward and promised that every piece of evidence would be reviewed, presented to a grand jury and eventually made public.

By withholding details from the public during the criminal inquiry, investigators would be better able to gauge witnesses’ credibility, he said"

It's a criminal investigation, the officer is being investigated for criminal conduct. I know people get understandably frustrated when stuff with officers, (or with self-defense cases like Zimmerman/Martin) take more time than we're used to seeing for regular crimes. But they do take longer and it makes sense why. The inquiry isn't just about the facts of what happened, but also about whether the force that was obviously used was reasonable under all of the circumstances. You don't have to make those kinds of determinations in cases without police force and without self-defense components, so those things happen much faster.

Very fair point.

[Buccaneer]

I fully agree with rainmaker's last two posts. I do not like over reactions (emotional or authoritative or otherwise). Seems like this has been a tragic series of over reactions and abusing authority since Saturday.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

The videos that came out last night (which I couldn't believe I could actually watch "live") were an army of police officers firing rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at a group of unarmed people standing in the street in protest.

Had they been ordered to disperse?
And if so, did they obey that order in a timely fashion?

(I'm legit asking, haven't watched, searched out timelines, etc)

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by molson

It's no different than any other criminal inquiry. That's one of the few types of government records that's fully exempted from public record request laws.

I was surprised the St. Louis DA's office was this blunt about it:

"St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said Wednesday that details about the Brown shooting would not be released any time soon. He urged anyone with information to come forward and promised that every piece of evidence would be reviewed, presented to a grand jury and eventually made public.

By withholding details from the public during the criminal inquiry, investigators would be better able to gauge witnesses’ credibility, he said"

It's a criminal investigation, the officer is being investigated for criminal conduct. I know people get understandably frustrated when stuff with officers, (or with self-defense cases like Zimmerman/Martin) take more time than we're used to seeing for regular crimes. But they do take longer and it makes sense why. The inquiry isn't just about the facts of what happened, but also about whether the force that was obviously used was reasonable under all of the circumstances. You don't have to make those kinds of determinations in cases without police force and without self-defense components, so those things happen much faster.

These are very fair points.

Still, in this day and age where everyone has access to twitter and a cell phone camera, and local government records are probably not all that secure--the local authorities are in a tough situation in terms of balancing protecting due process while maintaining control of the narrative (for example, in several of these cases, explaining why the policies they have implemented are justified especially in the situations like the journalist arrests, where citizen rights appear to be infringed).

The local leadership does not appear to be doing a good job of the later, and it is potentially hurting their ability to maintain the moral authority necessary to resolve the situation on their terms.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Had they been ordered to disperse?
And if so, did they obey that order in a timely fashion?

(I'm legit asking, haven't watched, searched out timelines, etc)

I honestly don't know. The only order I heard was for the media to stop filming (twice) including a final warning to turn off the cameras. That's when the rubber bullets and canisters started flying.

My response was in reference to gstelmack saying the police's job is to defend the town from looters. That clearly wasn't occurring.

edit: Thinking about it more, I know they had requested that all protests take place during daylight hours. I don't think it went as far as invoking a curfew.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's no different than any other criminal inquiry. That's one of the few types of government records that's fully exempted from public record request laws.

I have never heard of a situation where a shooter's name was withheld for so long.

I understand the other details for the witness stuff, but there is no reason the name should still be withheld from the public.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Someone made a list of a ton of military tweets which seemed to have the same message. These guys are not trained well enough to be handling this kind of weaponry.

The stuff with the press is disturbing. There are photos of the Al-Jazeera people being gassed away and then the cops running over and dismantling their equipment. That's shit you'd see in Russia, not here.

Indeed. Overreactions to peaceful protest and then targeting the press makes it look like some Third World country.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Had they been ordered to disperse?
And if so, did they obey that order in a timely fashion?

(I'm legit asking, haven't watched, searched out timelines, etc)

And if so, was that order lawful?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I have never heard of a situation where a shooter's name was withheld for so long.

I understand the other details for the witness stuff, but there is no reason the name should still be withheld from the public.

I would just have released the name right away. Now that they haven't, they've risked an uptick in hostility in the protests once everyone has a name, and a face, and a background to comb through.

I can see how the error in judgment happens though. The courts have given them the power to temporarily hold back names, as long as its not a blanket rule, but when there's a particularized showing of some kind of threat. They do have that showing here with the threats online, so it's easy to leap too quickly from "we can" to "we will". I wonder what the union's role in all this is too (assuming these guys are unionized).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

And if so, was that order lawful?

Regardless, that's not a debate you want to have in the middle of the street. Rarely does that end well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Someone mentioned public reaction (or something along those lines earlier). I offer this totally as a random anecdote, obviously there are shortcomings with online polls, etc etc. And FTR, I stumbled across this looking for something totally unrelated. It was one of three random poll questions on the Macon, GA newspaper website (the other questions included one about the popularity of frozen yogurt marketed specifically to men)

Have the police in Ferguson, Missouri shown too much force in their actions against protestors?
12% Yes
76% No
12% I'm not sure

[RainMaker]

I wonder what that poll would be if you swapped in Waco or Ruby Ridge.

[RainMaker]

The Missouri Governor should have spoke earlier. He handles the media well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I wonder what that poll would be if you swapped in Waco or Ruby Ridge.

{shrug} I point it out strictly as anecdotal since the topic came up.

Meanwhile, I'm kinda stunned that there's anybody who takes issue with federal actions in Waco. Hard to be more anti-Clinton than me but I hold no fault with the administration on that one.

[RainMaker]

It wasn't a knock on you. I just think the unwavering support police get from more conservative people is odd. There is so much talk about government getting too big, government getting too powerful, government taking away rights/freedom/guns in those circles. The Bundy Ranch was a huge right-wing cause despite the fact he was breaking the law.

I expect some levels of hypocrisy in politics but sometimes it gets a little ridiculous. There are a few people who have spoken out about it on the right but I'm surprised it's not a bigger issue for them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Bundy Ranch was a huge right-wing cause despite the fact he was breaking the law.

I dunno how much of that was real & how much was manufactured though. I mean, you can imagine the political leanings of my social media audience. I was expecting flack for my comments on it (which was basically that he was a freeloader at best, an outright crook more likely). Instead I got quite a bit of agreement and only got grief from a couple of under-30 erstwhile hippies.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It wasn't a knock on you. I just think the unwavering support police get from more conservative people is odd. There is so much talk about government getting too big, government getting too powerful, government taking away rights/freedom/guns in those circles. The Bundy Ranch was a huge right-wing cause despite the fact he was breaking the law.

I expect some levels of hypocrisy in politics but sometimes it gets a little ridiculous. There are a few people who have spoken out about it on the right but I'm surprised it's not a bigger issue for them.

I think you are talking mainly about citizens and not the politicians. But in politics the anti-militarization of police movement has very few members of either party. So maybe the democratic reps might be saying more now but here is an example of how they vote...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll329.xml

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think you are talking mainly about citizens and not the politicians. But in politics the anti-militarization of police movement has very few members of either party. So maybe the democratic reps might be saying more now but here is an example of how they vote...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll329.xml

There is a big difference in having weapons and tools available and when/how they are used.

If a couple guys decide to go on a murder spree with assault rifles and body armor, cops don't stand much of a chance with only a Glock. Heck, your typical inner city gangs carry more firepower than what a standard police officer has on them at any time.

[molson]

The Sheriff's department tells a different side to the "police gassing reporters and dismantling their equipment" rhetoric. I haven't read if the reporters involved confirm or deny whether they gave consent for the officers to move their stuff.

Gov. Nixon gives police control of Ferguson situation to Missouri State Highway Patrol : News

"Over the last few days, the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team has assisted in Ferguson at the request of the St. Louis County Police Department to help respond to looting and for protection of the property of Ferguson citizens and businesses. On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage. In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event. The Sheriff has notified St. Louis County Police that the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team is available to protect life and property but does not have a continued role in crowd control during this time of civil protest."

[RainMaker]

The Sheriff's Department is either lying or incredibly stupid. This doesn't look like helping them move with their consent. It looks like they fired a tear gas container right in front of them.

Tear gas forces Al Jazeera reporter to flee in Ferguson | Al Jazeera America

There's also a lot of video and reports of the police telling media to turn off their cameras besides this incident.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Sheriff's Department is either lying or incredibly stupid. This doesn't look like helping them move with their consent. It looks like they fired a tear gas container right in front of them.

Tear gas forces Al Jazeera reporter to flee in Ferguson | Al Jazeera America

There's also a lot of video and reports of the police telling media to turn off their cameras besides this incident.

The St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team isn't necessarily the same entity that was involved in previous incidents involving interactions with the media. All police don't operate with a single mind. There's lots of agencies, lots of different individuals, some performing better than others.

Maybe things will be a little smoother now that that Missouri State Highway Patrol has official oversight of the whole thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

From AP (quoting the local chief)

two dozen patrol vehicles destroyed

Didn't know that detail.

Then again I didn't realize that molotov cocktails were being thrown at police either.

And yet tear gas is "too much" of a response?

{shakes head}

We've truly lost our way.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Your perspective is so fucked it is mind blowing.

How do you feel about those low paid teachers just doing it so they can get the authority they crave?

Wait. We teachers have authority?

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

From AP (quoting the local chief)


Didn't know that detail.

Then again I didn't realize that molotov cocktails were being thrown at police either.

And yet tear gas is "too much" of a response?

{shakes head}

We've truly lost our way.

Yes....when its being thrown at innocent people its too much. When its thrown at reporters doing their constitutionally protected job its too much. When its affecting the innocent citizens in their homes, who it could kill if they have asthma by the way, then its too much. If its being thrown only at people rioting then i think fewer people get mad.

[chadritt]

Dola -

Oh and the rubber bullets freaks me out...those arent exactly 100% non-lethal

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Yes....when its being thrown at innocent people its too much.

If they're contributing to the situation, the environment for lawlessness then they should be dispersed. That's part of maintaining order, which is a higher priority in light of recent events.

[JPhillips]

The Patrol Captain in charge now seems to be doing a great job.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...son-protesters

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Patrol Captain in charge now seems to be doing a great job.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...son-protesters

I'm sure they love him. And he seems like quite the p.r. person.

[murrayyyyy]

Can anyone explain where the car is that he was supposedly struggling in? Why was their no ambulance at the scene. His parent are seen making it to the scene before an ambulance.

Also why was the body not covered up? The Ferguson police department basically left him uncovered in the streets as an example. Maybe I'm wrong and will be corrected but the video I posted is 10 mins long and tape had obviously been put around the scene so ask yourself why he was left in the street like this? Would the decency of placing a bag over the body screwed up any investigation?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=537487053019061

“People really need to harshly judge the accuracy of this group, given that they’ve now given false information about several important things.”

So who is this group? Obviously it's Anonymous (statement made by Sgt. Colby Dolly) but you could also easily substitute "this group" with the Ferguson Police Department.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Would the decency of placing a bag over the body screwed up any investigation?

Do cops carry body bags? I mean, you mentioned there was no ambulance on the scene at that point, I always thought that was their thing (or the coroner's).

Or if you meant literally "a bag", like a Hefty or something ... OMG, I can only imagine the outcry about the insensitivity of such a thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

On one of the other talking points

re: the naming/not-naming of the officer to this point. According to this local report -- a front page item today in fact -- it's uncommon for identity of officers involved in shooting to be revealed in the St.Louis area. Based on that, you might argue whether that's good policy or bad policy but it does not appear to be anything out of the ordinary.

[Logan]

The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - The Daily Beast

[Logan]

They're releasing the name of the cop soon.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Logan

They're releasing the name of the cop soon.

[murrayyyyy]

General question since I don't know the answer. Have they said how many times the kid was shot?