Pokey Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 What a cluster.......this entire bad situation and unfortunate events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Now there is an allegation that he had a bullet wound through the palm of Brown's hand. If true, it would support the witness claims that he had his hands up. However, no bullet wound on his palm was noted on the autopsy report...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 2014 Rodney King... I wish LEO's would just wear chest-mounted GoPro cameras at all times, and be done with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 I'm interested in seeing the results of the toxicology report. I'm not sure the bullet wounds are all that conclusive except for the fact that he was facing the officer, not running away or surrendering with his back turned as many witnesses said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 2014 Rodney King... I wish LEO's would just wear chest-mounted GoPro cameras at all times, and be done with it. The companies that make LE body cameras are about to have a bumper sales year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh1234 Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 It'd be a pleasant surprise if it turns out to be a bunch of "witnesses" that all hate the po-po lying their butts off... And then three separate autopsies all indicate he was facing the cop, and not really kneeling & shot from behind. All that rioting & looting would've then been due to lying little bitches instead of a cop abusing his power. But I'm still reserving judgment until all the facts are out, of course, just saying that SOME facts have come out (autopsy, not witnesses) that seem to defend the cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 2014 Rodney King... I wish LEO's would just wear chest-mounted GoPro cameras at all times, and be done with it. We'll be dealing with a whole new problem of "The camera wasn't working" or "we lost the data". Which, obviously, is possible....but it won't stop people from speculating or throwing accusations around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 We'll be dealing with a whole new problem of "The camera wasn't working" or "we lost the data". Which, obviously, is possible....but it won't stop people from speculating or throwing accusations around. Buddy of mine from Missouri was harassed by a cop who threatened to assault my friend and boasted that he could "say you resisted arrest or something" (was on CNN any everything) and it only came to light because my buddy had a camera running. When the FOIA request for dashcam footage came in, the officer's dashcam was found to have "malfunctioned". Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. You can find it on Youtube. Brett Darrow and Sgt. James Kuehnline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-after-police-killed-my-son-110038_Page2.html#.U_K6znKme76 Edited August 19, 2014 by Uncle Punk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 The rioting is way beyond stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 It is....no doubt. I understand frustration if you perceive you've been targeted unjustly over time, but rioting like this is just ignorant and counter productive. It's an excuse to act stupid. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Rioting always has collateral damage for those that are innocent, and that is truly sad and unjust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) There is an overwhelming contingent of people who are protesting peacefully and their voices should be heard. There is a small subset of those intent on causing trouble. The police have to be prepared to deal with the trouble, yet they can't know who the troublemakers are until they do something. The CNN reporter last night was pointing out that the police were armed and ready for a riot, without acknowledging the fact that the police know the riot is coming. Does he expect the police to pack away their shields, gas masks and guns, then get them back out again when the rioting starts? How about his: Community leaders and police/government leaders stand in between the protestors and the police. They actively talk and co-ordinate with each other so that the police leaders can ask community leaders to calm down certain protestors, and the community leaders can ask the police leaders to have the officers back off from aggressive stances, pointing weapons etc. Make it a human to human communication between senior community members on both sides rather than an entrenched screaming at-each-other thing. The community leaders also need to convince the protestors to distance themselves more clearly from the troublemakers. When it devolves into violence the real protestors should choose go home. That will leave the troublemakers with the choice of rioting without the safety-in-numbers of the legitimate protestors, or just slinking away into the night. If the troublemakers leave then the violence stops. If they stay then it's open season on the idiots and legitimate protestors are not caught in the crossfire. BTW: The most stupid thing I heard on CNN last night, a protestor argued with the presenter reporting a molotov cocktail being thrown at police: "That wasn't a molotov cocktail! It was just a water bottle that ignited when it hit the police." Edited August 19, 2014 by Scruit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 two wrongs don't make a right. 10 or so wrongs make a riot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 2014 Rodney King... I wish LEO's would just wear chest-mounted GoPro cameras at all times, and be done with it.There's quite a few issues that would come with that. First where is the money for that going to come from? Most law enforcement agencies are already having trouble paying for gas to patrol with and ammo to train with. It could be argued that filming could violate 4th amendment rights. People don't want to be filmed every time they interact with police. Some places have laws against filming people without their consent. Changing the law to allow police to do it would open all kinds of issues with general publics ability to film people without their consent. If the cops can do it why can't everyone else? Also Miranda rights issues can come from it.It would be quite a pain in the ass to film all day. Making sure the battery hasn't died or the memory card isn't full. If you say they fire it up every time the cop interacts with someone that's not feasible. Cops often have to make instant reactions to situations. Fucking around with a camera doesn't need to be an issue added into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 There's quite a few issues that would come with that. First where is the money for that going to come from? Most law enforcement agencies are already having trouble paying for gas to patrol with and ammo to train with.It could be argued that filming could violate 4th amendment rights. People don't want to be filmed every time they interact with police. Some places have laws against filming people without their consent. Changing the law to allow police to do it would open all kinds of issues with general publics ability to film people without their consent. If the cops can do it why can't everyone else? Also Miranda rights issues can come from it.It would be quite a pain in the ass to film all day. Making sure the battery hasn't died or the memory card isn't full. If you say they fire it up every time the cop interacts with someone that's not feasible. Cops often have to make instant reactions to situations. Fucking around with a camera doesn't need to be an issue added into it. The taser camera system is plugged into a dock at the station after shift and it recharges and downloads. - Officer arrives back at the station after his shift, unclips the camera and plugs it into one of the slots on the central dock- A red light appears on that camera that means the camera is downloading and/or recharging, so don't use it- Once the camera is charged/downloaded its light turns green- Next officer to go out on shift grabs any available green camera, clips it on and goes to work. The camera is the size of a whiteboard marker.- Video is categorized and stored for some statutory amount of time based upon what they caught on video, then eventually purged. http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-flex-on-officer-video 4th Amendment: The police can already record their interactions with people, although wiretap laws in various states present a challenge if the officer's mic picks up conversations he is not party to. Accidental is no problemo, but intentional is an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 So I just saw an article that said the officer in the Brown shooting suffered orbital fractures. Pretty sure that counts as serious bodily harm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaCinci Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 He could have stab wounds and his blood on Michael Brown's hands and they would still call for "justice" for the innocent boy who strong arm robbed a convenient store hours before. Nothing but a murder charge conviction of the officer, regardless of the facts, will appease the masses. It will get worse before it gets better. If I was a LEO anywhere in the US, I'd take long vacation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 So I just saw an article that said the officer in the Brown shooting suffered orbital fractures. Pretty sure that counts as serious bodily harm. Link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Can't vouch for the source, so don't take this as gospel: http://mrconservative.com/2014/08/47924-officer-sustained-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-brown-attack/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Another interesting report... Again, can't vouch for source so take with a grain of salt: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/boom-reporter-a-dozen-witnesses-confirm-ferguson-cops-version-of-brown-shooting/http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/witnesses-say-ferguson-teen-attacked-cop-before-shooting/ https://twitter.com/ChristineDByers Please don't fall victim to confirmation bias (wherein you accept and claims that support your opinion over claims that do not, regardless of the merits of the claims themselves). I'm trying hard to stay impartial, but it is becoming difficult. Edited August 20, 2014 by Scruit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 I can't vouch for the source that's why i didn't link to it. The first place i saw it was rightwingnews.com. I saw it on another site along with the claim that 12 people had similar witness statements to the story told by police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Let's assume it's true that Brown punched the officer in the face and broke his orbital bone, and that Brown was the one the initiated the struggle. Why wouldn't the FPD release that information quickly to attempt to diffuse over a week of rioting and looting? To date FPD hasn't released anything of the sort. If there were 12 eye witnesses that could confirm the officers story wouldn't at least one of them had granted an interview with national news by now? It's not like they are sworn to secrecy. The large news networks will pay a good sum of money for an exclusive interview on a story that has national attention. There must be more details somewhere, but these don't exactly add up. I did hear the woman that called into the radio station, but that was a 3rd person account. She said she wasn't a witness and was repeating what she was told. Edited August 20, 2014 by Tpoppa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Let's assume it's true that Brown punched the officer in the face and broke his orbital bone, and that Brown was the one the initiated the struggle. Why wouldn't the FPD release that information quickly to attempt to diffuse over a week of rioting and looting? To date FPD hasn't released anything of the sort. If there were 12 eye witnesses that could confirm the officers story wouldn't at least one of them had granted an interview with national news by now? It's not like they are sworn to secrecy. The large news networks will pay a good sum of money for an exclusive interview on a story that has national attention. There must be more details somewhere, but these don't exactly add up. I did hear the woman that called into the radio station, but that was a 3rd person account. She said she wasn't a witness and was repeating what she was told. Why are the police slow to release details? Sub Judice or "Under judgement" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice Releasing evidence publicly can negatively effect the outcome of a trial, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The police / prosecution tend to hold evidence until it has been through the investigation / grand jury process. MSM and local witnesses are under no such limitation so only one one side tells their story, then suddenly the actual investigation/indictments hearing goes ahead using both sides of the story, and there's a 50/50 chance that the public, biased by hearing only one side, will simply not believe the other side. If eyewitness evidence is released too early in the process then it can be easily claimed that further eyewitnesses heard the story in the media and are simply repeating it - undermining their credibility. The same reason that court witnesses are not allowed to watch the court hearing until they are dismissed. If multiple witnesses all bring the same story independently then that is much more telling. Right now you have an entire community of people marching under the "hands up" mantra, retelling as if it was gospel - they all heard it on the news and they all demand the course of justice to conform to their one-sided story as a condition of peace. How is that justice? If I lived in Ferguson and saw all the violence, looting and protesters shooting each other... and I had eyewitness testimony that exonerated the officer... I would want to remain anonymous for fear of my safety. The money I get for an exclusive interview won't keep me alive, not will it prevent the community from ostracizing me. Edited August 20, 2014 by Scruit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 To the people who say the prosecutor is biased against black people, biased towards the police, and therefore unfit to run the Brown case.... He has been voted into that position repeatedly for 23 years now. The conditions that "prove" his bias existed 23 years ago (cop family, wanted to be a cop, dad killed by black man when he was 12). Why was he not too biased to hear the last 23 years of cases, yet suddenly he's too biased to hear this one? The one case people keep quoting in which he refused to charge two cops for shooting an unarmed black man... The information I have is that that case was referred for federal investigators and they agreed with the prosecutor. If anyone has more detail then please share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.