Ferguson: too much or not enough?

[Brakeman]

However, it is the black witnesses' testimonies that have been impeached so far with the physical evidence, not the cop's.

Are you on the grand jury, Brake? The fucking cops haven't even released the autopsy they performed yet let alone any other evidence. They only released the name of the killer kop under pressure.

Listening to right-wing racist assholes is not evidence. Try to remember that.

And don't listen to Drippy, either.

Actually I was going by the press release of the ME that the Brown family hired.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/mic...times.html

Do you think that there is an alien conspiracy to plant false autopsies?

[DramaQueen]

The press release of the middle east.
What does this ferguson stuff have to do with rick?

[Endo]

The press release of the middle east.
What does this ferguson stuff have to do with rick?

ME is "Medical Examiner".

Attempt at re-railment: Ferguson has long been far too much. Cops overreacting, the local government overreacting, and the federal government overreacting now with the National Fucking Guard.

Compare this to the strangling case several weeks ago: a man was killed several weeks ago, the police/IA investigated fairly, the cops involved were punished properly, and no one lost their shit.

[Minimalist]

Are you on the grand jury, Brake? The fucking cops haven't even released the autopsy they performed yet let alone any other evidence. They only released the name of the killer kop under pressure.

Listening to right-wing racist assholes is not evidence. Try to remember that.

And don't listen to Drippy, either.

Actually I was going by the press release of the ME that the Brown family hired.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/mic...times.html

Do you think that there is an alien conspiracy to plant false autopsies?

I heard the "lunging" bullshit, too. He could also have been on his knees and falling forward when officer Hero gave him the coup d' grace in the top of the head. He did end up face down.

[Brakeman]

..
The cop who shot him DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THIS STUFF WHEN HE SHOT HIM. Even the police chief admitted this.

Since the cop didn't know, it wasn't part of the decision to shoot.

Since it wasn't part of the decision to shoot, it's totally irrelevant.

Totally.
Irrelevant.
Return to the subject.

No, it is not irrelevant to the judgment of the veracity of the cop's claim. It is only irrelevant to the cop's decision to shoot. Before we get to discussing whether or not the cop's actions are justified, we first have to decide what actions actually took place. So far, it looks like so many of you were completely taken in by the witnesses who have been thoroughly impeached by the evidence. Because it doesn't fit your preconceived prejudices you have ignored the best evidence such as the autopsies and the robbery and gone on a tantrum. Unless new evidence surfaces to the contrary, we should judge that the cop was attacked, then separated by Brown walking off, then "bumrushed" at which time the cop shot until the man stopped and fell from the fatal shot. Do you agree with this description of events as the most plausible so far? If so, we can do away with the need to show that Michael was the type of person and of the current mind to behave as the cop claimed. Then it is merely a question of whether a cop should be able to protect himself from a larger, stronger attacker with deadly force as he is trained to do in police academy.

The allegations that are relevant:
1. A cop allegedly shot an unarmed man who had his hands in the air.
2. When peaceful protests gathered, the cops seem to have acted like a bunch of drunken frat boys with some shiny new toys they got for Christmas and decided it was time to party. And boy, howdy, did they party!
3. The press has been intimidated, threatened, fired upon and arrested for doing their jobs.

This is an example of how NOT to handle public relations.
This is an example of how NOT to diffuse public anger.
This is an example of how NOT to keep order.
This is an example of how NOT to maintain a free society.
This is an example of why we should NOT militarize the police.

1. We now have autopsy evidence provided by the family's ME that number 1 is not true. The killing shot hit him near the top of the head. The wounds were consistent with the cop's version of the events, not the ones you like.

2. Maybe, I don't know. But if this claim is brought by the same media that reported that the guy got shot in the back for jaywalking, then I doubt the source too much to consider it. I did see a great deal of vandalism and looting though. But who knows, maybe it was "peaceful" looting and vandalism" type protests?

3. Yeah, that's been true since Bush2 but even Barak Obama hasn't done shit to improve press rights. Most police seem to believe that they can't be video taped and that we don't have a right to photograph federal property.
I hope we do something about this!

I'm not conservative, I'm not racist, I'm not a cop lover, but I sure as shit am not one to stubbornly stick to discredited claims. If I wanted to do that I would have stayed a christian.

---

Actually I was going by the press release of the ME that the Brown family hired.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/mic...times.html

Do you think that there is an alien conspiracy to plant false autopsies?

I heard the "lunging" bullshit, too. He could also have been on his knees and falling forward when officer Hero gave him the coup d' grace in the top of the head. He did end up face down.

Except that the eye shot was also downward and the arm shots are forward. It fits the cops version and not the racist black witnesses'. Yeah, it could have been shots from the grassy knoll but as of now we are judging between two sets of witnesses. Those who started the riots when they said that the guy was just walking in the street when the white cop blasted him in the back with his hands in the air, and the cop's version, where he was "bumrushed."
Without good physical evidence against the cop's version, we should probably give him the benefit of doubt since it doesn't appear that he is lying. The other black witnesses lied through their teeth and you are yet to admit it.

[DeistPaladin]

No, it is not irrelevant to the judgment of the veracity of the cop's claim. It is only irrelevant to the cop's decision to shoot. Before we get to discussing whether or not the cop's actions are justified, we first have to decide what actions actually took place.

That's for a trial to determine. I did say "alleged" and "allegations".

But the situation has escalated to the point where even this incident is almost a moot issue. If it turned out that the shooting was completely justified, the problems that have since been revealed by what's happening in Ferguson dwarf that issue to near irrelevance.

My characterization of the police as acting like a bunch of drunken frat boys playing with their shiny new toys is, I think, fairly descriptive. They went on a power trip with no apparent boundaries. They not only ordered people off the streets but swept into nearby restaurants, ordering people to clear out and arresting them if they didn't move fast enough. Their treatment of the press is even more alarming. What first amendment?

They've also been militarized and aren't shy about using their new toys, even in situations analogous to swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. This was a peaceful protest met with sonic cannons, rubber bullets and armored ATVs.

This is in every town in America. What happened there can happen anywhere else in America.

We've escalated way past "was the shooting justified"? We're in the territory of "are there any boundaries for the new military police or can the local police chief suspend the constitution and impose martial law at any time with no accountability?"

[Brakeman]

No, it is not irrelevant to the judgment of the veracity of the cop's claim. It is only irrelevant to the cop's decision to shoot. Before we get to discussing whether or not the cop's actions are justified, we first have to decide what actions actually took place.

That's for a trial to determine. I did say "alleged" and "allegations".

We are the court of public opinion. We members of a "rationalist" forum debate our own public opinion. The cops fate, however, rests on the MO circuit/state court.

But the situation has escalated to the point where even this incident is almost a moot issue. If it turned out that the shooting was completely justified, the problems that have since been revealed by what's happening in Ferguson dwarf that issue to near irrelevance.

My characterization of the police as acting like a bunch of drunken frat boys playing with their shiny new toys is, I think, fairly descriptive. They went on a power trip with no apparent boundaries. They not only ordered people off the streets but swept into nearby restaurants, ordering people to clear out and arresting them if they didn't move fast enough. Their treatment of the press is even more alarming. What first amendment?

..

We've escalated way past "was the shooting justified"? We're in the territory of "are there any boundaries for the new military police or can the local police chief suspend the constitution and impose martial law at any time with no accountability?"

Totally in agreement, however, I personally wish that the protesting public would mature their arguments to exclude impeached claims and to focus on true racial inequality incidents that obviously happen regularly in Ferguson. I wish that people understood the importance of standing up for their rights every day when there aren't big mitigating circumstances. I think the outrage should be of a unwarranted search or of abusive treatment when there is no crime involved where one could claim that they were just doing their duty. There doesn't have to be a dead body.

I am alarmed that we have gone from the local, Andy Griffith's type local police force to a military occupation type force.

I would support a federal law that prohibits police departments to cover more than 200,000 residents. Larger cities would have to split their departments into chunks, and hiring preferential should be local. This would prevent a sheriff from having a standing army at their disposal.

What ideas to improve the situation do you have?

[The Grand Nudger]

People shouldn't have to "stand up for their rights" in the face of public servants whose only mandate is to protect those rights. There are no mitigating circumstances in that scenario, big or small. If one of those apc's got molotov'd, I'd think it was a shitty thing to do....but I wouldn't want to be on that jury.

(your suggestion wouldn;t actually accomplish that, they already share resources and manpower with neighboring jurisdictions, plus - the number of troops on the ground is irrelevant in a vacuum, it's their combat effectiveness relative to the opposing force- which, in this case, is a bunch of civilians)

Here's my suggestion -Until the Ferguson PD starts seeing ieds and rpgs getting flung at squadcars under cover of automatic rifle fire and indirect bombardment- they need to leave that shit at home. Misuse of those resources should be grounds for summary dismissal - no severance, no pension...top to bottom- and permanent expulsion from public service, at a minimum (and since the dept heads of police forces are politicians - not hero cops...you'd best believe that would light a fire under their ass).

IOW, if they want to pretend to be army men, go ahead, lets pretend they -are- army men, eh? Guilty until proven innocent has a ring to it. Leavenworth could use more rock breakers, ranges always need gravel.

[JesusHChrist]

Mandatory dash and body-worn cameras would be a good start.

Tampering with the cameras should be a felony.

Time to get control back from the government overlords.

[Endo]

Mandatory dash and body-worn cameras would be a good start.

Tampering with the cameras should be a felony.

Time to get control back from the government overlords.

Already happened in some areas, altercations and officer-involved violence incidents are down ~80? 90? %.