Michael Brown Case

[The Romulan Republic]

apparently the shopkeeper has come forward to say there never was a robbery and he never reported anything to the police, followed by the cctv of Mike paying for the cigars.

OH SNAP withheld pending citation...

If that's true the police who claimed there was a robbery should be charged with fraud, obstruction of Justice, and attempting to frame Mike.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't want to assume, though, that the shopkeeper is now lying to preserve his reputation with the local community.

[Borgholio]

I don't find people on the left fantasizing about the other side getting gunned down any more appealing than people on the Right doing it. I just don't see a war on America's streets as a good thing in any scenario.

I think what he means is that the far-right wing loonies have been crowing about a second American Revolution for years now and it's getting so fucking annoying, that it would be poetic justice to see them actually get their war and get their asses handed to them. That's pretty much the only thing that could get these lunatics back in line with the rest of civilization. But yes I agree with you completely, it would only lead to more death and that's not a good thing.

[Channel72]

Or he could have been reaching out with that arm. There's a number of conclusions that CAN be drawn. I will say that it does show that the witness accounts weren't correct as there's no entry wounds in the back.

Possible. We'll have to wait to see if there is gunshot residue on Brown's clothing. Until then:

The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.

This really doesn't look good for the cop. If no residue is found on the clothes, the best the cop can do for a defense is claim he thought Brown was reaching for a concealed gun or something.

[Borgholio]

This really doesn't look good for the cop. If no residue is found on the clothes, the best the cop can do for a defense is claim he thought Brown was reaching for a concealed gun or something.

Which, if he is right-handed, will be blown out of the water since the gunshots are on the INSIDE of his arm, rather than the outside (which they would be if he was reaching for a gun).

[cadbrowser]

I don't want to assume, though, that the shopkeeper is now lying to preserve his reputation with the local community.

Even if this was the case, and if it was Brown in the video, there is that other video that still shows someone (at least as big as Mike) throwing around the shopkeeper. So, I mean something happened violently with someone; I want to know about that story.

Has the shopkeeper come forward and positively ID'd Mike as the perp or is it someone else entirely?

[Kamakazie Sith]

This really doesn't look good for the cop. If no residue is found on the clothes, the best the cop can do for a defense is claim he thought Brown was reaching for a concealed gun or something.

Which, if he is right-handed, will be blown out of the water since the gunshots are on the INSIDE of his arm, rather than the outside (which they would be if he was reaching for a gun).

Which would be complete bullshit even if he did since that should have been part of the original articulation for use of force...

[Dalton]

Chris Hayes is on the ground in Ferguson, and apparently has been hit with rocks and tear gas and is asking for a gas mask so he can keep reporting the news.

I'd love to see Sean Hannity risk his pretty-boy meat head and do THAT shit.

[salm]

Apparently they arrested more journalists for taking pictures. Ansgar Graw reporting for "Die Welt" and Frank Herrmann for several smaller newspapers as well as Scott Olson who was there for Getty Images.

[Vendetta]

I don't find people on the left fantasizing about the other side getting gunned down any more appealing than people on the Right doing it. I just don't see a war on America's streets as a good thing in any scenario.

I think what he means is that the far-right wing loonies have been crowing about a second American Revolution for years now and it's getting so fucking annoying, that it would be poetic justice to see them actually get their war and get their asses handed to them. That's pretty much the only thing that could get these lunatics back in line with the rest of civilization. But yes I agree with you completely, it would only lead to more death and that's not a good thing.

Yeah, we've seen this year that the far right anti-government loonies care about white ranchers who don't like to pay taxes, but they're conspicuously absent when black kids get gunned down by police...

"Anti-government" might not actually be at the top of their priority list, see?

[wautd]

Apparently they arrested more journalists for taking pictures. Ansgar Graw reporting for "Die Welt" and Frank Herrmann for several smaller newspapers as well as Scott Olson who was there for Getty Images.

Meanwhile in Egypt... Oh wait...
Seriously, on what ground? Is it illegal to film police brutality in the US? (honest question)

[Borgholio]

"Anti-government" might not actually be at the top of their priority list, see?

The far-right is only anti-government if they disagree with the government's agenda. Universal healthcare, environmental protection, taxes...Second American Revolution. Gunning down black kids (who they tend to hate anyways)...quite allright in their book.

[Block]

Apparently they arrested more journalists for taking pictures. Ansgar Graw reporting for "Die Welt" and Frank Herrmann for several smaller newspapers as well as Scott Olson who was there for Getty Images.

Meanwhile in Egypt... Oh wait...
Seriously, on what ground? Is it illegal to film police brutality in the US? (honest question)

No, but you can get arrested for failing to obey lawful commands, so if they were obstructing flow of traffic or impeding officers performance of their duties or something and were told to move and refused, they can get arrested for that. You'd have to see the charges to know if it was justified.

[Elheru Aran]

Apparently they arrested more journalists for taking pictures. Ansgar Graw reporting for "Die Welt" and Frank Herrmann for several smaller newspapers as well as Scott Olson who was there for Getty Images.

Meanwhile in Egypt... Oh wait...
Seriously, on what ground? Is it illegal to film police brutality in the US? (honest question)

No, but you can get arrested for failing to obey lawful commands, so if they were obstructing flow of traffic or impeding officers performance of their duties or something and were told to move and refused, they can get arrested for that. You'd have to see the charges to know if it was justified.

It's technically illegal for an outsider to record the police in *some* jurisdictions. This is a remnant of Nixon-era paranoia, and was intended to keep the police as private citizens safe. Say they're arresting a gang member, and another member took pictures of them, and then each individual cop gets whacked as a result. That was the general idea, anyway.

Now things are a little different. Since the Rodney King beating, which was captured on video, it's become more socially acceptable to try and film/photograph police in the execution of their duties (or acts that are not part of their duties...). For obvious reasons, sometimes the police don't appreciate this (generally when they're pounding someone into the pavement). Legally, the right of citizens to film police has been in general upheld, IIRC. So the Ferguson cops arresting press photographers is probably illegal unless they can prove the photographers were getting in the way or refusing to obey reasonable directives from the officers.

[Elheru Aran]

To give the far-right credit, some of them have been speaking out against the police brutality in Ferguson. Rand Paul wrote an op-ed in Time magazine about it (yeah, paragon of journalism, I know, but still). They're just coming at it from the anti-government angle rather than the civil-rights aspect of things.

Of course far more liberals have been talking about it than the conservatives... and the conservatives who *do* talk about it are more likely to say something along the lines of "race/class war gonna happen" rather than "man, those cops suck"...

[Lost Soal]

One cop apparently threatened to shoot one who was live streaming from the scene
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/fergus ... -the-face/

[PainRack]

No, but you can get arrested for failing to obey lawful commands, so if they were obstructing flow of traffic or impeding officers performance of their duties or something and were told to move and refused, they can get arrested for that. You'd have to see the charges to know if it was justified.

It's technically illegal for an outsider to record the police in *some* jurisdictions. This is a remnant of Nixon-era paranoia, and was intended to keep the police as private citizens safe. Say they're arresting a gang member, and another member took pictures of them, and then each individual cop gets whacked as a result. That was the general idea, anyway.

Now things are a little different. Since the Rodney King beating, which was captured on video, it's become more socially acceptable to try and film/photograph police in the execution of their duties (or acts that are not part of their duties...). For obvious reasons, sometimes the police don't appreciate this (generally when they're pounding someone into the pavement). Legally, the right of citizens to film police has been in general upheld, IIRC. So the Ferguson cops arresting press photographers is probably illegal unless they can prove the photographers were getting in the way or refusing to obey reasonable directives from the officers.[/quote]
Wait, seriously?

The local cops here tried to pull that shtick before. Except for anti narcotics where the police officers faces/names have to be censored, they didn't have a legal leg to stand upon and there was no successful arrest when the police officer asked said citizen to stop filming them. As long as you're in uniform and doing police patrol, you could be filmed, asked to identify yourself as a police officer, you just couldn't do it overboard to the form of harrassment.

So.......... semi police state here is kinda saying WTF is going on in the land of the free.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, there are only a few ways the whole filming-the-police thing is going to end up in the long run:

--It's banned entirely by some retro-activist judge. This is not going to happen; too much potential for First Amendment violations. Filming the police has been ruled illegal (in specific circumstances, IIRC) a time or two, but it has also been upheld, especially when it's in public recording specifically illegal activities being conducted by the police.

--Police departments decide to do an end-run by having lapel cameras on everybody. Since they are now recording their own actions they claim that they can tell other photographers to go away/whatever. This may or may not be supported; depends on circumstances.

--A judge finally gets fed up and tell the cops to suck it up.

I don't think I've ever seen the press in the US being repressed as flagrantly as they have been here in Ferguson. That is absolutely ridiculous and will open the Ferguson PD to some serious repercussions once things simmer down.

[Rycon67]

Whoever got the damn idea of putting police in armored trucks and armed with assault rifles should be fired. Nobody is shooting at them, there is no reason to escalate on that level. Riot shields and batons are plenty enough there. And if you go "BUT THANAS. THINK OF THE RISK" then you can be reminded that every year in Europe you get actual riots, as in molotov cocktails and massive bricks being thrown at police from rooftops and yet nobody there thinks they need to use assault rifles.

In comparison, the oft-criticized Ukrainian police, when faced with an actual uprising in their capital, were not equipped with assault rifles either save a tiny minority. Most of them were using batons and shields - against an uprising that was shooting back. Meanwhile, when faced with a few stores being messed up, the brave US police needs to bring out the armored vehicles and assault rifles.

Those US police in the photos seem to suffer from the "being a massive pussy" and "not being taught proper riot control" symptoms.

I've lived in the US all my life - I have never seen a police response like this to a demonstration. (The OWS response didn't involve this level of force, and it was pretty controversial.) The only police officers that regularly carry automatic weapons/assault rifles are stationed in high-profile places that are likely terrorist targets.

So, this reaction from the Ferguson police is really disturbing and surprising.

Unless you live in the area or have a relative there, I'm guessing since 99% of people probably never heard of Ferguson Missouri before this incident, that probably gives you an idea of how safe or boring the place general was until recently.

Considering that the Ferguson PD only has 50 some odd officers on the force, and there is no reported occurence of a member of the FPD being killed in the line of duty, I'm guessing that when things first started spinning out of control the Chief and other command staff panicked and decided to go all in, as apposed to trying a more measured approach that the state police seem to be trying.

http://www.odmp.org/search/browse/missouri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_P ... (Missouri)

Though as mentioned in the wiki article, there was one prior incident in 2009 where 4 FPD officers where accused of beating a suspect who had been wrongly arrested as a result of a case of mistaken identity(right name, wrong person). I've not heard anything about it come up regarding recent events, but perhaps some of the frustration and anger here could be a result of pent up anger and frustration over the 2009 event as well maybe?

[gigabytelord]

So this is a thing now.

Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera.
Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera. Due to the latest accounts of deadly encounters with police, We the People, petition for the Mike Brown Law. Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera.The law shall be made in an effort to not only detour police misconduct(i.e. brutality, profiling, abuse of power), but to ensure that all police are following procedure, and to remove all question, from normally questionable police encounters. As well, as help to hold all parties within a police investigation, accountable for their actions.

I signed it, but the question is. If this is successful would it actually do any good?

[Borgholio]

I signed it, but the question is. If this is successful would it actually do any good?

I'm sure some progressive PDs will jump on it as a chance for good PR and less hassle about police misconduct. Others will fight tooth and nail since now they know they'd have a lot of dirty laundry to air out.

[Raw Shark]

So this is a thing now.

Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera.
Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera. Due to the latest accounts of deadly encounters with police, We the People, petition for the Mike Brown Law. Create a bill, sign into law, and set aside funds to require all state,county, and local police, to wear a camera.The law shall be made in an effort to not only detour police misconduct(i.e. brutality, profiling, abuse of power), but to ensure that all police are following procedure, and to remove all question, from normally questionable police encounters. As well, as help to hold all parties within a police investigation, accountable for their actions.

I signed it, but the question is. If this is successful would it actually do any good?

If by "good" you mean, "Force police departments that are currently sheltering irresponsible, abusive shit-fucks who deserve prosecution to air out their bad laundry," then I agree whole-heartedly. How do you see the mandatory wearing of cameras to decrease their lawful (as opposed to doing whatever the fuck they want under color of authority) effectiveness? Because, as-written, I tend to agree with the sentiment that all parties should be held accountable for their actions. Why do the police deserve immunity from this?

[Rycon67]

I signed it, but the question is. If this is successful would it actually do any good?

I'm sure some progressive PDs will jump on it as a chance for good PR and less hassle about police misconduct. Others will fight tooth and nail since now they know they'd have a lot of dirty laundry to air out.

I would guess/hope at least that some of the larger departments/agencies in Missouri, such as Kansas City PD, St. Louis PD, Missouri Highway Patrol, and other larger agencies in the state at least would adopt such equipment, if they haven't already been issued such equipment. While it's not as widespread as it could or should be, the technology has matured greatly in the last few years and more and more departments have been getting equipped with the technology.

The Wall Street Journal has a good article about body cameras, and as an example how they've been used by the Rialto, California PD.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-hap ... 1408320244

Within a year, use of force by officers fell 60%, and citizen complaints against the department fell by 88%.

The physical hardware itself only costs around $300 to $400 per camera, the main issue cost wise at the moment seemingly being the storage of the massive amount of footage taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rialto_Police_Department

If a 115 officer department such as Rialto can afford to successfully operate such a system, there's really no excuse for at least Kansas City, St. Louis, and the Missouri Highway Patrol being mandated to use this technology.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /14254513/

You've also got other departments, some of which have more colorful histories then the Ferguson PD, such as the New Orleans PD, Las Vegas Metro, and Birmingham, Alabama PD issuing this technology to officers. As mentioned in the USA Today, if a small department such as the 37 member Lone Tree, Colorado PD can issue their entire department with cameras, the 54 officer Ferguson PD coule probably afford it.

Considering that the costs of the cameras would be offset by perhaps being able to clear complaints against an officer faster, or used by police and prosecuters to strenghen cases against a suspect, and possible save a lot of time and avoid potential lawsuits, it would pay for itself pretty fast.

Even if the Ferguson officer isn't convicted and recieves no further punishment aside from likely having to quit his job and career, the city will likely have to pay out a lot of money to the Brown family, and the economic damage from the rioting can not be helping the town.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Apparently they arrested more journalists for taking pictures. Ansgar Graw reporting for "Die Welt" and Frank Herrmann for several smaller newspapers as well as Scott Olson who was there for Getty Images.

Meanwhile in Egypt... Oh wait...
Seriously, on what ground? Is it illegal to film police brutality in the US? (honest question)

Honest and in the know answer. It is not illegal, period. Doesn't matter where you live, where you come from, etc. You can film police in public. There's mountains of court precedence to support it so I'm always shocked when I see a police officer arresting someone for simply filming.

What you can't do and are not allowed to do is involve yourself. If you're recording and you start asking questions, interviewing people detained by the police, or getting too close then you will be asked to stop and/or move back. If you refuse then you can and likely will be arrested for interfering.

[Kamakazie Sith]

My department uses cameras. I have one. Just the presence alone goes a long way of keeping everyone in line. People comply with commands - for the most part - and everyone is polite.