from the crowd-sourcing-a-search-for-information dept.
Regarding the unarmed teenager who was shot in the back by a cop and who then turned around with his hands in the air and was shot several more times by the same cop, resulting in the kid's death:
Mother Jones reports:
The police chief of Ferguson, Missouri, says he is withholding the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown, an unarmed African American teenager, out of concern for the safety of the officer and his family. But that might be easier said than done. Just a few hours later, the hacktivist group Anonymous announced on Twitter that it was now "making a final confirmation on the name of Mike Brown's murderer," adding: "It will be released the moment we receive it."
Update: Anonymous has obtained and posted St. Louis police dispatch tapes from the day of the shooting.
Digging a little, I discovered that Ferguson, Missouri is 65 percent black, yet its 53-officer police force has only 3 black officers. This is very much in contrast with the Community-Oriented Policing concept pioneered by Lee Brown, embraced by Bill Clinton (even a busted clock is right twice a day), and dismantled by George Dubya Bush.
Related Stories
After earlier reporting from the same source, El Reg reports
Anonymous has called off efforts to name and shame the cop who shot unarmed teen Michael Brown dead in Ferguson, Missouri after the hacktivists identified a bloke who the police say has never worked as a beat officer. On Thursday the group released the name and pictures from Facebook of a man they accused of shooting 18-year-old Brown, but the police say the hackers fingered the wrong man.
The group hasn't shut up shop completely, however. Following a press statement threatening a hacking attack, the group released what they claim is the radio logs of the St Louis police department at the time of Brown's death, and say they also have video of his body being loaded into a police van.
Ferguson police have now released the name of the officer involved in the shooting. [Police Chief] Jackson identified the officer who shot Brown as Darren Wilson, a six-year veteran of the city police department. He said that Wilson had a clean disciplinary record before the shooting on Saturday.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @01:24PM
What's with the trolling in TFS lately?
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Thursday August 14 2014, @01:40PM
I'm inclined to let some of that sort of thing fly, at least to a point. While it doesn't improve the story, I do think it's helpful to have a window into the perspective of the writer, so the rest of his work can be read with that in mind. If a submitter wants to take a story into Op-Ed territory, it can be OK as long as it's clear as a bell that's what's happening.(Full disclosure: I voted for Clinton twice, but also had problems with some of his policy choices.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by RaffArundel on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:11PM
I'm also on the side of allow opinion in general, but that does seem like flamebait. Some days I wish we could mod articles. I don't even WANT to know what else was in TFS if this made it through.
Some background on the statement itself. First, I am from Houston, and Brown's community policing was an outstanding policy. Imagine a city doing the exact opposite of the current trend towards militarization. You know - actually getting out in the community, and knowing what is going on. It is the "beat cop" thing you see in old movies. I remember the strip mall store-front community centers they had. The officers would (or seemed at the time) to be pretty laid back and cool. It's hard for either side to call the other "enemy" when you live and work side by side. So, when I am God-Emperor of the Known Universe, it is how I would do it.
The problem is "embraced by Bill Clinton" is a pretty serious over-statement. COPS was part of a much larger law which brought us the Assault Weapon ban, Violence against Women laws (increased penalties), expanded the federal death penalty and greatly increased the prison system. Clinton signed it, I have no recollection of him pushing it. It was a DoJ thing, so part of his branch, but it consisted of mostly handing out grants to states and cities. Standard "power of the purse-strings" and created by Congress.
It wasn't "dismantled" - it still exists today. It was impacted by the larger federal budget cuts (again Congress) and my own personal opinion that since it didn't pay for SWAT toys fewer cities cared to jump through hoops to get it. If someone can dig up the actual budget/grant rewards for the office since 1996, it would be interesting to see if it was targeted or just underutilized.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:58PM
Soyled News has jumped the beta.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:27PM
I think the person should at least have an identifiable account and post. This one didn't have a thing. For all we know, it was just a successful placement of an SEO attempt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:02PM
> For all we know, it was just a successful placement of an SEO attempt.
And creating a throw-away account would have stopped that how, precisely?
It certainly wasn't a bot that posted it.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 14 2014, @10:41PM
Note I said posting too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:03PM
I think the GP's question stands - a throw-away account wouldn't have stopped that, either.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday August 15 2014, @12:20AM
It raises the barrier. I think even a near trivial barrier would discourage such games.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @12:28AM
> It raises the barrier. I think even a near trivial barrier would discourage such games.
The harm of "such games" has yet to be demonstrated.
Hell, you haven't even demonstrated that such games even exist, don quixote.
Furthermore, you are discounting the cost of raising that barrier - the price being the reduction of AC participation here.
In this discussion alone I see two AC comments that have received at least 3 up-mods. This subthread itself was started by an AC, how's that for irony?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 14 2014, @01:52PM
You didn't see the bits that I removed! They went a little too far, IMHO.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @02:43PM
I'd sure as hell take another Clinton over another Bush Jr.
But then again, we followed up GWB with a Democrat and we've all seen how that turned out, so hey.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:03PM
Well there's your problem.
It wouldn't have mattered if you followed GWB up with a Republican, they would have still had the same mess to clean up. The biggest issue I can see, as an outside party, is that the house is primary controlled by Republicans with a Democrat president. What's worse is a lot of the Republicans are also Tea Party, some of their members have stated on multiple occasions they're whole purpose was to prevent the president from actually running the country.
On top of that the SCOTUS is dominated by Republican appointees two of which were appointed by GWB himself. I was surprised when they let the health care reform actually pass in the first place, but I see now, with the Hobby Lobby ruling, they're just going to let it fall apart one piece at a time. How stupid is that?
So basically you have a Democrat president with 2/3 of the government working against him following a president, republican or not, who made a huge mess of things. What exactly were you expecting to happen? Cloned dinosaurs with lasers attached to their heads farting skittle rainbows and butterflies?
I'm not saying Obama is the best president you've ever had, but I think he deserves some slack for what he actually has accomplished given the circumstances he's working in.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:15PM
So the only way to win the political race to the bottom is the fuck things up even bigger than the last guy? That way the next guy has to deal with such a big political mess that he ends up looking worse than you.
Looking back to our last 40 years of presidents... yeah, pretty much.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:21PM
Not drones and the NSA, but apparently that's just me being naive. (Yes that would happen whoever was in office and no that doesn't make it okay.)
*their whole purpose
Then there's the whole argument that the best government is one that can't get much done. Unfortunately, the Republicans of course oppose most of the bills I would *like* to pass, and then sit around idly while the Dems pass all the privacy-invading ones and the ones that bend us over for the media conglomerates. But hey, at least we avoided the entire country defaulting by, what, 6 hours? :D
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:39PM
All of which started under the previous president, remember the patriot act?
Again, I'm not saying it's right and I will never understand why a new government can't just ctrl-z all the stupid insane stuff a previous government did, that that's how it is.
I've recently been prompted into reading about this Robocaller scandal from our, Canada, last election where the Conservative government took a majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote. After reading up on Robocalls that took place in 247 of 308 riding were voters from the Liberal voting registry list were directed to the wrong poling stations, among other things. In many of those riding the conservative took the riding by less than 1,000 votes. Meaning had Robocall never happened we could have seen a major difference in our election results.
My point is the conservatives, with their majority government, have done *a lot*, too numerous for me to mention here, but the number of scientist they fired and deregulations over the last three years is going to fuck Canada up for decades to come. Whomever comes in after this government is probably going to be saddled with all the blame because we're not going to see the effects immediately, but when it happens the shit's really going to hits the fan and then it's going to be a full out tailspin into the ground, much like what happened in the states when Bush finally got out.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:52PM
As of January this year, Obama was up to 360 drone strikes compared to GWB's 52. That's almost 7x as many.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/ [thebureauinvestigates.com]
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-06-12/drones-kill-Qaeda-terrorists/55556800/1 [usatoday.com]
Obama redefined all boys and men killed by a drone as a militant:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ [salon.com]
Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan:
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/22/chart-u-s-troop-levels-over-the-years/ [cnn.com]
Destroyed the war powers act with the Libyan war (The WPA is the fig leaf Congress has used since Vietnam to shirk it's war making power, but it at least required congressional approval. Next time a Cheney (or Obama) is in power, prepare for war anywhere at any time without even bothering with Congress).
Proposed "closing Gitmo" by moving the practices to a Federal Supermax in Illinois (shifting the location isn't what people meant by thinking he'd shutdown Gitmo)): http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/ [salon.com]
We all know about prosecutions under the Espionage act -- 3x worse than everyone else combined.
Obama loves cluster bombs too. http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/10/us-moves-to-overturn-ban-on-cluster-bombs/ [antiwar.com]
And note: NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN was involved in any of these decisions. This is Obama's policy. He is a bloody minded murdering bastard like GWB.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:12PM
I choose to try and remain politically neutral. I'm not going to defend Obama, but my point still stands everything you pointed out is a result of being left to manage an unjustified war started by the previous administration. "NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICATION was involved" is just horseshit, and if they weren't involved then they're just as responsible anyway because it's their job to keep the executive branch of the government in check. They're obviously too concerned with how horrible it is for everyone in the country to be getting some kind of medical coverage to be concerned their leader is blowing up kids in another country.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:16PM
You manage an unjustified war by tripling it? WTF? You manage drone murder by septupling it? WTF? That's pure apologist horseshit.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:20PM
And for clarity -- yes, Afghanistan has been unjustified certainly since 12 months after its start. All that BS about nation building was just to make somebody rich -- nobody really expected success.
(Score: 3) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:38PM
Yeah, because going in under false pretense, decimating the countries economy and the ability to manage and defend themselves and then just walking out and saying, "your problem" would have been a fantastic course of action. GWB kick a hornets nest into the next administrations backyard. He started the mess and left it as the following administration responsibility to clean it up.
When you destroy an entire countries infrastructure and destabilize an entire region you don't just turn around and walk away.
It was unjustified right from day one. "Terrorist dun blowed up our building! Well guess we gonna shoot up that their country on account of them WMDs."
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:25PM
Apparently your recollection of the events leading up to our invasion of Afghanistan is flaky. You might wish to review. First, the USA invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban were sheltering and aiding Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda terrorist leaders who were using the country as a base for their terrorist operations (9/11, among others); it had nothing to do with WMDs. Second, Iraq was invaded by the USA during the GWB administration because it was thought that they had never really fully disarmed after the first Gulf War (one of the conditions for ending that first war). It is now thought that the Bush administration probably over-played their hand, to put it mildly (many accuse the Bush administration of outright manipulation of intelligence data), in accusing Saddam of holding on to his chemical WMDs, among other things.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...How dare I challenge a perfectly fine political screed by injecting a few facts! Whatever. Look, I realize that in the popular imagination, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are all but one and the same, but that should not be an excuse on SN. I expect a better, more thoughtful, analysis from this crowd.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:59PM
> Second, Iraq was invaded by the USA during the GWB administration because it was thought
> that they had never really fully disarmed after the first Gulf War
I agree that on paper that was the justification for the Iraq invasion. The problem is that GWB consistently sold it as a 9/11 issue. He used a rhetorical technique which gave him plausible deniability by juxtaposing 9/11 and Iraq any time he made a speech about Iraq. He was so successful at it that he convinced 70% of the population of a link between Saddam and 9/11. [usatoday.com] Even afterwards he still did it, for example: [cnn.com] "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on."
If our leaders deliberately sold the war to the general population under false pretenses then it doesn't really matter what their own internal reasoning was, they defrauded the public.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:12PM
Given that your analysis made not a single mention of oil, it's woefully missing the point.
This is the reason for the invasion of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century [wikipedia.org]
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by dpp on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:31PM
"probably over-played their hand"?
That's your summary of WMD scare mongering that led a country to war?
Whilst I agree with some other points you made... you lost them with that statement.
How about this - willing LIED to the American People and to Congress, with the purpose of that LIE being to convince people to go to war, leading to great loss of American treasure (monies, lives, credibility around the world).
They KNEW the "evidence" they were presenting was false! How much more of a dereliction of duty can a president perform than lying about the one thing we're supposed to trust him with - a civilian representing the people and presiding over our military.
History has demonstrated that if the hadn't LIED to the American people and Congress about WMDs, the support for war would not have been there.
I'm sorry, but you sir are white-washing this and re-writing history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @12:14AM
Perhaps you should go back and reread what I wrote. I did in fact address this very point. Many believe that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to promote their contention that Saddam had not given up his WMD. This was likely deliberately done to rally the nation to a war that many in the country were ambivalent about. There is no white-washing going on, at least not by me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:29PM
When there is no way to clean up the mess a prior administration makes, you don't triple down on the same mistakes.
I was suspicious of Obama in 2007 (Iraq war vote), and shocked that anyone even remotely believed him in 2011, but it seems that people's willingness to apologize for Obama's misdeeds is so vast, I wonder exactly what he would have to do to make Democrats go "tut tut." He could kill and eat a baby, post the video to youtube, and somebody would blame Bush. Obama is the president now, and the DNC's reaction to his continuation of GWB policy the reason, that I won't vote for any DNC candidate ever. Democrats: The New GOP -- Everything from Nixon's health care plan on down to endless meaningless war -- plus police state. fuckers.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Friday August 15 2014, @12:13AM
He invaded six countries? Killed 3x as many people? I'm not sure I bought your statistics about drone usage, but seriously, let's put things in perspective. "Tripled it" is a wildly ambiguous statement.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday August 15 2014, @02:20PM
You apparently failed to look at the graph of troop numbers in Afghanistan I linked to. Try this one, it goes up through half 2013: http://www.emptywheel.net/2014/05/30/graphing-the-afghanistan-surge-out-of-existence/ [emptywheel.net] (note that even as recently as last summer, 6 years after Obama took office, he still had more troops in Afghanistan than Bush ever did.
Bush maxed out at 34,000, Obama at around 98,000. I feel secure calling that "tripled" even if a pedant might say 2.88x.
How about troop deaths: http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx [icasualties.org]
Bush years (US only): 475
Obama yrs (US only): 1866
Eyeballing those numbers makes it obvious that "tripled" is an understatement.
As for invading six countries, if you consider bombing another country a type of invasion, then yes, he's done that at least. And that doesn't include Libya.
http://mic.com/articles/23708/guess-which-8-countries-the-u-s-is-waging-secret-drone-campaigns-against [mic.com]
Seriously, they called Reagan the "Teflon President" -- but there is __nothing__ Obama could do to get even a hint of criticism out of Democrats.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Friday August 15 2014, @06:09PM
I'm not a democrat and that is an ad hominem and a straw man all in one.
I'll elaborate on the spirit of what I was trying to say. My understanding is you're trying to argue that Obama is a bloody minded murdering bastard. You aren't persuading me. Let me tell you the reasons why...
You sound insane because you cuss a lot and seem so certain of your position in a world so nuanced.
You use ad hominems and straw man people.
You seem to be implying that people who aren't persuaded to agree are democrats.
You seem to think if people don't agree with you that they aren't critical of the president.
You include talking points promulgated by other people without adding nuance or holistic thinking.
But, by far the most important two are that you're making sweeping conclusions or implications about events that would take long books to appreciate well. In this context, you haven't dealt with the arguments that exist by the either the decision makers or supports of these decisions. And, you somehow seem to equate the facts that you've listed as conclusive proof of your point without logically connecting them.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday August 15 2014, @07:15PM
The context is whether Obama tripled Bush in Afghanistan. How exactly would you measure that?
Troop numbers: yes, tripled.
Troop deaths: yes, tripled.
Monetary Cost: Some years are only 30-60% higher than GWB's highest year, 2011 was triple GWB's highest year, and 2012 was 2.9x the cost.
That is not offtopic or beside the point in the context of the question of whether Obama tripled GWB in Afghanistan, and thus not a strawman. Calling it a strawman is _your_ strawman to avoid the hard numbers.
Democrats have pissed me off beyond measure and I have zero patience with the at this point. Take Marty Lederman, who during the GWB administration excoriated that admin's due process free detention policy (Gitmo) for being immoral and unconstitutional. When Marty Lederman became part of the Obama team, he began _writing_ secret legal memos justifying due process free execution. This is disgusting, and Democrat's silence on Obama is indicative of the rot pervading the party. Whether you are a Democrat or not, I couldn't give a rat's ass (ha!) -- You sound like one of the multitudes of Obama apologists and if that embarrasses you, stop sounding like one.
As for Ad Hominem, all I could really locate was the "Democrats: the New GOP" quip. Which is actually fair when you consider all of the conservative policies it has advanced, like War in Libya without congressional authorization, the right to execute people, even Americans, without trial, massive increase in domestic surveillance, and let us not forget Nixon's Health Care Plan. Essentially, it is a lament by a liberal on how there is no longer a major liberal party. Oh, and as for "fuckers" -- see Marty Lederman above. Give me another word to describe the kind of person who would say it is wrong for a Republican to gulag someone without trial, but totally cool for a Democrat to murder someone without trial. And anyone who is unwilling to criticize Obama for this policy and the DNC's "OK if we do it, bad if they do it" logic, deserves the same label.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Saturday August 16 2014, @01:37AM
If you need help locating an ad hominem, try "You sound like one of the multitudes of Obama apologists and if that embarrasses you, stop sounding like one."
If you go back to your original post in this thread, your point was that Obama was "He is a bloody minded murdering bastard like GWB." and my point is, you're not being persuasive. My best argument was that you weren't treating with the best arguments for the observations you brought in. Your response to this was to ignore my best argument. Which just goes to show I'm probably being trolled by you quite effectively.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:05PM
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by monster on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:48PM
I'm starting to think that the NSA and the intelligence industry have already reached the same status as the military-industrial complex and won't come down without a fight.
The Guantanamo thing, on the other part...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:47PM
If you watch http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ [pitchinteractive.com] you will see that the qualitative change in the rate of US drone strikes occurs in mid-2008, before Obama takes office. The CIA had gotten used to routine drone strikes by the time they started offering policy and response options to Obama, and more-or-less continued business as usual.
Obama can be faulted for not acting to rein them in more rapidly, but the drone strikes have been slowly tapering off, since peaking in the middle of Obama's first term. Whatever he did on the domestic front, Obama's international policy has been to stick with the GWB plan and only minimize the opening of completely new theaters. It's not much better, but it's something.
(Score: 2) by joshuajon on Friday August 15 2014, @03:05PM
What exactly is a " qualitative change in the rate of US drone strikes " ? Wouldn't a change in a rate be distinctly quantitative? Unless you mean that the rate didn't change, but some quality of that rate was different...
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:27PM
I don't think the Hobby Lobby decision is going to have much impact on Obamacare. They ruled very narrowly. That decisions is pretty much going to apply to HL and a few Catholic organizations and that's about it.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:42PM
I think he meant busted cock (as in it was caught :) ).
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:10PM
Fowl language is not permitted here!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @07:39AM
> Fowl language is not permitted here!
What are you afraid of, chicken?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday August 14 2014, @02:07PM
I have mixed feelings about this. I'm all for the 'crowd' achieving something that otherwise could not be done, but in this instance the result will almost undoubtedly lead to another offence being committed. The identity of the officer concerned is being withheld in order to protect both the officer and his family. Whatever the right and wrongs of this case, the only correct resolution should take placed in a court of law. However, revealing the identities of members of his family will leave them open to insults, abuse, and possibly assault or worse. The officer may well deserve such treatment (and until we know all of the facts it would be wise to keep calm) but the members of his family most certainly do not. I cannot see any benefit to them if their identities are made public.
Vigilantism is not the correct answer to this particular problem.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zeigerpuppy on Thursday August 14 2014, @02:29PM
People suspected of violent crimes rarely have their identities suppressed unless they are part of a larger investigation.
This officer should not have special treatment. In fact, police officers in their duties should always be identifiable, as should any professional who serves the public.
Or else what you really have is an extra-judicial force. People seem to have forgotten why the police need to be regulated and why any honest police officer should be the first to identify him/herself and submit for the action of lawful process which they represent.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 14 2014, @02:57PM
I agree. Trying to hide from justice is only making things worse. Do they really think they can cover this up, in these days when half the population has a camera phone?
These police departments need some major jawboning to get them to open up. They scream about openness putting them at risk, and while there could be something to that, too often the safety issue is used as an excuse to deny perfectly reasonable requests for information. I"d like to see some consequences for attempting to cover up, see some supervisors put on leave without pay.
My own small experience with this was a nighttime use of firearms outside my window. Saw a police officer trotting up the alley with weapon drawn, and then he fired a few rounds. I had no idea what was going on, but I ducked for cover after that. Kept myself below the window. Next day I called the police station to inquire who was shooting and at what. They fobbed me off with this crap about how I needed to file a Freedom of Information request to get that info. I think he may have been shooting at wildlife, as the only shots I heard were his, and he wasn't trying to take cover himself. We have a few possums, raccoons, and skunks in the neighborhood.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MozeeToby on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:12PM
Lets assume for the moment that all the witnesses are telling the truth and the cop who pulled the trigger is lying. I"d like to see some consequences for attempting to cover up, see some supervisors put on leave without pay.You'd like to see the punishment for covering up a murder be leave without pay? That's not a minor indiscretion, that's a felony. If someone is found guilty I'd like to see everyone who knew the truth and didn't step forward charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc, etc.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:09PM
No, come on. The punishment for covering up a minor incident like who fired some bullets that didn't hit any people or cause any injuries, maybe just some property damage, should be leave without pay. For this murder case, several felony trials seem in order, not just one for the officer who actually did the deed, but also for all the fellow police officers who witnessed it, stood by, and kept silent. And maybe also for any officials who ordered silence. Yes, conspiracy and obstruction of justice and perhaps aiding and abetting. Leave without pay is suitable as a quick response to the incident, until more facts can be gathered and a trial held.
In many police departments, it is standard operating procedure that any time a police officer shoots someone, they are removed from active duty for a few days at the least, no matter the circumstances. Is this police department doing that? If not, why not? To protect the officer's family, they say. But maybe, they are a bunch of racist pigs, and now they're trying to stonewall the public, seizing on any excuse that sounds the least bit plausible. Take their word for the incident? No, this entire police department needs a hard look at the least.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:11PM
So if I fired some bullets that didn't hit any people or cause any injuries, maybe just some property damage, I'd just get sent home from work without pay?
The police should suffer the same penalties as the public, if found to be operating outside the requirements of their job for the situation at hand.
I live in a country where two senior police officers were recently investigated for assaulting someone who had been arrested and was being restrained by a third - the suspect was in custody, face down on the ground, handcuffed, with an officer restraining him, and the two senior officers on the scene decided to kick the guy in the face an punch him in the back of the head a few times.
The immediate response, upon the third officer laying a complaint, was to stand them down on full pay.
Those guys are some of the highest paid people in my city, and they get a paid holiday at the taxpayer's expense after engaging in a serious assault against a prisoner?
Fuck that. They have special legal powers that the rest of us don't have, no citizen can legally engage in most of what they do, so the abuse of said powers should be treated with severe consequences, not a paid holiday and then internal discipline.
They were found guilty of a crime. Had I engaged in that kind of assault, I would have gone to jail.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:23PM
Given the reputation police departments all over the U.S. 'enjoy', circling the wagons was exactly the wrong thing to do. Now they have a powder keg on their hands (complete with a Guy). Burned gas station, arrested journalists, Anon, the DOJ, and the KKK weighing in. They've declared a no-fly zone due to the police helo being shot at.
If they're smart, they'll get the cop and his family out of town and then release everything they know before they really lose control of the situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @07:48AM
Police helicopter, eh? Laser pointers at the ready....
(Score: 3, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:26PM
Exactly. This is what the "perp walk" is all about. Get the accused out in front of the cameras to make him seem more guilty and affect public opinion pre-trial.
You will never see one of their own get the perp walk.
I personally feel that the "perp walk" is a violation of rights. I am not sure which one, perhaps the right to a fair trial.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:56PM
How about the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:49PM
What about it? Did you have an actual point you were trying to make, or are you just throwing out buzzwords?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:55PM
I think he was trying to answer my question of which right the "perp walk" violates.
I agree, but it must not be spelled out very well, as this does not seem to prevent the police from abusing it.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday August 15 2014, @04:53AM
In Canada it is called the Right to Fundamental Justice, which spills over to other rights such as being presumed innocent, fair trials and such and applies to everyone. It can also (temporarily) trump other rights such as free speech. Your closest is the 5th amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @02:46PM
It's my suspicion that withholding the name of the officer has a strong correlation to said officer getting off scot-fucking-free.
My perspective is probably bad since I'm sure each time we see one of these headlines it's a different police department, but it would seem that the only way to get this to stop happening is to nail the officer to the wall.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:18PM
And if he's not guilty of anything beyond self defense?
I'm not saying he isn't guilty, but last I checked, "innocent until proven guilty", applied to everyone, including police officers. None of us, I presume anyway, witnessed what happened between the officer shot Brown so we really can't say what should have happened. Based on what the Brown's own mother has said it wouldn't have been unexpected for Brown to be violent so...
This case merits secrecy of the parties invovled simply because of the public reaction over the last few days, given how violent the area residents have been (rioting, looting and setting fires) I don't think we could count on them to not take some kind of revenge against the officer or his family. Revenge isn't justice.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:26PM
I'm not saying he doesn't get a jury trial. But these internal investigations where "we concluded he did nothing wrong" when there's a dead body in the street and--apparently--riots irk me. I get the reasons your citing, but it reminds me of the Assange rape allegations--yes, they may quite possibly be true, but they're a smokescreen for a bigger systemic issue.
That being said, I'd lay a few bucks on it eventually coming out that the guy was actually surreptitiously armed or on PCP or something.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:28PM
*you're
Argh, the shame! :P
In the same way that even really stupid logic is occasionally correct anyway, perfectly reasonable logic seems to have a tendency to lead to stupid places the more I read SN.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tynin on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:04PM
Not even just a dead body, but a dead body they left in the road for hours with no ambulance being dispatched.
Last night the police popped off tear gas on a news crew and then shoot rubber bullets at them. If they are doing that against reporters, how much worse are they against the general populace? I wouldn't be surprised if we begin to see guerrilla style warfare against this para-military force if this doesn't get resolved quickly.
That said, I'm slightly hopeful justice will be served, as the FBI and DoJ are also investigating, so it will no longer be just an internal review.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LaminatorX on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:00PM
The police are claiming that he had gone for the officer's weapon, which seems to be what they always say when they kill someone they're attempting to take into custody. While I'm genuinely curious as to what percentage of those are true vs CYA claims, the various witness accounts that have emerged in the local media are fairly consistent in describing the victim as having been fleeing from the officer when shot, and that the shots kept coming as he was either falling or attempting to surrender after an initial hit.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:52PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:21PM
There are certainly cases where the police haven't/wouldn't released the identity of a suspect to protect them and/or their families while an investigation was taking place. Could his buddies helping him out by not charging him? Maybe
The fact is this officer hasn't been charged yet so releasing his name would in fact be treating him differently from "us civvies" and would be putting him and his family, potentially other innocent people, in harms way. If anonymous releases his name it isn't going to matter because he will most likely be killed and/or possibly his family too and/or their friends as well.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:34PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:59PM
I would agree with you if it wasn't for the actions being demonstrated by the community surrounding. Because of the rioting, violence, looting and arson that's occurred I think releasing the officers name would put too many people, non-police, in danger.
So we're just going to have to disagree on this. I agree holding police responsible for misdeeds is a priority, but, IMHO,
1) not at the potential expense of the innocent and
2) innocent until proven guilty is a found principle in our justice system (Both Canada and the US). Either it applies to everyone, or it applies to no one.
We know the people rioting aren't going to respect "innocent until proven guilty". What we do know is with the actions of the people surrounding Brown's shooting there could potentially be lives and safety of a lot of people besides the officer at stake.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 3, Insightful) by strattitarius on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:14PM
So you want random people to hold themselves to a higher standard than the trained, deputized, uphold-and-defend-the-constitution cop that shot an unarmed kid (with no criminal record who was about to start college in a few days) in the middle of the street?
If it was a civilian that killed the kid, he would be in a holding cell awaiting further action. Why not the cop? Simply treating the office the same as a civilian would probably end much of the protest pretty quickly.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:48PM
This response is exactly why I think it's acceptable in this case to keep the cops name secret. The entire response is a totally emotional reaction that has little consideration for the circumstances surrounding why the shooting took place. It very much comes off as wanting to throw justice out the window so we can lynch a figure of authority because we're distrustful of all authority.
I care very much about justice being served, but not about how many days till the kid started college or whether he had a previous record. That says nothing about what happened in this situation. It will be relevant for a defense if this goes to trial, but not as primary evidence for pressing charges against the officer.
Just as an example they didn't lock up Zimmerman, which I actually disagree with, when Trayvon Martin was shot because there was no reason to believe it was anything except self defense at the time. So whether the officer should be in holding cell is entirely depend on the situation which we don't know a lot about at the moment.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 3, Insightful) by strattitarius on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:39PM
The person that was shot has A LOT to do with the situation. Kids starting college in a few days, with no prior record, don't usually go fighting with a cop over his gun, as I have heard in some reports, but of course there is no police report available. I agree there is a whole bunch more information we need to know about this case. I think full transparency is the best way to go.
Another angle is that some think the riots are completely related and in retaliation to the actual shooting. Others have suggested it is just thugs and freeloaders taking advantage of the situation. So just to be clear, you can't have it both ways. Either the riots are a direct result of the shooting and are being done in protest to make a point, or there is no real threat of harm for the officer because all the violence is just opportunistic criminals. There is grey area in there for sure, but you can't play it both ways.
Also, you think Zimmerman should have been in jail, but not this cop? Why the distinction? I don't think the cop is a risk of flight (they usually are not considered so), but it seems reasonable to treat authorities to a more stringent standard than citizens, if for no other reason than for the show. This is not emotional, this is simply how we should demand our justice system work to ensure that there are not limitations of power that are exceeded. If we don't keep the government and the police in check, who will?
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by unitron on Friday August 15 2014, @02:03AM
"We live in a new age. Information travels very fast."
And just like the old age, misinformation (and sometimes dis-information) travels much, much faster.
something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @09:23AM
Two points:
* The public is reacting to a pattern of cops covering up for other cops. It's a matter of trust - if the public could actually trust that cops would be punished for their wrongdoing, there would be no need for violence and protests. Sure, it sucks to be the good cop in a bad situation if that is indeed the case here - but the police as an organization will reap what they sow.
* Cops can prevent ALL of this quite easily: strap cameras on all duty cops, realease the footage IMMEDIATELY after an incident. If the cops cannot, the cop should be presumed guilty. Yes, yes - I know of all the standard schtick about "the baddies disabled the camera" which is BS. Resisting is admission of guilt; they know they do lots of things that aren't OK, that's why they don't want cameras they can't control.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:53PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:09PM
This is all my own opinion and my preservative is entirely based on the climate of the community that's rioting, looting and setting fires at the moment. If they were acting as civilized people I'd be all for throwing the guys name out there, but the fact is they're screaming for blood.
I don't doubt that one bit that's true and it definitely isn't the type of system I want, but I doubt you have any evidence to back that up, I certainly don't. As it stands the only thing to gain from releasing his name is the ability for people enact revenge against him for what could, and I stress could, amount to him doing his job.
If there's evidence he did act without just cause, give him a fair trial at which point release his name. But we know what will happen when his name is released. Innocent or not he will be lynched and possibly his family and associates too, whether they were involved or not.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:38PM
"If there's evidence he did act without just cause, give him a fair trial at which point release his name."
There is evidence he acted without just cause. There's a teenager who died from multiple gunshot wounds who did not have a weapon on him. What would you rather have, his work buddies clear him of wrong doing, or a jury?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:54PM
My comment was about how badly this was handled because of the buddy system.
And that I agree with.
I'm sure your testimony will be valuable to the defense. I wasn't there and don't know what happened. I choose to reserve judgement until I know all the details, at which point it will be my opinion. It's up to the legal system to deal with the situation. I don't like the fact that it seems we're all assuming the officer is guilty just because he's a police officer.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:40PM
Getting the legal system involved was actually the point of all this. The reason Anonymous is getting involved is because the police department is being evasive in doing exactly what you suggest. Now you're right that the anger has welled up enough that justice is unlikely to be served, you'll notice I have not argued against that point, but the reason it's getting here is because of lack of transparency. I do think we're talking past each other. I think you're on the 'what should happen now' bit and I'm on the 'what lessons should we learn from this so this doesn't happen again'. I think it makes it seem like we disagree, but fundamentally we do not. I don't think Anonymous is helping and I don't think that officer is getting justice. I'm hoping from here on the police departments around the country take this shit more seriously instead of trying to sweep it away.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:52PM
I agree with you 100% on this.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:36PM
Have you considered that the riots might be because people interpret the secrecy as evidence that the internal investigation will be a sham that finds no basis for trial?
In Atlanta, in May, police tossed a flash-bang grenade into a toddler's crib. None of them were suspended, and the investigation found that no policies were violated. What grounds do citizens have to imagine that police are held accountable for their actions?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 14 2014, @10:10PM
I do.
There was one witness. The police never interviewed that witness. The witness even went directly to the police to offer her testimony, and they *refused to accept it* [slate.com].
Proper procedure is to collect statements from any witnesses as soon as possible, since human recollection will fade over time. The fact that they're not only not seeking this testimony, but actually actively refusing it, shows that they have zero intention to conduct a thorough investigation into the case.
In the face of that kind of evidence, how else can the people seek justice? Release the name and *force* them to lock him up, at least temporarily, "for his own protection".
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @10:50PM
That's not evidence, it's an article which is a second hand report from someone that claims to have been there. If you weren't there and witnessed the events with you're own eyes then you're not a witness and you cannot corroborate this persons story. "the police haven't responded to that claim." from the article you linked, isn't the same as they refused to talk to the witness. You can't possibly know first hand what the police or this witness have or are doing unless you are involved in the investigation. In which case, why the hell are you posting on SN instead of talking to the FBI or some other investigative agency.
For all you know this witness has given a statement, but is claiming he hasn't to stir the pot. It's pretty common for the police to not comment on on-going investigation especially on high profile cases.
Look, I think people are getting me all wrong here. I am NOT supporting he officer or the police in this case. I'm supporting the idea that there are policies, procedures and justice. We know there is significant civil unrest at the moment and I can only speculate the authorities are doing what they can to A) control the unrest and B) not make it worse. The problem here is there was only one other person with Brown when he was shot, it's his word against the officer, who from what I read has visible wounds from a "struggle", if that in fact happened. If the officer was being attacked and Brown did indeed try to take his gun, then the office would have been justified in using force, We don't know because all we have is someone who claims they were there contradicting the officers testimony, which means people are making a decision, trust the supposed witness that got away clean, or trust the cop who we all hope is on the up-and-up. I can tell you now if I was the police and I was protecting this cop, I would have already arrested the "witness".
For that matter why would the cop shoot Brown, but not the only other witness? If he was a racist piece of shit that was just looking for some black kid to gun down, both were black, why let one go? The only way that makes sense to me is the copy was only defending himself from one attacker? Otherwise why not just shoot both and say they both attacked you? Seems like it'd be a much more plausible story that you had to shoot both because you were being over powered rather than I shot one that was running away, but let the other guy go. It's all speculation, but I don't want to believe either story until there are official statements released, not some second hand account from an unconfirmed witness. The whole article you linked smells like something Fox News would cook up just to get people in a tizzy.
And what about the guy's family? Lock them up too.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday August 15 2014, @12:01AM
Sure. What's wrong with that? He *killed someone* -- even if it was justified, I don't think locking up him and even his family losing a bit of freedom for a couple days is all that bad. They'll be protected, and it's not like they're gonna be tortured or locked in solitary -- the guy is a cop. He'd basically be camping out for a couple days with his friends. It doesn't matter the circumstances, if you take someone's life, you don't get to just walk away and continue business as usual. Nobody does.
...but the words of the police department's PR person are the Absolute Unadulterated Truth? They weren't there either. Given that the kid was shot *in the back* I find it pretty hard to believe the officer feared for his life.
Brown ran. Yes, the officer may have been justified in using force to apprehend him. But not *lethal* force. Initial reports from the police were that his only crime was jaywalking. That does not earn a death sentence in America.
No they're not. Firing upon peaceful demonstrators doesn't accomplish that; all it does is violate peoples' civil rights and attempt to intimidate them. Same can be said of arresting journalists who are sitting working in a McDonalds. And a no-fly zone? What, you think protesters are going to buy a helicopter and try to crash it into the police station or something? There's absolutely no reason for that -- unless you're trying to hide something. Yes, there are policies and procedures. The First Amendment is one of them. The police are NOT following those procedures. That's the whole problem.
You say we need to follow the policies. But what good are those policies when one side ignores them with impunity and uses lethal force to impose them on the other? They are no longer law enforcement at that point; they are an occupying army.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @12:21AM
> If he was a racist piece of shit that was just looking for some black kid to gun down, both were black, why let one go?
Look, I don't know how to say this nicely, but your internal mental model of how people interact is completely unmoored from reality.
Nobody, other than maybe a drunk enrobed klansman, goes out deliberately "looking for some black kid to gun down." The way it works is that they simply don't give a shit. They consider the black kid to be subhuman. So when faced with a decision as to how to treat that person, they treat them like an animal. People don't go shooting animals in the street just for the hell of it. But if one of those animals makes them feel threatened in any way, then they respond with overwhelming force because its just an animal.
The witnesses didn't make the cop feel threatened enough to shoot them, so he didn't shoot them. He didn't feel like he had to worry that they witnessed him murder a kid, because in his mind he was completely justified in the shooting. That's what happens when you combine bigotry with power, you simply don't worry about the people you are oppressing because that power has shielded you from the consequences of your actions in the past, so it is normal to think it will shield you from them in the future. It isn't even a conscience thought, it's just the way they think the world is supposed to work because all of their experience so far has taught them that it does work that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by strattitarius on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:14PM
Police blotters are public record. Names are rarely withheld from the public. Withholding his name is treating him differently.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:16PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:34PM
> Can we get a 1 minute window to edit comments for those that are too quick with the submit button?
That's a lot of work.
How about just making a user setting to require preview the way AC's are forced to preview?
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:35PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:55PM
How about you just stop being an idiot, slow the frig down and read what you're posting first. If you were reading what you're writing you wouldn't even be hitting the submit button in the first place and bam! Problem solved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:07PM
The residents have been inflamed because of the secrecy. The first day, people were legitimately pissed that an unarmed teenager was shot dead in the street. The second day, they're pissed because, rather than initiate a transparent investigation, the local white boys asked all the uppity citizens to calm down and assured them that they would look into the matter. The third day, they're pissed because the local white boys are using tear gas and rubber bullets while asking the uppity citizens to return to their homes. They begin flatly refusing to identify the involved parties, which more-or-less guarantees that the "internal investigation" is not going to be transparent, and we all know what happens when one bunch of cops asks another bunch of cops whether a third cop was out of line.
It would have been so much better if the local law enforcement had stepped up on that first night and said, 'Michael Brown was killed by a bullet from officer billy-bob's service weapon, and the officer has been placed on leave pending an investigation of the incident. There are conflicting statements surrounding the incident and extremely high passions, so we've asked the State Bureau of Investigation to take charge of that investigation.' Instead, they did what everyone expects a tyrannical, self-protective organization to do: circled the wagons and brought out bigger guns.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:01PM
Brown was also innocent until proven guilty. By that argument this un-named cop murdered an innocent civilian.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @10:56PM
Way to win at logic there. Bank robber breaks into a bank and starts shooting people, security guard fires back killing bank robber, security guard is MURDER for shooting innocent bank robber.
Facts are, kid got shot, supposedly because the officer was defending himself. People, cops or not, are allowed to defend themselves. When you build your time machine we can go back and watch the events unfold for ourselves, till then we'll have to wait for the trial, evidence and testimonies.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday August 15 2014, @05:16AM
That's right, then they review the evidence, decide it was justifiable homicide and drop the charges (or don't finish pressing them).
The default should be that any killing is unlawful until proved lawful. Your example is simple, multiple witnesses, video evidence etc and security guard will mostly just be interviewed and have his statement taken. In the absence of evidence besides a dead body with multiple gunshot wounds why shouldn't it be considered murder?
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday August 15 2014, @08:04AM
The only facts I've seen so far, are that an unarmed teenager was shot in the back. Both of these points are relevant, unarmed = not a threat but also shot in the back means he was either unaware, or attempting to flee, which also means he was not a threat. So until Brown is proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, then killing him was murder.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:58PM
Very true. But "innocent until proven guilty" requires a fair and impartial investigation and prosecution. But that doesn't seem to be happening. There was one witness to the shooting, and police never interviewed her. In fact, she approached the police asking to provide her testimony, and they *refused to hear it*! [slate.com]
By refusing to conduct a proper investigation, the police are forcing people to resort to seeking justice through other means. As they should.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:02PM
NO, No it doesn't, innocent until proven guilty, means you're innocent until you're proven guilty, investigation or not. Otherwise I can claim you're guilty of murder. Maybe you didn't kill anyone, but until there's an investigation your guilty.
There is no mention of a girl in that linked article, "Police Reportedly Refused Offer to Interview Man Who Was With Michael Brown During Shooting", at the moment there is only Brown, the officer and the other guy that was with them. And see this is the problem, now everyone's getting their facts screwed up and no one knows what's going on because people who are not involved in the investigation are making speculations and making up facts that don't exists. People who weren't there are claiming they know what's going on based on news articles.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:44PM
By your logic if I walk into a crowded shopping mall with an Uzi and open fire, as long as the police don't investigate I've done nothing wrong?
Look, I agree that ideally there he should be charged and tried. But if the people are seeing evidence that this isn't happening, they WILL take things into their own hands. And they should, as that in itself is evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice.
And where else are people supposed to get information? Sounds like you're saying the only opinions that matter are those of the police officers, and they can do whatever the hell they please. That's what we call a POLICE STATE.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:19PM
True, but the problem is this now seems like a big coverup and an attempt to bury the story. There was no intention to prosecute the officer, much like most police shootings. Even the autopsy was performed by people that are in the same chain of command. How could anyone expect there to be a fair investigation when the foxes are guarding the henhouse?
If an independent investigation from a state or federal organisation was performed from the start, this whole disaster could have been avoided. Too late for that now, I suppose. This will only end badly now.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by number11 on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:32PM
Doesn't this reasoning apply to all (alleged) perps, though? If someone is arrested for mopery or murder, shouldn't their identity remain secret unless and until they're convicted? Don't their families deserve the same sort of protection?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The problem with cops is, they protect their own, mostly regardless of what the offense is. And prosecuting attorneys are very reluctant to take those cases on, because they depend on the goodwill of cops to help them win their cases. To show up in court. Not to have sudden memory lapses. To not get caught in perjury. And cops are generally strong politically, it's not good for your career to take on cops.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:21PM
Thank you Janrinok, for bringing the discussion back on topic. There are a couple of points:
1) Will releasing the name of the concerned police officer help in getting justice for the victim's family ?
2) Let there be a fair trial and let a jury of his peers punish him if he is found guilty.
3) Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
4) An eye for an eye will soon make the whole world blind (Mahatma Gandhi).
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:58PM
On the other hand, if people (police) know there will be no consequences for shooting innocent people, why would they bother being careful?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by arslan on Friday August 15 2014, @01:44AM
So.. by your logic, all criminals should have their identity withheld? If not, isn't that a double standard? If the people enforcing the law have double standards.. doesn't that strike you as a problem?
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday August 15 2014, @05:38AM
If they're officially a criminal, that means they've been convicted of a crime and unless underage or occasionally to protect an underage person, their name is published.
When a person is formally charged and making their first court appearance, they are also usually publicly identified but they should be able to argue for it not being (one possible reason is not to prejudice potential jurors) and it is the judges decision whether to release the name.
Of course this is a case of a public official and when you sign up as a public official you knowingly lose some privacy rights.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:27PM
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/14/video-of-ferguson-police-gassi.html [boingboing.net]
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/13/ferguson-live-video-streams-o.html [boingboing.net]
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/14/a-sample-of-us-military-vetera.html [boingboing.net]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:10PM
Several posters have pointed out that we the public ought to reserve judgement in the Missouri case because we weren't there and didn't witness the event. My question is, though, whether that even matters anymore. Here in Brooklyn a couple weeks ago we had an NYPD officer murder a man [cnn.com] who was selling loose cigarettes on camera. The officer choked him to death. The video was widely circulated. The man was not violent or resisting arrest. Everyone could see that. The video also showed the paramedics doing nothing to revive the man when they showed up. So, there we have the open evidence of our lying eyes of a police officer murdering a citizen extra-judicially.
The medical examiner even ruled the man's death a homicide, but still the officer has not been arrested and charged.
If we have arrived at the time when the rule of law has evaporated, when police, politicians, the wealthy, the famous, the powerful are above the law, then what else is left to the citizenry but collective justice? Let the man who murdered the unarmed teenager in Missouri be known for who he is. Let him face the judgement of the citizenry. Sure, it's not perfect but the chance that the correct decision will be made and appropriate punishment meted out upon him is far greater than the certainty that the sham system will absolve him.
Remember the brute who pepper-sprayed those students at UC Davis? The system did nothing to that guy either. It took intense public shaming in front of the entire world and the drying up of alumni donations to get rid of him. We citizens can still have power, but we must use it when we need to instead of continuing to pay even lip service to a system that no longer even pretends to serve us.
That's the first courageous step to take to get our rights back. Can we take it?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:46PM
>The medical examiner even ruled the man's death a homicide, but still the officer has not been arrested and charged.
To be fair, "homicide" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Homicide" means that one person has killed another somehow, either through action or negligence/inaction, but it says nothing about intent. So, for example, if some violent, armed gang members bust down your door, and you grab your shotgun and shoot them dead, when the medical examiner arrives, he's going to rule their deaths "homicide". You killed those people. Of course, you have a very good defense: they were armed and presumably meant to cause harm to you by invading your home that way. Depending on jurisdiction, either the police will decline to charge you with anything because it's obvious self-defense, or in Texas for instance, they will charge you (but probably not arrest you), and a grand jury will look at the case and decline to press charges because that's the standard procedure in that state.
So if the standard procedure in NY is for the police to not press charges when it's self-defense, then they haven't really done anything outrageous here if they've decided it's self-defense (which of course may be entirely wrong, as evidenced by the video).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:18PM
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 15 2014, @12:55AM
Murder, intentional or not, is still a crime. The officer was not flailing his nightstick around in a dance for joy because his fiancee just agreed to marry him, and he accidentally shattered someone's skull; he put the man into a chokehold, a man who was not violent or physical in any way, and meant to harm him. Whether he "meant" to kill him or not does not change the fact that the man died as a result of an action the officer meant to take. Putting someone in a chokehold is not an accident or unintentional.
If any other person, not a cop, had done likewise, he'd be facing very serious prison time at this moment. The cop, however, has not even been charged.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by metamonkey on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:49PM
The problem with vigilante justice is the crowd generally doesn't give a shit about the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. You've already convicted the guy in your head and just want permission to carry out sentence.
We need to know the full story and the officer should have his day in court. All we really know about this case is some sensational headlines.
There was a post on /r/bestof on reddit a few days back from a cop responding to the question "why do police sometimes shoot unarmed people" and he told a story of a recent encounter he had. The gist was it was 1:30AM, he's getting out of his car and out of the dark some black dude approaches brandishing an object the officer can't identify and screaming "I'm gonna kill you!" The cop drew his weapon, ordered the man to stand down, and he didn't. Kept coming at him. And the cop is walking backwards and calling for back-up and trying to get the man to calm down and drop the object. Eventually the backup arrives, they're able to get close enough to baton the guy's hand and get him to drop...a ninja turtle toothbrush. Then they wrestled him to the ground. Oh and he was covered in urine and feces, too. But we know if the guy had lunged at him with the unknown object and the cop shot him...shit, the story in the news would not be "Cop Defends Community Against Crazed Lunatic in the Dead of Night." The headline would be "Cop Shoots African-American Man Armed with Toothbrush."
This is why we have a judicial system. We just need to make sure that system still applies to the cops. The cops don't always respect our rights, but we have to respect theirs or else we're no better than they are. The goal is rights for everybody. Not just this group or that.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @06:59PM
So why didn't the cop draw his taser instead of his service weapon?
It seems to me that the situation you described is the poster-child on Taser's sales brochure - deescalation down to a less-lethal engagement rather than the typical headline case of escalation up from a non-lethal engagement.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:44PM
He mentioned that. His department didn't have the budget for tasers.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:30PM
And they have the budget for military weapons, APC's and body armour??????
I'm calling bullshit.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday August 15 2014, @01:03PM
How do you know this guy's precinct has any of that stuff? He said they didn't have tasers in their budget.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @12:37AM
> He mentioned that. His department didn't have the budget for tasers.
So what it boils down to is that a failure to properly equip their employees results in those employees killing people who should not be killed. So the individual cop does not hold 100% of the responsibility, but a majority of the responsibility is on the police department in general.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @07:57PM
The problem is that police are never given a day in open court. This officer, like so many others, will face a closed review panel in which other police officers will read his report, hear his testimony, and decide whether he followed departmental procedures. Because procedure almost always allows an officer to use deadly force if he "believes" his life is in danger, it is unusual for these panels to find violation. Whatever the outcome, the public result of that review will be two sentences long.
That is what people are angry about.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:01PM
The problem is that the police have lost the trust of the public for a variety of reasons. This is a natural consequence. Police departments have so frequently denied fault when they were very clearly at fault that now any denial of fault is suspect even when true.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday August 14 2014, @10:03PM
I completely agree. But there are two sides to every story and I'd like to hear the cop's side. However people like the GGP and Anonymous are ready to play Judge Judy and executioner before we know what really happened.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday August 15 2014, @03:44AM
Yes. It's premature to condemn the officer. The real shame of it is that by circling the wagons, the department has made it harder to ever convince the citizens of the cop's innocence if indeed he is.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 15 2014, @12:48AM
There are many ways to subdue unarmed people without shooting them, and every police academy trains its graduates how. That's not even counting measures like tasers and pepper spray. Once upon a time, cops were trained extensively in how to use their night sticks to do the job. Now, they shoot first and ask questions later. That is not policing, it is murder.
The United States obviously needs this sort of thing to happen to more white victims before white people can rouse themselves to care about the slide into excessive militarism among the police. If instead of a black teenager it were sweet lily-white Sally in Westchester, would your reaction be, "Oh, hum, gee, we need to hear the cop's side of the story?"
See, what you have said sounds reasonable, and it would make sense in a reasonable time, but this sort of thing is happening so frequently now, in so many places, that you cannot continue to call these reasonable times. Very large things are in motion, standards of lawful behavior and civilized conduct that had been bedrock in this country for a hundred years, have begun to slide quicker and quicker. The time for circumspection has passed. Action must be taken.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday August 15 2014, @03:34PM
Yes, I would still want to hear the cop's side of the story.
Is it really? Or is it the magnifying glass of the media and the internet? I'd like to see some real statistics. Could be this sort of thing went on all the time in decades past, but you just didn't hear about it without the internet and the 24/7 news cycle. It's the same thing with school shootings. They're exceedingly rare. There's 100,000 K-12 public schools in the US, with a school year being 180 days long. So that's 18 million school days a year. And since 2000 there have been, on average, 2 incidents of gun violence on a K-12 public school campus. On a given day the chance of your kid even being at a school with gun violence is vanishingly small, and the chance of him or her being amongst the victims is insignificant. But if you pay attention to the media they make it out like schools are a war zone.
In general, the US and the world have never been more at peace than they are now. I wonder what the actual statistics on police violence are. Is it actually more common, or is it just that we hear about every incidence now?
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @06:39PM
>> this sort of thing is happening so frequently now, in so many places, that you cannot continue to call these reasonable times.
> Could be this sort of thing went on all the time in decades past, but you just didn't hear about it
I'm convinced it always has. It's probably reduced over time, although since 9/11 I bet that's leveled off or started to increase again because of the carte blanche law enforcement has had. But even if it is 10x less than it was in, say, the the 70s, all that means is we've never lived in reasonable times. Just some of us on the top of the heap haven't noticed before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @03:31AM
From what I read, the guy had no cigarettes on him or in his car. He did have health problems that contributed to his death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @04:54PM
The news sources seem to be one sided, as they are calling this a homicide. They don't know, they weren't there. Let the investigation finish. If the suspect was trying to get the cops gun, it's over. If you resist arrest at any level, you're going to be restrained. If you're trying to grab a cops gun or threatening harm, you're stupid and asking to be shot. This isn't a mob rules society, if you act like that it just shows how stupid you are.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by elias on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:12PM
It is so sad that this seems to be accepted line of thought in the USA. If you are trying to grab a cops gun you are asking to be restrained. Perhaps you are in a fit of temporary rage. Perhaps you are trying to reach for you child who is standing just behind the cop and the cop misunderstands your sudden movement. The same if you are threatening harm.
Injuring somebody, let alone shooting somebody multiple times with the intent not to stop, but to kill someone, should be something that happens in extreme circumstances under extreme threat only.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:24PM
It isn't the accepted line of thought in the USA, it's the accepted line of thought of criminals. Decent people respect cops and know better than to mess with them. They're here to protect. That's their job. Yeah, there's crooked cops, there's crooked judges, there's crooked politicians, but that doesn't mean they all are. Like I said, if you're going to involve yourself in mob rule and terrorize the town you live in, your no better than a criminal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @11:18PM
Sounds like you've decided the guy who was shot was guilty, regardless of what happened. Do you not like black people or something?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @01:51AM
There's two sides to every story. And now the real story is just emerging, the guy robbed a store right before the cop pulled him over.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:07PM
If he's going for your gun, it's your responsibility to keep him from getting it and threatening bystanders. Are you seriously arguing he should have just waited to see what he was doing? "Oh, I see you have my gun there, now. Give it back, please."
I would call a guy trying to grab your gun with bystanders nearby extreme threat. What do you need, a bomb? A gang of at least 5? Automatic weapons?
After the guy is already leaving and he shoots him not once, but multiple times--in the back--is the problematic part.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:41PM
So, what the fuck has happened to the good old leg shot?
Are we fighting some sort of zombie war, where 5-6 shots in the head are just a warmup, or wtf?
Seriously, does anyone have some statistics on the location of the shots, when someone is gunned down by the police? Do they even try to keep the dude alive?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Thursday August 14 2014, @09:02PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @10:32PM
That may be good for the movies, but not for real life.
My guess is that cops are taught that when you decide to shoot, you aim for the center of mass, where coincidently all the squishy, sensitive vital organs are located. You leave that nonsense about a "leg shot" for the big screen. Of course, I would hope that the cops are also taught that they aren't supposed to shoot unarmed kids in the back, unless someone's life is in immediate danger. I would also hope that they would be taught to call for immediate medical assistance after someone has been shot, no matter who it is that is laying on the ground bleeding (to death). But apparently those kinds of considerations are only for "important people" (i.e., people with money and power). Shit, It really feels now like we are living in the old Soviet system! :-(