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.
Related Stories
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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Saturday August 16 2014, @05:08PM
Who didn't see that coming?
The same thing happened with the Rehtaeh Parsons case where they fingered several boys who supposedly raped her, which ultimately lead to her suicide. Except one of the boys they accused wasn't even at the party where she was raped. Now the big question is what responsibility does Anonymous have, seeing has they've probably just made this guys life a living hell. Perfect example of why vigilante justice in the court of public opinion is a bad thing. Now this cop is going to forever be attached to a high profile civilian shooting that he had nothing to do with.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Saturday August 16 2014, @07:03PM
The problem is that unless the threats are made, nothing seems to get done. Police seem to want to sweep stuff under the rug. This is also true in the Parsons case. I don't think any serious investigation has been done yet in that one either.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hybristic on Saturday August 16 2014, @07:53PM
I think that the blame falls to us as the community. We seem to be okay letting things get swept under the rug even when its been shoved in our faces. Anonymous is still very much in the wrong. I have seen them fail to accurately dox people on many occasion. While most of these times don't involve high profile cases, it just proves that they don't have their shit together and they don't care to get all the facts before shouting something at the top of their lungs. That hurts peoples reputation, and I bet you could possibly even count it as libel in some cases, but who do you take to court? And with the internet all it takes is one article to hit the top 3 in Google and that could really impact your entire future.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:11AM
Anonymous are in the wrong here, but in my view only because they made a mistake. I think that in many cases this does have to be done. Ideally, yes, it should be the community doing this and exposing this to he media. As the post below brings up though, the media is complicit in much of the wrong-doing, playing up certain parts of stories and hiding others in order to fan the flames of hysteria and driver readership.
I'm not sure if people know how close they were to some serious riots, but it was driven as much by the media as the (likely) racist police.
The part that drives me nuts is that there seems to be a huge lack of outrage on the part of people about the way the reporters were treated. The kid that was killed was one bad cop (this instance), but the incident in the McDonald's and in other places are large, organized groups of cops violating people's rights. The same has happened during other demonstrations as well. The US seems to have lost control of it police and lost its way regarding its own Constitution.
(Score: 1) by Jiro on Sunday August 17 2014, @05:21PM
Anonymous isn't in the wrong "only because they made a mistake". If they hadn't made a mistake, they would still have been wrong, they just would have been lucky. Recklessness is wrong because of the *chance* of mistakes, even if it doesn't result in a mistake every time you do it.
That's like claiming that drunk driving is okay as long as you don't hit anyone with your car.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Saturday August 16 2014, @11:54PM
This goes both ways, with the media using loaded phrases like "innocent youth" while ignoring the fact that this 6'3 240 pound man had over 5 arrests in just the 7 months he'd been an adult (his juvenile records are sealed) and that HE HAD ROBBED A STORE 4 MINUTES BEFORE THE ENCOUNTER thus giving him EVERY reason to attack the cop, since he didn't know the cop hadn't gotten the call on his robbery yet. BTW this is NOT in dispute, as even the lawyer for his family admitted it was him but then had the brass balls to say "They assassinated this boy and are now trying to assassinate his character"...really? so telling the truth, that your client had a rap sheet a mile long and had robbed a place not 10 minutes before he ran into police is an attack upon his "good name" now?
If there is one thing I learned from this and the Martin case, where by the end they were showing pictures from when he was 7 its that certain parts of the media really want another Watts riots, and if they have to outright lie to get it? So be it.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:06AM
We'll have to wait and see if the evidence confirms that the cop shot him as he was running away, then shot him after he raised his hands (some distance away from the car). I'm pretty sure that even if he ate a baby, then it still isn't acceptable for a cop to shoot him when he has given up and his previous meal would not be relevant to the cop's trial.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:25AM
I find this rather surprising... I... I think I agree with you...
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Sunday August 17 2014, @01:20AM
Go look up the video, its all over the net, I believe I found it under "MO shooting robbery video" and you will see this was NO angel, he grabs the store owner by the throat and throws him across the store and then threatens him when he tries to stop him robbing the store.
Now let us look at what is NOT IN DISPUTE, which even the lawyer for the family has accepted as truth..1.- Suspect has a record of strong arm crimes, where he uses his strength and violence to get what he wants, not in dispute. 2.- he had 5 arrests in the 7 months he had been 18, all strong arm, not in dispute, 3.- He had robbed a store not 10 minutes before confronting cops, not in dispute, 4.- When he left the store the store owner said he was calling the cops, what did the suspect do? he slowly and calmly walked down the CENTER of the street, disrupting traffic on both sides...again not disputed.
I'm sorry but anybody with 2 functional brain cells can see what was going on here, he was looking for a fight. When you rob a store and then don't even bother with the sidewalk, but calmly and slowly walk down the middle of the road thus drawing MORE attention to yourself? Only those pushing a political agenda would be so blind as to not see this person was looking for a fight, and since he was less than 5 blocks from the store he had just robbed he had EVERY REASON to believe that the cops were there for the robbery, thus he had every reason to follow the pattern of his criminal career which was use his size and strength to get out of the situation.
Now be honest Vanderhoth, knowing the facts that are not in dispute, which do YOU find more likely, that he was cooperating and raised his hands when a cop that had never had a single complaint or citation against him shot him down in cold blood, or that when the officer tried to pat him down he went for the gun? I have a 3 inch scar on the back of my head from a racist cop, so I fricking HATE cops, and even i find the former scenario bullshit beyond belief!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:06AM
A firearm in the possession of a suspect is not authorization to use deadly force. Deadly force is only authorized after the proper escalation of force, as a last resort, or if the officer is under an immediate threat to life or limb. Finding a gun and immediately going to deadly force, despite there being no threat, is murder.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:16AM
Whoops, misread that part of your post. It doesn't matter what we think is "most likely" to occur, especially after the police strategically released a video showing him committing a robbery after being accused of cold-blooded murder. The reports I read stated that he had his hands up in the air when he got shot, not that he appeared to be reaching for something or even doing anything except turning around with his hands in the air, so there was still no threat to authorize the use of deadly force.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Sunday August 17 2014, @10:01AM
I am in agreement with you. Although I'm going to wait till the trial, if there is one, before speculating on events. Brown is innocent until proven guilty as well, it's just as unfair to assume he's at fault as it was when everyone was assuming it was the officer. This is the problem with public opinion, people get blamed without all the facts and then the pendulum swings back and forth with every hair or skeleton that gets dug up. I saw the same thing with Trayvon Martin and Rehtaeh Parsons and countless others. My goal is to try and calm everyone down rather than just being another voice in the crowd screaming for blood.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 18 2014, @03:14PM
Look at the recently released video where a witness can be heard in the background describing for his friend what happened...surprise! It matches the cop. Also note how they keep calling for more autopsies, know why? Because the first one showed he was hit FROM ABOVE, the ONLY way that can happen with both men on the street is if the suspect is in a "football tackle" position heading for the cop...again what the officer said.
And I'd argue there is a BIG difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "ignoring the facts not in dispute because it doesn't match your agenda/worldview" and I'm afraid waaay too many are leaning toward the latter. if we look at ONLY the evidence that is 100% not in dispute, evidence that is 100% agreed upon by both sides? Well we have a large man with a history of using his strength to rob, that had just robbed a store and not only didn't attempt to flee but strutted down the center line of a busy street obstructing traffic and drawing attention to himself, and we have a hidden recording of a witness at the scene (so he had no time to change his story) and the bullet wounds and ALL of this evidence is clearly pointing in one direction and it AIN'T the story his partner in crime told about him being shot with his hands up, which just FYI would be impossible with the bullet placement unless the cop had a jetpack.
Justice should be blind but that does NOT mean we should ignore the evidence that isn't disputed by either side in a case, that isn't blind, that's retarded.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday August 19 2014, @01:29AM
Since you brought up Martin, perfect example, because what again was not in dispute before the trial began? he had a history of robbery and violence, the GF on the phone had said she told him to "stomp that faggot's ass" and was egging him on, and oh yeah, he wrote page after page on his FB describing the feeling he got breaking bones and causing others to bleed the way a Dear Penthouse describes pussy...Again it smells like another media bullshit job, no different than how with every article the pictures of Martin got younger and younger until by the end of the trial they were showing his first grade pictures!
Now would you or would you not call that the deliberate distorting of the facts to try to push an agenda and inflame the public? What was fucking sad was they ONLY stopped that shit after 4Chan started slapping pics of Martin throwing gang signs with a Glock beside a shot of Zimmerman in HS with a "two can play the game" tag line. I'm all for fairness but that is NOT what we are getting, what we are getting is a media that is throwing as many charged words and outright manipulations (such as saying he was "looking forward to college" when he was a HS dropout that hadn't even attempted to get his GED) as possible to try to get a certain outcome, which is blacks rioting...because the Martin trial riots had their ratings go up 60%. its fucking sick but at the end of the day our media is as crooked as a snake, its all about the ratings.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by gman003 on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:42AM
So you're saying it's OK to shoot someone for petty robbery, as long as they're scary and black?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 18 2014, @03:20PM
I'm saying if you charge a cop in a football tackle (which the autopsy shows is the case, which is why they keep demanding more autopsies) after trying to grab his gun? I don't care if you are green that cop has EVERY RIGHT to use lethal force to stop you! Note that it was only the LAST 2 shots that was fatal, after 4 to the body did NOT stop the suspect from charging.
Now are you REALLY gonna stand here and tell me that if a 6'3 250+ pound guy is charging you in a footbal tackle you are gonna just brace for impact because it "isn't fair" that you have a gun and he doesn't? if that is the rules we are gonna follow might as well have cops carry disposable guns they can hand criminals and tell 'em to draw like its OK corral. give me a break!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @03:28PM
> This goes both ways, with the media using loaded phrases like "innocent youth"
That's pretty funny. I just googled and the only media sites I could find using the term "innocent youth" to explicitly describe Michael Brown were consverative ones. [tpnn.com]
All the lamestream media sites focus on the guy being unarmed with hands in the air when he was shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @08:03AM
That's a two-way street. Without repercussions, Anonymous doesn't seem to have taken enough care in these actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:11PM
> That's a two-way street. Without repercussions, Anonymous doesn't seem to have taken enough care in these actions.
Sure, repercussions in proportion to their power. No one has given anonymous any power. The police are the official stewrds of public power. If people ignore anonymous, nothing happens. If people ignore the police, they get shot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gman003 on Saturday August 16 2014, @08:51PM
I don't think so. Now that the "actual" culprit is known, he should fade to being no more than a footnote.
Perhaps this was planned - Anonymous couldn't find the actual info, so they just picked one at random to force the police to prove them wrong (by revealing the actual culprit). A risky and dangerous ploy, because it assumes the police care about the safety of that one officer more than they care about keeping the other hidden and away from the spotlight. Given that the entire series of events seems to be purely the Ferguson police's fault, from the shooting to the "riots", I don't think that was an entirely predictable decision.
PS: Vigilante justice, right now, is looking preferable to "police" justice for anyone in Ferguson. Keep that in mind.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:02PM
And what it was you're real name they randomly picked out of the bag?
For decades when you go to apply for a job when HR googles your name that's an automatic discredit. They won't do any research, just read the bi-line, "So-and-so denounced by Anonymous as shooter in Martin Brown shooting", that's all they need to pick someone else over you.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:20PM
Those conspiring to hide evil are just as evil as the ones actively committing the acts. By refusing to out the real criminal, they're all guilty of conspiracy and deserve what they get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:14AM
I don't think the Parent was celebrating what Anonymous did. It is possible that that was their strategy (they are reckless either way and it wouldn't be above them).
I'm not sure if the cops even hold themselves to the standard of not parading around a suspect in front of the cameras, which would turn-out the same in your HR google scenario.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:09AM
Excuse me? The guy had just robbed a store so he could make some money selling blunts (this is what the guy that helped him rob the store has stated) and had been busted 5 times in the 7 months he had been an adult (no telling how many total as those records are sealed when you turn 18) so he had EVERY reason to attack that cop as 1.- he had a long record, 2.- he had just robbed that store, 3.- Since he robbed the store to make blunts most likely he and/or his partner were carrying dope.
this whole thing is starting to smell like martin all over again, where it turns out that he had a history of violence and the GF was telling him "bust that faggot's head" on the phone. in this case we have a 6'3 240 pound thug whose arrest history shows a pattern of using his superior size and strength as a weapon who was walking down the middle of the street after robbing a store (thus showing he had ZERO fear of being caught) and when the cops pulled up he had every reason to believe it was over the robbery he had committed not even 10 minutes before thus having every reason to go toe to toe with the cop. What happened at that moment is the only thing we don't know, because the record, the robbery, the walking in the middle of the street after? NONE of these are in dispute, even the lawyer for the family admits them.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:41AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday August 17 2014, @01:06AM
If you REALLY believe that a 6'3 240 pound guy who had JUST ROBBED A STORE and is walking right down the middle of the street like he don't give a fuck is a "moot point" then you are so head up the ass politically correct that the fact he is black is enough for you, automatically innocent.
I have a 3 inch scar on the back of my head from racist cops so if there is ANYBODY here that knows about how brutal a cop can be its me but YOU ARE NOT HELPING when you pick as your poster child a fucking strong arm robber that had yanked a Pakistani man off the ground by the throat while he and his bud robbed the store NOT 10 MINUTES BEFORE. And if you can't see how that affects this outcome? You are blind, stupid, or both because it is pretty damned obvious by the evidence given this guy had every reason to believe what the cops were there for WAS the robbery, the Pakistani man said he was calling the cops and instead of running? he calmly walks down the middle of the street, so slowly he was less than 5 blocks from the crime scene when the cops showed up.
If you can't put 2 and 2 together from these not in dispute facts, that he was looking for a fight? Then I'm sorry but you are purposely being obtuse to push your politics, please go away.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Sunday August 17 2014, @03:13AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:25AM
The policeman who stopped him had no idea that Mr. Brown was suspected of robbery at the time he was stopped, according to the police chief [wsj.com].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nyder on Saturday August 16 2014, @10:33PM
Who didn't see that coming?
The same thing happened with the Rehtaeh Parsons case where they fingered several boys who supposedly raped her, which ultimately lead to her suicide. Except one of the boys they accused wasn't even at the party where she was raped. Now the big question is what responsibility does Anonymous have, seeing has they've probably just made this guys life a living hell. Perfect example of why vigilante justice in the court of public opinion is a bad thing. Now this cop is going to forever be attached to a high profile civilian shooting that he had nothing to do with.
Hmm, it's much like how cops will grab whomever they want, and try to blame them for crimes, even if the person didn't do it. And depending on the crime the person is accused of, it can ruin their life even though they didn't do it.
So, guess it's time for the cops to eat the same dish they give out. Karma is a bitch.
Look, next time you have a cop shooting someone, you say who it is, trying to protect them can get other cops wrongly blamed. Much like you expect the perps to confess, we expect you to confess. If you don't confess, then people go digging and well, you might not like what the digging reveals.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Saturday August 16 2014, @11:19PM
This makes me incredibly sad. So the solution to some cops not doing things right, by mistake or on purpose, is to demonize the innocent ones. Why bother with justice at all? Let's just start picking names from a hat When crimes are committed. When the police are caught purposely framing someone there's someone, an officer or an organization, to hold accountable. When Anonymous doses it?
I just can't imagine the hate you must have to see all cops as the enemy, I feel so much pain for you.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:24AM
You are correct that blaming innocent people is not right. What is really sad is that the public distrusts cops so much that they don't see the difference between them and a reckless vigilante group.
No matter how this turns out, I hope that the cop gets a fair trial and the evidence clearly points one way or the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:30AM
None of the policemen who were complicit in hiding the murderer's name are innocent; every single officer who did not come forward with the murderer's name is guilty of conspiracy.
Remember: If you see something, say something [dhs.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @05:42PM
Surely you mean "a random bunch of asholes".
Anyone claiming to be representing "Anonymous" isn't, by definition.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Saturday August 16 2014, @08:47PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @08:03AM
Again, it is not a homogenous group with any sort of centralized control. Your sentiment is meaningless because it can be said of any group like 'Christians' or 'people who swim'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @11:38PM
"Brown physically assaulted Wilson and tried to take his weapon."
Seems like the natural consequences of fatal stupidity..
What's the big deal?
Looks like an open and closed case with lots of supporting evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:28AM
We'll have to wait, but the other witness/es mentioned that the cop shot him as he was running away, then some more times when he gave-up. Also, the other parts that people are getting upset about is how the cops are handling the case.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @12:43AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:32AM
Except that's not what happened: [msnbc.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 17 2014, @04:12AM
Your stupid website won't even load a page.
Even Slashdot ( which sucks badly ) does that.
Don't quit your day jobs, you stupid faggot fucks.