DOJ: Ferguson PD descrimination against blacks is routine

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Today is election day in Ferguson, we'll see if all the voter registration efforts were worth it. Will the citizens take control of their community, or will it remain, business as usual?

All over St. Louis County, in point of fact. I've voted for the guy who promised me the most.

 

[WildCat]

But voting does no good in a Evil Captialistic system......

No matter what the outcome of the election I don't think the end result will be allowing people to drive without a license, registration, or insurance nor doing nothing when people fail to show up in court or pay their fines.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No matter what the outcome of the election I don't think the end result will be allowing people to drive without a license, registration, or insurance nor doing nothing when people fail to show up in court or pay their fines.

And damn the activist judges who think throwing people in jail for being unable to pay fines is an excuse to get out of them. Or people who refuse to present ID when demanded of it in an unconsitutional demand by the cops.

The police will never accept being handicapped by having to respect peoples constitutional rights. That is the real truth at the end of the day. And they really don't care who knows.

 

[jimbob]

No matter what the outcome of the election I don't think the end result will be allowing people to drive without a license, registration, or insurance nor doing nothing when people fail to show up in court or pay their fines.

True, but that isn't what people in Ferguson were complaining about.

The DoJ report lists it here.

They included:
A judge who, "does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn't let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict"

This judge also threatened a defendant's lawyer with contempt of court tof objecting to interruptions whilst the city cited prosecution evidence from a policeman who had previously been found untruthful during an FPD investigation

The man retained counsel who, during trial, was repeatedly interrupted by the court during his cross-examination of the officer. When the attorney objected to the interruptions, the judge told him that, if he continued on this path, “I will hold you in contempt and I will incarcerate you,” which, as discussed below, the court has done in the past to others appearing before it. The attorney told us that, believing no line of questioning would alter the outcome, he tempered his defense so as not to be jailed. Notably, at that trial, even though the testifying officer had previously been found untruthful during an official FPD investigation, the prosecuting attorney presented his testimony without informing defendant of that fact, and the court credited that testimony

The court also clear fines incurred by favoured people (including the aforementioned judge)

 In August 2014, the Court Clerk emailed Municipal Judge Brockmeyer a copy of a Failure to Appear notice for a speeding violation issued by the City of Breckenridge, and asked: “[FPD patrol supervisor] came to me this morning, could you please take [care] of this for him in Breckenridge?” The Judge replied: “Sure.” Judge Brockmeyer also serves as Municipal Judge in Breckenridge.

 In October 2013, Judge Brockmeyer sent Ferguson’s Prosecuting Attorney an email with the subject line “City of Hazelwood vs. Ronald Brockmeyer.” The Judge wrote: “Pursuant to our conversation, attached please find the red light camera ticket received by the undersigned. I would appreciate it if you would please see to it that this ticket is dismissed.” The Prosecuting Attorney, who also serves as prosecuting attorney in Hazelwood, responded: “I worked on red light matters today and dismissed the ticket that you sent over. Since I entered that into the system today, you may or may not get a second notice – you can just ignore that.”

In August 2013, an FPD patrol supervisor wrote an email entitled “Oops” to the Prosecuting Attorney regarding a ticket his relative received in another municipality for traveling 59 miles per hour in a 40 miles-per-hour zone, noting “[h]aving it dismissed would be a blessing.” The Prosecuting Attorney responded that the prosecutor of that other municipality promised to nolle pros the ticket. The supervisor responded with appreciation, noting that the dismissal “[c]ouldn’t have come at a better time.”

 Also in August 2013, Ferguson’s Mayor emailed the Prosecuting Attorney about a parking ticket received by an employee of a non-profit day camp for which the Mayor sometimes volunteers. The Mayor wrote that the person “shouldn’t have left his car unattended there, but it was an honest mistake” and stated, “I would hate for him to have to pay for this, can you help?” The Prosecuting Attorney forwarded the email to the Court Clerk, instructing her to “NP [nolle prosequi, or not prosecute] this parking ticket.”

 In November 2011, a court clerk received a request from a friend to “fix a parking ticket” received by the friend’s coworker’s wife. After the ticket was faxed to the clerk, she replied: “It’s gone baby!”

 In March 2014, a friend of the Court Clerk’s relative emailed the Court Clerk with a scanned copy of a ticket asking if there was anything she could do to help. She responded: “Your ticket of $200 has magically disappeared!” Later, in June 2014, the same person emailed the Court Clerk regarding two tickets and asked: “Can you work your magic again? It would be deeply appreciated.” The Clerk later informed him one ticket had been dismissed and she was waiting to hear back about the second ticket.

These court officials and senior police officers have expressed racist views, and by my count, the report details violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as possibly the Eighth

So what was your point?

 

[jimbob]

No matter what the outcome of the election I don't think the end result will be allowing people to drive without a license, registration, or insurance nor doing nothing when people fail to show up in court or pay their fines.

Actually, now you are back in this thread WildCat, do you think the stop data as described in this post *does* support the caste that discrimination against blacks is routine in Ferguson? Given the additional information in the report, which is highlighted in the quote.

None of that, even if 100% true, supports the claim that "discrimination against blacks is routine".

That wasn't the point of the my examples there - although the victims were overwhelmingly black. It is that FPD didn't even document what they were doing.

Similarly, we know about recorded vehicle stops, but have no numbers for pedestrian stops.

As for the "even if 100% true" bit - these were either claims by FPD officers or video evidence. There is no doubt about those happening, unless you think officers deliberately were trying to make themselves look bad to the DoJ?

Actually the Department of Justice said pretty much what I've been saying in a 2013 publication by its research arm. Note to mods: this is a government report and not subject to copyright law.

Racial Profiling and Traffic Stops

<snip>
•A study in Cincinnati found that black drivers had longer stops and higher search rates than white drivers. However, when the researchers matched stops involving black drivers with similarly situated white drivers, those stopped at the same time, place, and context (reason for the stop, validity of the driver's license, etc.), they found no differences. Their conclusion was that differences in the time, place, and context of the stops were the cause of the longer stops and higher search rates. [11]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/legitimacy/Pages/traffic-stops.aspx

But hey, keep on telling yourselves the Ferguson report wasn't political.

The report does state the following:

African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search. African Americans are more likely to be cited and arrested following a stop regardless of why the stop was initiated and are more likely to receive multiple citations during a single incident.

Which suggests the authors have addressed that issue.

I've spoilered it because it is long and also avoids the fact that Justice needs to be transparent. It is not enough to be impartial, one has to be seen to be impartial.

If court officials send racist emails, then it is up to them to prove that they are not discriminating on grounds of race. Similarly with the sergeant in charge of the patrol section. The more junior officer email system didn't keep their emails, so there is no evidence either way for the junior officers.

 

[Meed]

Today is election day in Ferguson, we'll see if all the voter registration efforts were worth it. Will the citizens take control of their community, or will it remain, business as usual?

Is there a vote on whether or not the police should engage in racial discrimination?

 

[WildCat]

And damn the activist judges who think throwing people in jail for being unable to pay fines is an excuse to get out of them.

There is no jurisdiction in the country where not paying fines have no consequences.

Or people who refuse to present ID when demanded of it in an unconsitutional demand by the cops.

Depends on the laws of the state, it's not a constitutional issue. And you are confusing "present ID" with identifying yourself.

The police will never accept being handicapped by having to respect peoples constitutional rights. That is the real truth at the end of the day. And they really don't care who knows.

The guy in the White House is on record as being hostile to 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, as are many of the people posting in this thread. I guess respect for Constitutional rights depends on which ones we're talking about?

 

[WildCat]

True, but that isn't what people in Ferguson were complaining about.

The DoJ report lists it here.

They included:
A judge who, "does not listen to the testimony, does not review the reports or the criminal history of defendants, and doesn't let all the pertinent witnesses testify before rendering a verdict"

This judge also threatened a defendant's lawyer with contempt of court tof objecting to interruptions whilst the city cited prosecution evidence from a policeman who had previously been found untruthful during an FPD investigation

Hardly unique to Ferguson and something the Justice Department has shown no interest in addressing except in a select few cases where it is politically advantageous.

The court also clear fines incurred by favoured people (including the aforementioned judge)



These court officials and senior police officers have expressed racist views, and by my count, the report details violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as possibly the Eighth

So what was your point?

See above. And again particularly ironic coming from an administration openly critical of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Keep telling yourself this report isn't about politics.

 

[jimbob]

WilldCat, you seem to be defending the FPD and attacking the protesters on the basis of whataboutery.

Just because something is "hardly unique to Ferguson" doesn't mean that it should be tolerated when it comes to light.

If your point is that there are major problems with the police and legal system in much of America, then what is with comments like this?

No matter what the outcome of the election I don't think the end result will be allowing people to drive without a license, registration, or insurance nor doing nothing when people fail to show up in court or pay their fines.

Which is misinterpreting what the complaints were.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is no jurisdiction in the country where not paying fines have no consequences.


Depends on the laws of the state, it's not a constitutional issue. And you are confusing "present ID" with identifying yourself.


The guy in the White House is on record as being hostile to 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, as are many of the people posting in this thread. I guess respect for Constitutional rights depends on which ones we're talking about?

Good to see that you support them despite their own reporting of their wrong doing in the DOJ report. Always support the police I guess no matter what.

 

[ponderingturtle]

WilldCat, you seem to be defending the FPD and attacking the protesters on the basis of whataboutery.

Just because something is "hardly unique to Ferguson" doesn't mean that it should be tolerated when it comes to light.

If your point is that there are major problems with the police and legal system in much of America, then what is with comments like this?



Which is misinterpreting what the complaints were.

The violating of personal rights is an important part of police procedures always has been and always will be. He is just one of the few who accepts that.

 

[WildCat]

WilldCat, you seem to be defending the FPD and attacking the protesters on the basis of whataboutery.

Just because something is "hardly unique to Ferguson" doesn't mean that it should be tolerated when it comes to light.

If your point is that there are major problems with the police and legal system in much of America, then what is with comments like this?



Which is misinterpreting what the complaints were.

Nope, I'm saying this is entirely political. At the end of the day the Justice Dept. doesn't care about anything in that report beyond what can be used for political gain. If they did it wouldn't be about just Ferguson thanks to some 3+ year old emails they dug up.

 

[WildCat]

Good to see that you support them despite their own reporting of their wrong doing in the DOJ report. Always support the police I guess no matter what.

And there's where you are wrong, I don't support most of these practices, I despise them. But the Justice Dept. isn't interested in ending these practices, they're only interested in ending these practices in one tiny town for purely political reasons. If they actually were against such practices then they'd demand reforms throughout the entire country.

 

[jimbob]

Nope, I'm saying this is entirely political. At the end of the day the Justice Dept. doesn't care about anything in that report beyond what can be used for political gain. If they did it wouldn't be about just Ferguson thanks to some 3+ year old emails they dug up.

And if that is the case, why do you seem to be dismissing the complaints against FPD? If you are not, what are you doing?

Did the protesters in Ferguson have reason to distrust the FPD and Ferguson court system? They were not *just* protesting about the shooting of Michael Brown.

 

[WildCat]

The guy in the White House is on record as being hostile to 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, as are many of the people posting in this thread. I guess respect for Constitutional rights depends on which ones we're talking about?

Just quoting this to further hilite the selective outrage of the IS liberal contingent here. Only some violations of Constitutional rights are important, other parts of the Constitution should be trampled on or ignored, right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

And there's where you are wrong, I don't support most of these practices, I despise them. But the Justice Dept. isn't interested in ending these practices, they're only interested in ending these practices in one tiny town for purely political reasons. If they actually were against such practices then they'd demand reforms throughout the entire country.

So as we clean up everywhere at once why bother trying to clean up anywhere?

 

[jimbob]

Just quoting this to further hilite the selective outrage of the IS liberal contingent here. Only some violations of Constitutional rights are important, other parts of the Constitution should be trampled on or ignored, right?

Some constitutional amendments are more important than others.

The Fifth Amendment is more important than the Eleventh, for example.

The 27th Amendment is hardly as vital to a civil society as the First Amendment.

Many other countries manage to function as democratic societies without the Second Amendment. They couldn't function as democratic societies without a free press and justice that follows due process.

​

That doesn't mean that one should "trample" on them - however if by "trample", you mean "challenge an interpretation of them in court", then that is different.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That doesn't mean that one should "trample" on them - however if by "trample", you mean "challenge an interpretation of them in court", then that is different.

Trying to reason with some people is futile.

 

[Upchurch]

delete

 

[johnny karate]

Here's WildCat demonstrating just how much he despises violations of Constitional rights by the police:

No, but there is a Constitutional right to film the police, the activity for which Wilson explicitly threatened to incarcerate Arman.

Do you need the video linked again so you can hear Wilson make that threat?

Do you need links to the various courts that have ruled filming the police is protected by the First Amendment?

Do you need a link to the First Amendment?

Because I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing.

I'd like a link to, well, anything that says it's illegal for police to threaten arrest for taking pictures. They can't actually follow through on the threats, and Wilson didn't do that, did he? Nor did he erase the video on the camera, even though there was certainly opportunity to do so.

You can clearly see how concerned he is with the police abusing their authority.

Thank you WildCat for being a True Champion of Constitional Rights and teaching us all an important lesson about selective outrage.