Michael Brown Shooting

[Dumb All Over]

Whether or not Brown made a legitimate attempt to get Wilson's weapon is a huge issue in this case.

Among others.

 

[newyorkguy]

There is a lot of intelligent advanced thinking in today's law enforcement community. Ferguson PD seems way behind the times. On PoliceOne.com John Vanek, retired after a 25-year career with San Jose Police Department, talks about "21st Century Leadership" which recognizes "leadership is no longer solely the domain of those in positions of authority, but instead is based on relationships and networks...allow for all of us to solve difficult problems with greater success."

In the section called, "Your police department faces a crisis: Here are 3 ways to fix it," Vanek says:

Every law enforcement agency — sooner or later — has to contend with a community uproar...The first question to ask is ‘What if this situation causes a community group to raise their voice against us, or question the department’s ability to serve the community? Being dismissive of the situation is a common mistake. While leaders may feel the incident is lawful and within policy or, “business as usual,” it is critical to view the incident from the community’s perspective...If the incident has the potential to cause damage, give a response immediately. The initial response may only be that you will give a more comprehensive statement later...Inform your community that department leaders are actively examining the incident and, if appropriate, conferring with other agencies. Link

I think the problem here was, the Ferguson Police Department was in no way prepared to handle this kind of incident. From comments many (most?) black residents have made, the department has had an ongoing issue of community mistrust. This seems to have been largely ignored. I think a lot of police commanders would say that was a huge mistake.

 

[Upchurch]

But like I said earlier, I don't see the "Brown was a thug who attacked a cop" crowd withholding judgement. They've even bought the completely non-evidence based claims that Wilson was seriously injured.

Indeed, there is also that. It seems there is a bit of that going on on all sides.

The moment anyone tries to overpower a cop, that's it as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is that there is a genuine problem with systemic racism and economic classism in police enforcement in America. A poor black man being confronted by the police has a reasonable expectation of being physically assaulted or otherwise unfairly treated. If you have no expectation of being treated fairly by the police, it becomes a matter of fight or flight regardless of actual guilt in a crime.

That being said, I don't excuse assaulting a police officer anymore than I excuse harassing black kids for walking in what amounts to a residential cul-de-sac. The root problem in all of this is the adversarial relationship between the police and the community, which is not going to be fixed by any outcome of this situation.

 

[newyorkguy]

Where did that come from?! There are thousands or tens of thousands of JREF threads in which one person describes an event and a different person asks for a citation. Asking for a documented source is not an accusation of deceit. Asking for a documented source is one of the cornerstones of skepticism. There are easily a dozen reasons, other than accusing a person of lying, for asking for a citation.

The same person was asking for a citation that the Innocence Project found police sometimes have coerced people into giving false statements. I have to prove that because someone challenges it? How about if I refer to Obama as President. Do I have to go get a cite for that if challenged? How about if I ask you to provide a cite for your statement that there are, "tens of thousands of JREF threads in which one person describes an event and a different person asks for a citation," do you have to spend the next ten hours compiling it? (Just in case you think I'm serious, please don't! I'm just trying to make a point.)

I asked someone demanding a cite four times if they thought the Innocence Project HADN'T found many persons wrongfully convicted in part because of coerced false statements. They never answered. Why should I provide a cite if it's only being requested as some kind of a tactic by someone who's obviously being hostile? The reason I gave for refusing to provide the cite was that once I provided the cite it would be ignored and they would never refer to this issue again. I really wasn't expecting them to react by saying, "Well what do you know you were right all along. Sincere apologies." (And if that person agrees with me don't respond. )

In fact someone DID provide a cite (and for that I thank them).

Innocence Project - Government Misconduct
DNA exonerations have exposed official misconduct at every level and stage of a criminal investigation.
Common forms of misconduct by law enforcement officials include:
<snip>
• Providing incentives to secure unreliable evidence from informants
Common forms of misconduct by prosecutors include:
<snip>
• Allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify
Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial
Misconduct in California 1997–2009 <snip>

This was posted almost 48 hours ago and, just as I predicted...

Crickets.

 

[Kestrel]

The problem is that there is a genuine problem with systemic racism and economic classism in police enforcement in America. A poor black man being confronted by the police has a reasonable expectation of being physically assaulted or otherwise unfairly treated. If you have no expectation of being treated fairly by the police, it becomes a matter of fight or flight regardless of actual guilt in a crime.

Rodney King knew that the LA cops had a habit of beating black men, so he tried to run. When the LA cops caught him, they best him to a pulp. When they filed the police reports, they simply made up a story to justify the beating. Even after the video proved they had lied on the reports, the system did its best to keep the corrupt cops from being punished.

LA figured out after the riots that the system had to change. We can only hope this incident will cause Fergison to take a different tack.

 

[newyorkguy]

That's true about King and LAPD. In fact, the avalanche of bad publicity made it possible for police commanders who WANTED to change some of the ways LAPD did business to get someone to listen to them.

I remember reading about the racist remarks LA uniformed patrol cops would mutter over the police radio as they drove around. Jokingly to be sure, but it was unprofessional and probably served to reinforce the worst behavior. Post-Rodney King all that began to change. That was good, not bad.

 

[Cylinder]

I'll just point out that the matter was very quickly turned over to a grand jury investigation as laid out by the Missouri Constitution. Now we have the racial agitators in Ferguson screaming for justice al la carte, complaining that some black guy killed McCulloch's father and implying threats of violence as some kind of judicial process.

The prosecutor promised that his office will submit every report, every recording, every witness and every statement for the people to decide if the government has their permission to proceed as our founders intended. After the proceeding, he promised to sue the government to unseal those records for public inspection.

 

[Ladewig]

The same person was asking for a citation that the Innocence Project found police sometimes have coerced people into giving false statements. I have to prove that because someone challenges it? How about if I refer to Obama as President. Do I have to go get a cite for that if challenged? How about if I ask you to provide a cite for your statement that there are, "tens of thousands of JREF threads in which one person describes an event and a different person asks for a citation," do you have to spend the next ten hours compiling it? (Just in case you think I'm serious, please don't! I'm just trying to make a point.)

I won't. But if you insisted on some citations for me claim, I would start gathering the evidence. I might begin negotiations with you as to the actual number sufficient instances would be.

In this particular case, the person asking for the citation said that he tried doing some research and came up dry.

I do not think that asking for some more information on a particular story is out of line. But I am not a moderator and in the end, my opinion does not count for anything.

Now, I am kind of curious about the story. Maybe I'll spend some time looking for it.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't know how -- if Skeptic Ginger was an experienced police commander -- how Skeptic Ginger would've handled the post-incident response, but I agree with her this incident was not handled well. This kind of incident and it's violent aftermath is something other police departments went through years ago and have developed strategies to deal with. The first step is in recognizing the community as an equal partner and for some departments that is the biggest hurdle of all. NYPD has done a lot of work through the community outreach plan to address these issues and it has worked fairly well. One step was to get local clergy involved:

Yeah. I see your point.
At the very least, the FPD should have announced that the county sherif department would be involved in the investigation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@Skeptic_Ginger,
As always, I have enjoyed your posts and insightful reference to the facts that support your view.

I was wondering as I walked along yesterday, whether you had thought about what you would have done if you had been Wilson in a scenario that seems plausible that involves Brown charging Wilson.

Assume for the moment that you have been injured a bit in the altercation around the car and from that you realize that Brown is physically superior to you and is willing to attack you and take your gun if he gets the chance.

Do you think you would shoot at Brown as he comes toward you?

It's like asking, do I think cops ever have the right to shoot in self defense? Of course they do.

It's assumed around here by people that argue by demeaning others that I've just taken the side I have because Wilson was a cop.

There were three witnesses that came forward at the time of the shooting telling similar stories.

Yes, eye witness testimony isn't perfect. It should be taken with a grain of salt but that doesn't mean it should be completely discounted. Heck, if that was the case, why is Wilson's account of any value?

Wilson's story, if what we are hearing is his story, is not credible, IMO.

Then there's the autopsy finding: four flesh wounds, one that might have re-entered the chest and two fatal shots entering the top of the head.

It fits the most credible of the three witnesses accounts, Tiffany Mitchell's, almost exactly. Brown was surrendering when two more shots were fired.

None of the evidence we have so far is supporting Wilson's actions as reasonable use of force.

This is not about hating cops or being biased about cops. It's about believing the witnesses as there is, as of yet, no reason not to.

And on top of that you have wild claims of a dozen witnesses supporting Wilson's story (no there isn't), the recording of the witness who saw Brown moving toward Wilson is being claimed to say something it does not say, and a story that grew and grew from Wilson had an orbital blowout fracture to he was severely beaten to he was beaten nearly unconscious when we can see in the videos after the shooting that he does not look in distress and his injury was described as facial swelling.

People make stuff up and tell the doubters there's no evidence it's not true, so the doubters can't say it isn't. That's a tactic seen time and time again by woo promoters.

 

[Caper]

It's like asking, do I think cops ever have the right to shoot in self defense? Of course they do.

It's assumed around here by people that argue by demeaning others that I've just taken the side I have because Wilson was a cop.

There were three witnesses that came forward at the time of the shooting telling similar stories.

Yes, eye witness testimony isn't perfect. It should be taken with a grain of salt but that doesn't mean it should be completely discounted. Heck, if that was the case, why is Wilson's account of any value?

Wilson's story, if what we are hearing is his story, is not credible, IMO.

Then there's the autopsy finding: four flesh wounds, one that might have re-entered the chest and two fatal shots entering the top of the head.

It fits the most credible of the three witnesses accounts, Tiffany Mitchell's, almost exactly. Brown was surrendering when two more shots were fired.

None of the evidence we have so far is supporting Wilson's actions as reasonable use of force.

This is not about hating cops or being biased about cops. It's about believing the witnesses as there is, as of yet, no reason not to.

And on top of that you have wild claims of a dozen witnesses supporting Wilson's story (no there isn't), the recording of the witness who saw Brown moving toward Wilson is being claimed to say something it does not say, and a story that grew and grew from Wilson had an orbital blowout fracture to he was severely beaten to he was beaten nearly unconscious when we can see in the videos after the shooting that he does not look in distress and his injury was described as facial swelling.

People make stuff up and tell the doubters there's no evidence it's not true, so the doubters can't say it isn't. That's a tactic seen time and time again by woo promoters.

You might be right. But there still will never be a chance to convict. I would be stunned if they did. Even if what you say is true. There is a lot the defense can claim about the officers frame of mind after being attacked in the head.... his vision being impaired or whatever else they can come up with. There is just no chance of a conviction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So if you were called upon to write a police press release at 4:00 p.m., what would you say.

I'll just point out that the matter was very quickly turned over to a grand jury investigation as laid out by the Missouri Constitution. Now we have the racial agitators in Ferguson screaming for justice al la carte, complaining that some black guy killed McCulloch's father and implying threats of violence as some kind of judicial process.

The prosecutor promised that his office will submit every report, every recording, every witness and every statement for the people to decide if the government has their permission to proceed as our founders intended. After the proceeding, he promised to sue the government to unseal those records for public inspection.

Explaining to the parents right away what was going on with the crime scene would have helped.
Allowing some people to observe the investigation while putting up screens blocking the view of the body to most of the bystanders would have been more respectful without raising suspicions that any evidence tampering was going on.
Making it a priority to finish with the body so it could be removed.

Given the lack of confidence the community has for the police, claiming that McColloch promises to be fair is ludicrous. I've already pointed out why he should be recused from the case, it's a no-brainer and should be routine, not some insult to anyone's integrity. This isn't about McColloch's ego, it's about a fair trial and community confidence the trial was fair.

...In this particular case, the person asking for the citation said that he tried doing some research and came up dry.....

He didn't look very hard.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip> Now we have the racial agitators in Ferguson screaming for justice al la carte, complaining that some black guy killed McCulloch's father and implying threats of violence as some kind of judicial process. The prosecutor promised that his office will submit every report, every recording, every witness and every statement for the people to decide if the government has their permission to proceed as our founders intended. <snip>

The St. Louis County county executive has already called on prosecutor Bob McCulloch to step aside and appoint a special prosecutor. McCulloch has refused to consider that request. You can deride the county executive's request as politically-motivated but many people do have serious concerns about McCulloch's ability and willingness to prosecute police for misconduct. If McCulloch would consider stepping aside that would be the kind of gesture that might help to establish some trust.

 

[Chris L]

Given the lack of confidence the community has for the police, claiming that McColloch promises to be fair is ludicrous. I've already pointed out why he should be recused from the case, it's a no-brainer and should be routine, not some insult to anyone's integrity. This isn't about McColloch's ego, it's about a fair trial and community confidence the trial was fair.

That is the key. The authorities should have been doing all they could to alleviate the fear the community had that this was going to be swept under the rug. It's the idea that those in power can get away with anything and nothing that can stop them that is fueling the anger there now.

 

[Cylinder]

It's not about McCulloch's ego. It's about rule of law over rule of mob.

 

[newyorkguy]

It's not about McCulloch's ego. It's about rule of law over rule of mob.

This relates to the argument John Vanek, a former police commander, was making. To imply that anyone who thinks having McCulloch step aside is giving into mob rule is dismissive. That's the wrong attitude to take precisely because in the long run it's counter-productive. It's possible for law enforcement and the criminal justice system to win back the trust of the community. To do that the criminal justice system has to be responsive to the community's legitimate concerns.

Labeling anyone who thinks McCulloch should step aside as someone who prefers mob rule over the rule of law is the wrong way to go about it. Both in Ferguson and on this forum. And anyway, has any official in St. Louis County said that, that anyone who thinks McCulloch should step aside favors mob rule? I think they have at least responded to the concern as legitimate by saying they are confident McCulloch is capable of rendering justice to all concerned.

 

[Giz]

To do that the criminal justice system has to be responsive to the community's legitimate concerns.

Given the limited amount of reliable information out there, doesn't it seem a little premature to speak of legitimate concerns?

 

[newyorkguy]

Given the limited amount of reliable information out there, doesn't it seem a little premature to speak of legitimate concerns?

Premature? You mean wait until AFTER McCulloch has made the Grand Jury presentation and then ask him to step aside and let someone else make the Grand Jury presentation.

 

[Cylinder]

Premature? You mean wait until AFTER McCulloch has made the Grand Jury presentation and then ask him to step aside and let someone else make the Grand Jury presentation.

McCulloch isn't making the presentation. He has two ADAs that handle that work flow [cue drumroll]....just like its normally handled.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not about McCulloch's ego. It's about rule of law over rule of mob.

Newyorkguy said it well. Professionals, especially in leadership positions get it when the community (the people you are dismissing as a mob) have legitimate concerns.

The city mayor thinks there's no racism in Ferguson. The governor sees no problem with McColloch handling the case because he was elected. Even if they weren't mind-bogglingly blind, they are doing a lousy job.

There are standard reasons for judges and prosecutors to recuse themselves in cases. Yet McColloch and Guv. Nixon unprofessionally neglect to recognize the appearance of a conflict of interest in a prosecutor whose father was killed by a black man who took the gun away from McColloch's police officer father and killed him with it.

Here is a cop claiming he had to shoot because a black man tried to take his gun away. And McColloch sees no issue whatsoever with how not impartial his family history appears? That's ego over professional sense.

And the racism in the local police (across St Louis County, not just Ferguson) is dribbling out. Were are now on the third recent scandal (forth if you add the 2012 incident).

Cop suspended for threatening to shoot protestors.
Cop is suspended when his truther/bigoted speech goes viral.
Cop is suspended for racist FB remarks.

And two years ago someone sent a racially charged letter through the interdepartmental mail to a black officer. Coincidentally one of the officers who dealt with it was the other Sgt Darren Wilson (the black one).

Black officers call for changes to ease racial tension in St. Louis police

ST. LOUIS • Minority officers sounded off for more than two hours Wednesday before the police department’s highest-ranking black commanders about issues they believe illustrate racism within the ranks and the need for reform. But those commanders blamed some of the issues on unmotivated officers.

About 30 members of the Ethical Society of Police packed the organization’s office for the special meeting convened to call black commanders to action in the wake of a racist letter sent to a black police officer, presumably by another officer in South Patrol.