• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hrm. What does that mean? Have they not taken all the witness statements yet?

I suspect they've interviewed lots of people, and so have the media; but in a case like this there will be a lot of bogus "witnesses", and details like the actual number of bullets fired or the actual locations of the gunshot wounds on Brown's body, etc., can provide a useful "key" for screening out some of the fake witness statements. Making those details publicly available will allow fakers to more closely align their testimony with them, making it more credible.
 
Think about what you're saying. We're not discussing legal and/or constitutional matters in general, we're discussing them in relation to the press. An executive editor of one of the world's leading newspapers shouldn't be considered an appropriate authority regarding the laws under which the press operates?
There are actually criteria for what represents an appropriate authority. First, the person must be an authority in the particular field being discussed. In this case, the field is law, not journalism. Second, the person must be generally recognized as an authority by others in the field.

So, unless, lawyers and/or judges acknowledge and seek the advice of the executive editor of the world's leading newspaper on issues of law or even laws concerning journalism, then no, the executive editor is not an appropriate source for an argument from authority.

The fact that it turned out he DID know what he was talking about, is that irrelevant? :confused:
In terms of making a logical argument, yes.
 
Just a few bits.... It's entirely possible that I could be involved in this mess, even though I work for a campus police department. We are deputized and largely trained by the County police, have received various forms of "crowd control" training, and we have the necessary equipment (shields, helmets, etc) in our cars.
We are in fact, for the next week. putting out a 2-man "detail" which is nominally to provide extra patrol but also to be available to "respond if requested".
To put in our two-cents worth, as it were.

I see that now both the governor and one of our state senators (McCaskill) have gotten into the act. The governor is apparently planning to yank the country police from the scene, possibly replacing them with state officers, or even the NG (he is empowered to do so)
McCaskill was outraged over the arrest of the reporters.

I listened to an interview with one of the reporters on the local "St. Louis Talks" NPR show last night. He confirmed that they were not using the McDonalds for interviews and such, and there were only a few patrons present.
Time and again we are told that we are to expect to be filmed or recorded and that this is entirely legal so long as the people involved are not actively interfering with operations or creating a dangerous situation.

I've been involved in a lot of riot/crowd control training over my many years and I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject outside of such training.
The first full year of my employment as a police officer, back in '69, we had the very first actual "riot" in St. Louis County... At the very university I work at now.

This was the Vietnam/ROTC thing that culminated in the burning of the ROTC building. I was not at the scene, I was working the "desk" at the time, handling communications, so I was at least witness in that regard.
Years later, going to work for that university, I was informed by now-commanding officers that the situation that night was essentially caused by the arrival of the large contingent of heavily riot-equipped county officers. That the demonstrations had been ongoing and peaceful up to that point.
Prior to the big presidential debate held at our university... the three-way with Clinton, Bush, and Perot in '92....
The chief sent all us supervisors to take training from a highly-regarded expert on crowd control and riot tactics.
This guy was on a different page from apparently most in the field (and the guys running the show in Ferguson).
His idea was that the "ninja turtle guys" (fully armed and equipped tactical units) often only exacerbated these situations and that they should be held in reserve until things became actively out of control... Not on the line confronting demonstrators.

That's pretty much what we did at the debate when a very large crowd of rag-tag protesters marched down the main thoroghfare to confront the police line. This was Ralph Nader and his crowd, and every other anarchist, tax-protestor, and generally-disenchanted type for a hundred miles around.
We had some 600 fully-equipped tac unit troops on hand.... In the big garage just West. The "line" was ordinarily-equipped police officers and guys (like myself) on bikes. The protestors chanted, sang, waved banners, got their TV-15 minutes... And dispersed.
A couple of the more-radical anarchist types tried to do an end run around police lines and were caught by St. Louis police at the East end of campus.

I thought it went pretty well.

Now, more than 20 years later......Lessons do not appear to have been learned.

Regarding the "militarization" of us police.... I've commented on this before. Police are being increasingly called upon to do military-style operations. With Columbine, with the North Hollywood bank robbery, ordinary patrol officers are frequently being thrust into situations that require military tactics and weapons.
With the "active shooter" doctrine becoming the paradigm, we (front-line patrol officers) are expected to "go in and engage" the active shooter.
Waiting for specialized units means more deaths.

In order to carry out these operations, we need appropriate weapons and tactics. These are exactly the sort of things our lads in Iraq and Afghanistan do. Small-unit tactics, maneuvering and room-clearing, supressing fire... All of those things.
Most all squad cars now have an "AR" type rifle. The "patrol rifle" has largely replaced the old standard shotgun.
We are told that we are part of "Homeland Security". Part of our more-advanced training is to be able to deploy with other departments to work in coordination in case of a large-scale Mumbai-type attack.
Let me tell you, Mumbai turned a lot of heads. This would be an easy and inexpensive attack to mount. A couple of dozen attackers, with small arms only, managed to terrorize an entire large city for a considerable amount of time, even in the face of fairly massive response.
These sorts of things are part of the landscape now. So, we have to have the ability.

However, the deployment in Ferguson by these very same "ninja turtle" guys is clearly exacerbating the situation....


I think only a few hardline ideologues deny that police...particualry in big cities...need SWAT teams. It is all about knowing when the proper time is to deploy them. Clearly, the deployment in Ferguson was idiotic.

Frankly, you do have a number of people posting in this thread hate"The Pigs" anyway, and the Ferguson police idiots handed them a lot of ammunition.
 
I always cringe when people get into an anti-cop froth. I'm not supporting any cop who does the wrong thing but there are a lot of policeman out there trying to do the right thing.

I grew up in a poor neighborhood but never had any real issues with the cops. Occasionally they chased us home after kurfew when we were younger - one female officer offered to give my brother a ride home on a cold night. My family had a great dane that used to jump the fence all the time. The cops brought him back to us almost every time we didn't catch him ourselves and they were always pretty awesome about it.

I once got pulled over for doing 41 in a 35. I couldn't have been doing even 35 since when the cop came over the hill I was at a stop sign and hadn't got over 25 by the time I passed him in the intersection but he wrote me a ticket anyway, and was a jerk the whole time. The judge when I was called up looked at the ticket asked who the hell wrote the ticket, said something like 'oh that guy' under his breath and dismissed it without me having to utter a word.

Now I'm a military policeman in the guard who works with a lot of good people who just also happen to be cops. They have a tough job, most of them handle it well, but a few bad apples seem to make it harder and harder everyday.

Again, I'm not defending what happened here or any human being who makes the wrong choices for the wrong reasons. I just think we need to be careful about how we treat people in the line of duty because of a few bad eggs.

I think Skeptic Gingers' suggestions for better anger management and confrontation training is a great idea, and it's been my experience most policemen and women agree they are not as trained as they would like, but are at the mercy of their city and state budgets.
I think people can accept that there are bad apples in literally every group of people - cops, military, churches, etc. It's when the "good apples" close ranks and protect/hide the bad apples that they all get justifiably tarnished by the same brush.
 
I suspect they've interviewed lots of people, and so have the media; but in a case like this there will be a lot of bogus "witnesses", and details like the actual number of bullets fired or the actual locations of the gunshot wounds on Brown's body, etc., can provide a useful "key" for screening out some of the fake witness statements. Making those details publicly available will allow fakers to more closely align their testimony with them, making it more credible.

Indeed, however allowing those perceptions to fade or become distorted by events is also a danger. It surprised me that they expected for more witnesses to be forthcoming at this juncture.
 
There are actually criteria for what represents an appropriate authority. First, the person must be an authority in the particular field being discussed. In this case, the field is law, not journalism. Second, the person must be generally recognized as an authority by others in the field.

So, unless, lawyers and/or judges acknowledge and seek the advice of the executive editor of the world's leading newspaper on issues of law or even laws concerning journalism, then no, the executive editor is not an appropriate source for an argument from authority.

Forgive my ignorance, but I though in the field of law, the lawyer and/or judge generally rely on their own knowledge of the law?? But they do rely on expert witness testimony for all kinds of other knowledge. I can certainly see a case where the editor of a large newspaper is asked questions like: what is the standard operating procedure for field reporters wrt police interference, how knowledge are they about federal and local law, and what policies do you have in place concerning such matters.
 
Forgive my ignorance, but I though in the field of law, the lawyer and/or judge generally rely on their own knowledge of the law?? But they do rely on expert witness testimony for all kinds of other knowledge. I can certainly see a case where the editor of a large newspaper is asked questions like: what is the standard operating procedure for field reporters wrt police interference, how knowledge are they about federal and local law, and what policies do you have in place concerning such matters.
Sure, maybe. But that would be a question of how journalists are expected to handle themselves in a certain situation. In other words: journalism. In which case, the executive editor certainly would be an appropriate authority.

What we are talking about here is a question about the law, the Constitution, and legal precedent.
 
It seems no one knows exactly what happened, but everyone should know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. One would need all of the witness statements and all of the forensic evidence to even attempt to come up with a theory of what actually happened.

I will say that in the past when Al Sharpton has showed up like he has in Ferguson, it has been to persecute and vilify what have turned out to be innocent white people. That's just the way he rolls.
 
But you know what I REALLY hate about this situation?

It has made me be on the same side as Al Sharpton, an individual I have nothing but comtempt for.

But anyway,I have a feeling, no matter what the evidence,GWCarver will defend the police. Take up the Right Wing position no matter what the evidence. That is just the way he rolls.

And of course he does not comment on the Police's handling of the aftermath,because that would not fit in with a right wing agenda....
 
Last edited:
It is at least a better reason than, they are hiding bad news.

Yes, it might be better than telling them they can't handle the truth.

(:p)

But he was talking to news crews the day it happened. I saw his statement. He's added a few details as the days went on but his first story was consistent with his current one.

I didn't mean to imply differently and forgot to note it wasn't until yesterday that police asked to interview him.
 
I will be watching these events like a hawk.

With so many groups out there, pretending to be defenders of liberty and the constitution, I find it very telling that none of them have turned out to actually do some defending when rights are being trampled. I consider them to be modern-day LARPers. They're playing a role, but don't intend on doing it for real.
 
It seems no one knows exactly what happened, but everyone should know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. One would need all of the witness statements and all of the forensic evidence to even attempt to come up with a theory of what actually happened.

No, one would need all that to put together a case. A theory can be generated from incomplete facts, it is however important to make sure that one doesn't try to make the facts serve the theory. However a good theory can highlight the the presence of dubious 'facts' too, so they can be further verified if necessary.

Starting with the facts that (at this juncture) don't appear to be in dispute doesn't bode well for the officer in question.

I will say that in the past when Al Sharpton has showed up like he has in Ferguson, it has been to persecute and vilify what have turned out to be innocent white people. That's just the way he rolls.

Even a blind squirrel....
 
Last edited:
I will be watching these events like a hawk.

With so many groups out there, pretending to be defenders of liberty and the constitution, I find it very telling that none of them have turned out to actually do some defending when rights are being trampled. I consider them to be modern-day LARPers. They're playing a role, but don't intend on doing it for real.

This. ^^^^
 
As if things were not bad enough in Ferguson, Alex Jones is making noises about going there to cover the story..........

Now there is one "Jounalist" I admit I would not mind being seeing roughed up a bit.......


Jones websites are an exercise in schizophrenia. He seems to be pushing both left and right wing conspiracy crap about Ferguson on the same time...both "the Cops are NWO goons" and "The protestors are NWO rioters" at the same time. Trust Alex to bring a new level of crazy.
 
As if things were not bad enough in Ferguson, Alex Jones is making noises about going there to cover the story..........

Now there is one "Jounalist" I admit I would not mind being seeing roughed up a bit.......


Jones websites are an exercise in schizophrenia. He seems to be pushing both left and right wing conspiracy crap about Ferguson on the same time...both "the Cops are NWO goons" and "The protestors are NWO rioters" at the same time. Trust Alex to bring a new level of crazy.

Has he constructed a false flag scenario yet? Alex hasn't done his job until he informs me how the whole incident is "let's pretend" and that there is a concealed agenda in play. Without a false flag analysis, I just don't get that feeling of resolution.
 
According to this article the officer in question 'has not had any other issues.'
No, according to that article, the chief of police of an entirely different department said that the officer in question has not had any other issues. Since we don't know the officer's name, we have no way to check.
 
So, unless, lawyers and/or judges acknowledge and seek the advice of the executive editor of the world's leading newspaper on issues of law or even laws concerning journalism, then no, the executive editor is not an appropriate source for an argument from authority...

What you're overlooking is, I think, there's no need for "advice." This is a part of the law that has been ruled on, vetted and well understood by people in the profession. This isn't a new interpretation, it's part of the basic ground rules press photographers and film crews have been working under for years. I would presume every news editor in America knows that: The police can not stop us from filming if we're on public property. They're not even supposed to ask us to stop. In a case involving restrictions on photography from public property a Judge ruled that when there is a clear first amendment right involved the rights of press photographers are well-established:

U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Hurley, [have] pointed out that...“to achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Link

There is nothing new or controversial about the press having the absolute right to photograph or film legitimate news events free from any kind of interference from police. The press knows this. You seem to be arguing because you didn't know about this the executive editor of the Post probably didn't really know either. Not sure I buy that. ;)
 
No, according to that article, the chief of police of an entirely different department said that the officer in question has not had any other issues. Since we don't know the officer's name, we have no way to check.

Indeed he could be mistaken or lying---or the article misrepresented his statement.

It would seem unnecessary in this instance to know if he had prior complaints considering the likelihood of physical evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom