bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
I feel like the should just be compulsory of all police departments...I thought it was, honestly.
Here in San Diego, our scandal-plagued police department has begun outfitting some officers with body cameras, and the City Council has approved a plan to roll out hundreds more.
Officers wearing the cameras were present during at least two shootings earlier this year. Yet we're still not any closer to knowing what happened in those chaotic moments—whether the perpetrators can be easily identified, what kind of interactions the officers had with those present, nothing.
That's because the department claims the footage, which is captured by devices financed by city taxpayers and worn by officers on the public payroll, aren't public records. Our newsroom's request for footage from the shootings under the California Public Records Act was denied.
Once footage becomes part of an investigation, the department says it doesn't have to release them. SDPD also said during the pilot phase of the camera program that it doesn't even have to release footage from the cameras after an investigation wraps.
Following up on the dash cam/body camera thing - of course it isn't just as simple as that:
Even When Police Do Wear Cameras, Don't Count on Seeing the Footage - CityLab
Just think of how much more clear cut this whole thing could have been if the Ferguson police department used dash cams and personal recorders. (TBH, it boggles my mind that police departments wouldn't at the very least insist on installing dash cams)
Following up on the dash cam/body camera thing - of course it isn't just as simple as that:
Even When Police Do Wear Cameras, Don't Count on Seeing the Footage - CityLab
I agree we should not only require these devices on all uniformed police (I can understand not requiring these for undercover agents) - but also insist that anything they record be public record. This is best for the citizens AS WELL AS the police.
Oh yeah, I'm quite sure Wilson was injured by the door coming back and hitting him, which is what caused him to pull the gun in the first place. The door bouncing back after it hit Brown was probably interpreted by Wilson as an attack even though he hit Brown with it in the first place. That's what several eyewits said, that the gunshot fired in the car was Wilson pulling the gun and trying to shoot Brown after the door hit him. That gun shot is likely what caused Brown (and the other guy whose name eludes me) to run in the first place.
The autopsy shows that he had his hands up because he got shot in the palm, which would be an incredibly weird way to charge Wilson.
That could also potentially be the shot that was fired in the squad car. Maybe Brown put his hand up as a last second protective move when he saw Wilson going for his gun, and seeing that he got hit is what made him turn and run?
It's really a shame that all we have is speculation at this point.
It's really a shame that all we have is speculation at this point.
About the only theory "debunked" was that he was shot in the back (as one eye witness told the news).
That is why I am starting to appreciate sites like reddit when it comes to news. The links come in from either a liberal/conservative/neutral news source and discussion ensues. There are some crazy comments on the extreme edges of the spectrum - but most of the them are reasonable debates that tend to flush out the heart of the story.
Agreed. I've been following the Ferguson threads on metafilter (which tends to run liberal, and unlike reddit, doesn't seem to suffer from the noise that comes from the extremes), and they really have been excellent about keeping tabs on all incoming information and fleshing out what has been reported.
I thought this was interesting and relevant to some of the points we discussed earlier (regarding the eyewitnesses).
Why witnesses are often wrong - CNN.com Video
I'm well aware of the legal standing of eyewitnesses vs. hard evidence. I simply think this is a special case where I am trusting the eyewitnesses over statements given by the police over what was going on because this police department is not to be trusted.
Also, this is a post about how the orbital fracture thing might be bullshit started by a right wing blogger:
Jim Hoft's Unsourced Claim That Officer Darren Wilson Had an "Orbital Blowout Fracture of the Eye Socket" - Little Green Footballs
I listened to the audio and couldn't hear shit so I'm a bit skeptical of the transcript.Then what do you think of the eyewitness (Ferguson resident, presumably African-American) who claims Michael Brown charged the officer while the officer was shooting?
I listened to the audio and couldn't hear shit so I'm a bit skeptical of the transcript.
Had anyone noticed this?
Now reports say the blogger completely fabricated the story of the fractured orbital socket
And apparently the blogger has a history of this.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
•On Aug. 12, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri asked the Ferguson Police Department to release the complete incident report for the Aug. 9 fatal shooting of Michael Brown. After the request was denied, the ACLU filed a Missouri Sunshine Law suit on Aug. 15.
•On Aug. 20th we received the St. Louis County Police Department's incident report, which only includes barebones information and lacks any narrative description of what occurred. The county report classifies the shooting as a homicide.
•The report from the St. Louis County Police reveals a time discrepancy which further suggests there is much the public doesn’t know. The county report shows a 43 minute delay before anyone called the county police and another 47 minute delay before the county police arrived on the scene.
•The following day, Aug. 21, the ACLU received the Ferguson Police Department's incident report. It was redacted, and also lacked any narrative description of what occurred.
It is deeply troubling and unacceptable that the two incident reports we’ve received completely lack any detailed information of what happened when Officer Darren Wilson encountered and then shot an unarmed Michael Brown. Two weeks after the shooting, this demonstrates a continued lack of transparency and adds to confusion about the events of the day. We still do not have what should be publicly available information about the police shooting of Michael Brown.
I'm a bit baffled by the info that was on the heavily redacted incident reports given to the ACLU after they filed a lawsuit under FOIA (or Missouri's similar state laws):
I don't understand why an incident report wouldn't... report what happened in the incident. Also, the time delay between the incident and Wilson first calling dispatch, and then between that and police responding to the scene are troubling (to say the least).