Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

[bono_212]

I feel like the should just be compulsory of all police departments...I thought it was, honestly.

[Diemen]

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

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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

Well, I think that in this particular case - with the Feds getting involved - it still would have made a difference.

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.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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)

I agree.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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

Um...hmm...yes...so...pretty sure that's not, how would you say...legal? Not supplying the footage completely goes against the entire FOIA, doesn't it?

[PhilsFan]

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.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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.

At this point - I would say this is feasible. Either the door bounced back or it was slammed back. It will probably be difficult to determine which.

Of course - I guess none of that really matters until we find out this:

Did Michael charge the officer after all this went down? If not, Darren Wilson is more than likely guilty of anything from excessive use force to murder. I'm sure a jury would take injuries into consideration when determining which charges (there will be multiple if this goes to trial) in which to find the officer guilty. I think most people would agree that unless Michael Brown charged Darren Wilson - Darren Wilson is guilty of some degree of murder. At least I do.

Ironically, had all the shots been from behind - the officer was in better standing (legally) with the Fleeing Felon law.

[PhilsFan]

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.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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.

[AEON]

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

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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.

I don't think many analysts thought the initial autopsies confirmed/denied much of anything. At this point, Michael Brown could have been shot surrendering, standing still, or charging. The head shots could have occurred on the ground or as he was falling.

About the only theory "debunked" was that he was shot in the back (as one eye witness told the news).

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

It's really a shame that all we have is speculation at this point.

I agree. And what is more shameful was that the press initially crucified the officer based on nothing but speculation - fueling the already tense situation in Ferguson.

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.

I think it's obvious - we can no longer trust most media to give us an unbiased account of the facts. We simply need to take in as much as we can from different sources and try to see which bits overlap (thus making them likely true).

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

About the only theory "debunked" was that he was shot in the back (as one eye witness told the news).

True, there were no gunshots to his back, but there was a shot that entered the underside of his arm, which could have happened as he was running away, or with his hands up, but would be less likely to have happened if he was charging.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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.

Is there a site that is really know for just presenting the facts of the news, as they are known?

I don't mind editorials, but only when I know I'm reading an editorial. When I hear/read a reporter begin to add their own slant - the alarms start going off.

I guess if these sites do exist, they are a small. There's not as much money appealing to the ever shrinking "middle" of the spectrum.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[PhilsFan]

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

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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.

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?

[Diemen]

At this point there are 4 independent witnesses whose stories agree quite remarkably and have from the day of the incident, and whose stories don't agree with this other witness. That doesn't necessarily mean the 4 are correct and this one isn't, but it certainly does give more credibility to their narrative, seeing as they all had different vantage points of the incident, only 2 of them actually know each other (boss/employee relationship), and yet their stories match up quite closely.

The police also confiscated the cell phone from one of the witnesses who had recorded the incident. One would think that if the cell phone recording exonerated the officer's actions, they would have released the recording by now.

Though granted, what the police might consider justifiable actions might not mesh with what the general public considers justifiable (see the recent STL shooting of a mentally disturbed man that the STL police felt ok releasing video from).