Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

[AEON]

Originally Posted by 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

Yeah - I'm fairly skeptical of these initial reports. We will need something WAY more official than this. I think most witnesses have said there was some altercation at the car. That' about all we can really "know" at this point.

However, this part of the altercation only "sets the stage" - still important, but not NEARLY as important as what was happening when Darren Wilson started shooting (aside from the possible single shot in the vehicle).

Even if Darren Wilson WAS assaulted this violently - even if Michael Brown had reached for the weapon - if Michael Brown indeed surrendered (or froze as commanded) then Michael Brown should have been arrested and charged for that crime.

If the Darren Wilson had the mental capacity (after being injured) to chase Michael and not gun him down immediately (which, according to many of the analysts on TV - would have been legally justified because of the assault and reaching for the weapon) - then he had the mental capacity to apprehend a surrendering suspect without shooting.

I will only think this shooting is justified (yet still tragic) if it is proven that Michael Brown assaulted the officer AND was charging/kept moving forward after he froze.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by AEON

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.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I listened to the audio and couldn't hear shit so I'm a bit skeptical of the transcript.

I think CNN also verified...

But I'm guessing/hoping that between the FBI, Justice Department, State Police...etc. that they have enough official witnesses (not necessarily the ones that have spoken to the media - because it could literally be dangerous for some to publicly share something that may benefit Darren Wilson) to develop a picture that fits the forensics.

[Vlad n U 2]

Had anyone noticed this?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Had anyone noticed this?

The ones on the web have 2014-08-09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE

[BVS]

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

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

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

Yeah - we really won't know much until we some official releases. From what I understand - that may take awhile.

[Diemen]

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):

•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 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).

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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).

Is there anyone here who knows if this "normally" the case in high profile shootings? On CNN, they tend to think the prosecution is doing everything it can to avoid mistakes. I haven't heard much else about the lack of information (other than frustration).

[BVS]

The latest I've heard is that a robbery didn't happen. A store clerk didn't call it in, but a customer that was confused as to what they saw. The shoving was over a verbal altercation.

Of course this may be as reliable as the blogger


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[AEON]

It's a bit of a shame the press only covers violent protests. A peaceful protest (like the last few nights) simply doesn't make the news. I think the African American community has some legitimate complaints - yet, the press gives little voice unless there is is a tragedy or violent protest. Thus - for the sake of news (money) they encourage future violent protests.

[PhilsFan]

But if one were to suggest that maybe we need more state-funded media that do not bow to the whims of corporations and their bottom lines, I'm often told that would be a march towards socialism.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

But if one were to suggest that maybe we need more state-funded media that do not bow to the whims of corporations and their bottom lines, I'm often told that would be a march towards socialism.

I'm not sure about that either. I don't think we want whichever party is in power controlling the media.

I guess we just have to realize the "news" is a competitive market and watch the most neutral source in hopes that it builds enough of a following to survive.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by AEON

I'm not sure about that either. I don't think we want whichever party is in power controlling the media.



I guess we just have to realize the "news" is a competitive market and watch the most neutral source in hopes that it builds enough of a following to survive.

If neutrality means false equivalency on topics such as climate change, then no. One of the biggest problems in today's mainstream media is the idea that both sides need to be given equal time, even if one is absolutely completely wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

If neutrality means false equivalency on topics such as climate change, then no. One of the biggest problems in today's mainstream media is the idea that both sides need to be given equal time, even if one is absolutely completely wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This needs to be said over and over and over and over. Thank you.


Sent from

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by AEON

I'm not sure about that either. I don't think we want whichever party is in power controlling the media.

I guess we just have to realize the "news" is a competitive market and watch the most neutral source in hopes that it builds enough of a following to survive.

Or watch and or read all of it and then make up your own mind.

Nahhhh let's just let someone tell us what to think. It's easier that way.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Or watch and or read all of it and then make up your own mind.

Nahhhh let's just let someone tell us what to think. It's easier that way.

That's basically what I try to do with my google feeds...just a bit cumbersome.

[Izzy.nyc]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

If neutrality means false equivalency on topics such as climate change, then no. One of the biggest problems in today's mainstream media is the idea that both sides need to be given equal time, even if one is absolutely completely wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Climate change in general Or man-made climate change? As for the latter, filtering out opinion, it would seem that some scientists believe there isn't enought evidence to point to either conclusion absolutely.

I guess a point that would support news that dealt with impartial facts covering multiple perspectives as being the best option.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If a network presents creationism as a viable hypothesis on how the world was made, they should be stripped of their broadcasting privileges by the FCC.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Izzy.nyc

Climate change in general Or man-made climate change? As for the latter, filtering out opinion, it would seem that some scientists believe there isn't enought evidence to point to either conclusion absolutely.

I guess a point that would support news that dealt with impartial facts covering multiple perspectives as being the best option.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

97% of all climate scientists believe that the planet is warming and that humans are at least partially responsible. That belief is based on many scientific observations across various different areas of the sciences. The science is settled. Climate change deniers should not be given any time in media unless it's to point out how absolutely stupid and harmful to the planet they are.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference