|
zeal posted:The Big Bear sheriffs ordered the news choppers back before they immolated Christopher Dorner in that cabin in Feb 2013. I bet they have the shooter cornered somewhere!
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Why the gently caress is the Ask Cops thread in GiP? Goons in police I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Perhaps, habitual suspects should form a suspects' union and purchase some big legal guns to protect their rights? You don't know much about the history of gun regulation in america.  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:What's going on in Ferguson is a total loving disgrace and should be a wake-up call to anyone with a shred of honesty or shame that cops in this country are out of control. I don't know how much more clear I can be about this. People who look at this situation and think "oh boy, an opportunity to rehabilitate the reputation of scumbag Al Sharpton" rather than "destroy the police state" should be shouted down. Ah yes, more shitnoonesaid.txt. Also I think you give yourself away when you say "shouted down" since that's basically admitting that you have no logical or emotional appeal to your arguments, all you have is volume. So have the cops said under what conditions they will ever release the killer's name?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
There is a huge difference between this case and the Boston bombing: The police know with 100% certainty who killed Mike Brown. This isn't a case of idiots trying to match faces out of a crowd, this is a case of a police department refusing to release an admitted killer's name out of fear for the safety of that killer. So I think its a lot more legitimate for Gawker to be trying to find a source inside the PD or Anom. looking for digital proof of who the killer is. Its a known fact to the police who the killer is, someone just has to whistle blow it to the public.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
D_I posted:Even if we find out who shot him it's not as if he is gonna be arrested, at most he will get some desk duty and free drinks at cop bars across the country. If we don't know his name we can't find his service record, we can't find out if he has history of misusing police weapons or had problems with racial sensitivity. Sometimes, the feds do in fact arrest cops. But the media has to do the leg work of actually investigating and proving to the world that something illegal happened. This can't start without the killer's name. That's a good reason to withhold the name as long as you can, by the way.....
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
If the police really cared about the wrong person being mis-identified, they should release the name of the killer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
I'm waiting for someone to cop-splain how really, detaining press in a private establishment while refusing to give any identification is either: A. Totally normal and ok and nothing to complain about or B. So abnormal and strange that this obviously can't be the full story/no true copsman.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:It would be an appropriate thing to say if he was taking any position of authority or involvement in the protest at all and not a guy doing really simple observation stuff and sharing it on the internet. He was just observing the bloods around him, I don't see what the problem is or anything!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Miltank posted:the people who beat up their white neighbor were racists imo. Seriously its pretty racist to assume that all the cops are white...oh wait, almost all the cops in this community are white. Vincent Van Goat posted:Still doesn't deserve to be attacked. Right, but it also deserves to be mocked when you call black men "bloods" then whine when you get punched during a chaotic and sometimes violent protest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
This is the same police that when asked why they have MRAPs for a protest responded "bombs".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
I mean, that's how you deescalate a situation, you treat people like human beings and talk to them face to face. Basically the black cops are doing what the white cops should have been trying in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
This is pretty much "deescalating protests 101" and its what police do all the time with other protesters. There's no excuse besides incompetence for why the County PD hasn't been using these tactics since the beginning. Like instead of just announcing "don't protest after dark or else...but there's not a curfew!" You meet with the protest and community leaders and explain your concerns about safety and stretched resources across the county. Ask them to wind down protesting towards dark or congregate in a well lit place or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Hell, I bet even loving LAPD would have handled this poo poo in a calmer and more restrained manner.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
In other protests I've been in where the cops aren't shitheels, what happens is the main group of peaceful folk congregate somewhere because their numbers shrink after dark anyway. Then maybe some dumb-rear end kids start something (a fire, a fight, looting, a building occupation) and then the big difference is: Do the cops respond to the protesters at large or seek to separate the violence from the main group? So if the police can handle arresting any dumb fucks without dispersing/attacking the whole crowd then things might go better tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
So the same Prosecutor who is saying that bringing in the MHP was illegal is also investigating the killing?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Darksaber posted:Also the county prosecutor is whining to reporters about how relieving them was illegal and put people in danger and probably some other dumb poo poo. This is the same prosecutor that is "investigating" the killing too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Oh, he's not investigating nothing. FBI has lead on this case, and shits gonna be rolling down hill. There are two separate jurisdictions. The county PD is investigating the killing and the local DA will likely decide to not press homicide/manslaughter charges. The FBI is investigating the potential federal civil rights violations and USDA might decide to press civil rights charges, but more likely will just get a consent decree out of the local PD.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:I think his career as an elected official would be over if he decides not to press charges. Hell, his meltdown over Nixon makes way more sense when you think about the fact that in the first time in his life Bob McCulloch has people with the power to make his life hell watching over him. He might officially press charges but if you think he's conducting this investigation by himself with no oversight at this point then you're forgetting that Eric Holder is crawling up his rear end with a microscope about now. I am unfortunately not as hopeful. The prosecutor has already said he will convene a grand jury. Grand juries generally do what the prosecutor wants. The grand jury will acquit if presented with one side of the case and since grand jury proceedings are secret there would be no way to know if the prosecutor presented all the evidence or not. Maybe there will be federal civil rights charges, but those are often hard to prove without video/audio evidence. I'll be surprised if this cop gets any punishment from the judicial system.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Sunset posted:Prosecution will try for 2nd degree, desire to kill but not necessarily planned shown through lethal force being used when it shouldn't have been. Hahahaha. This is the first time you've paid attention to cops killing black people isn't it? There's absolutely no way they charge the cop with 2nd degree murder. Maybe manslaughter, but I doubt that too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Shitshow posted:It will be presented to a jury in such a manner so that, yes, it was. You can see the acquittal coming from a mile away on this one. Exactly. This is all being set up so that 12 white guys can be fed exactly the right information so that the cop is acquitted. The county DA can then say "  I tried, but the American justice system and the jury of his peers has spoken".This is the same prosecutor's office that has been sued multiple times for unconstitutionally keeping black people off juries so don't expect anything more than an acquittal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:He will be tried by the feds, not locally. The FBI is involved as is Holder and the justice department. He might face some federal charges. But guess what? murder/manslaughter won't be one of those charges.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Wrong. Remember why this particular case got such attention: it is because the location of the wounds is incontrovertible evidence that he posed no threat, because he was shot in the back. It is not a he-said she-said case. Sounds like the officer just has to say he had probable cause to believe that because Mike Brown "grabbed for his gun" that Mike Brown posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. Justifiable shooting right there. "We'll never know exactly why the grand jury acquitted the officer of all charges" - This thread in a few months.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Shooting down an unarmed young man who has his hands up is about as inflammatory as it gets. That didn't impact any white people so I don't see how it was inflammatory.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What original crime? Stealing some swishers and/or assaulting a bodega clerk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Ferguson police chief just said they found evidence of the robbery on the body. Was it a swisher wrapper?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Neo Duckberg posted:In the surveillance camera pictures it shows someone with a hat on but in the shooting pictures he doesn't have a hat? Someone's posted a pic of a red hat sitting next to the scene of the killing. Chinatown posted:Cop is "devestated" and "never meant for this to happen" I wish "never meant for this to happen" was legally the admission of guilt that it is. If this isn't manslaughter the cop should stand by his action.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Neo Duckberg posted:So then what happened at the store? He shoplifted? And assaulted the clerk according to the video/police.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Oh god no, here comes 20 pages of people arguing over the definition of "kid"! Seriously. If this guy had been white he would have been treated like every other white adult. Not shot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Removes some credibility from Brown's side? I'll bite: what about this makes the reports of 3 eyewitnesses who tell the same story less credible? Well one of them is also a swisher's theft so automatically he lies about everything.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:Physical evidence. What physical evidence are you referring to? Because the police haven't released any physical evidence about the shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Untagged posted:It was already posted earlier that it was confirmed to be him and they admitted to taking the cigars through the attorney statement to police. Just to be clear, "they" couldn't have admitted poo poo because one of the two of them is dead. It matters since part of the problem is we will never get to hear Mike Brown's side of the story.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
And now that we have the officer's name, so it begins: http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/08/officer_darren_wilson_to_young_woman_shut_the_f_up_sit_the_f_down.htmlquote:Woman: I was maced and I had come up to QuickTrip because they said I could use their sink. So I was trying to clean out my eyes with some water and one of the employees told me to go get some milk, because that would help. So as I was pouring milk in my eyes, the officers had come in and told me to get out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Untagged posted:Don't know if you realize what that word means in the context of one person speaking for a group. FYI quote:It was already posted earlier that it was confirmed to be him and they admitted to taking the cigars through the attorney statement to police. means something different from quote:It was already posted earlier that it was confirmed to be him and he admitted that they took the cigars through the attorney statement to police. in English. I wouldn't bring up a grammar issue except it is important that Mike Brown cannot share his side of the story or admit to anything.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Haha watching the video versus the stills the cops choose is night and day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think you're mistaken on what the test is. It's not if the evidence is relevant. Tt has to be relevant enough to outweigh its likely prejudicial effect. Here, while it may have some relevance that relevance is very low, because it doesn't really support any obvious defense for the officer (the only one is really that he legitimately believed the victim was a danger to the lives of others, and I don't see how you make the robbery support that when the officer didn't know about it).. Given that he was shot in the back, you can't support a "he was threatening me" claim, so it's out for that. And it's obviously highly prejudicial to paint the victim as a criminal. Although you don't need to get a video admitted as evidence to prejudice a jury. Do you imagine there will be a venue shift outside of the St Louis area?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think the cop wants to be tried locally either, unless he thinks he can get away with trying to strike every black juror. The county DA has been sued multiple times for illegally striking black jurors so there's that. But here's my bet: Local DA/State Charges: Local DA's grand jury will not indite. USDA/Federal Charges: Charges will not be filed because strict wording of federal laws means there will not be enough evidence to convict.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There are federal criminal laws that are strictly worded? Well what federal statute would you think is most convict-able if you are a USDA? Hate crime? No way. (unless secret recordings of the cop screaming about wanting to shoot blacks appears) Conspiracy against rights? Nope, no conspiracy here. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law? That's your best bet but you'd have to prove willful deprivation of rights. I think without any physical evidence contradicting the cop, there's not enough evidence that the officer willfully deprived Mike Brown of his rights to risk the humiliation of losing that case. I don't think the feds are going to bring charges against the officer. I do bet they get a consent decree out of the local PD.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Dyz posted:That makes me feel a little bit better. As long as the Ferguson PD does not investigate the crime. Instead, its the same county prosecuting attorney who said calling in the Highway Patrol was disgraceful, illegal and dangerous. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:15 |
|
|
natetimm posted:How can you smear someone with the truth? You are an idiot who consistently argues in bad faith. Edit: This is an example of how to "smear someone with the truth".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 21:39
|
|