Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]
I made a thread about this topic a while ago in another forum, and I did not like the signal/noise ratio. As I'm sure you're all aware if you read the news, there were a series of protests in late summer/early winter in St. Louis, Missouri, about the death of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, caused by a local police officer named Darren Wilson. This set off large demonstrations at multiple locations in the city and the country at large for around two weeks. Then, when the incident was investigated by a grand jury, they decided to not indict Officer Wilson, which caused another few days of civil unrest. I was fortunate enough to know both a St. Louis County police officer as well as have a friend on the committee that organized many of the protests. I decided to make this thread to help jog my memory for the Documenting Ferguson Project, which a reporter from NPR is helping me to contribute to this weekend. I have 14 GB of media, so if you ask I can probably provide. I picked the photos I liked the most below. Side note: if you ask me about my personal beliefs I will not respond because I would rather tell you the story without any spin. which is what the camera was for. There were also a few moments not captured on film that I can talk about as well.

All Pictures - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Loavesofbread&ilshowall=1
All Videos - https://www.youtube.com/user/gyroj3t/videos
My interview with KWMU - http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/challenges-face-project-documenting-protests-ferguson

:siren:PLEASE BE CIVIL AND REMEMBER THIS IS NOT DEBATE AND DISCUSSION:siren:








Woof Blitzer fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Dec 16, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

bonvivant
Oct 1, 2014

I may be racist, transphobic, an antisemite and a misogynist, but I project like an angel ;)
Really loving the little dude flying the pan-african flag.

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

What's the story behind the military dude shaking hands with the black guy?

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

Ytlaya posted:

What's the story behind the military dude shaking hands with the black guy?

He was a marine who came out to march with the protesters.

Michael Scott
Jan 3, 2010

by zen death robot
Isn't it illegal or at least highly frowned upon to protest in U.S. military uniform? Even if he is, as I assume, out of the military by now. So he's a former marine.

Also, I don't know if you talked with the 'protesters' or just took photos of them. Did you have a chance to speak with them, and what were the reasons they gave for supporting an indictment, against the grand jury's decision?

What did your friend say about his decision to help organize protests? Do you know why he wanted to do that?

Michael Scott fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Dec 14, 2014

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

Michael Scott posted:

Isn't it illegal or at least highly frowned upon to protest in U.S. military uniform? Even if he is, as I assume, out of the military by now. So he's a former marine.

Also, I don't know if you talked with the 'protesters' or just took photos of them. Did you have a chance to speak with them, and what were the reasons they gave for supporting an indictment, against the grand jury's decision?

What did your friend say about his decision to help organize protests? Do you know why he wanted to do that?

It is prohibited by the UCMJ to participate in a protest in uniform. He may did not wear his name badge.
The protesters were dissatisfied with the performance of the police and the legal system in general.
My friend is a community organizer and was pretty active in student government (we went to the same high school). Also he is black so that helps.

ShadowCatboy
Jan 22, 2006

by FactsAreUseless
Could you elaborate more about the controversial grand jury decision? I've heard that there may have been either incompetence or malfeasance on the prosecutor's part when it came to how she handled things.

The Dregs
Dec 29, 2005

MY TREEEEEEEE!


Can we make this thread be about her please?

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

ShadowCatboy posted:

Could you elaborate more about the controversial grand jury decision? I've heard that there may have been either incompetence or malfeasance on the prosecutor's part when it came to how she handled things.

To me, as someone with no legal training whatsoever, it seems McCullough didn't actually try to act as a prosecutor so much as give the jury as much evidence as possible and then back away into a dark corner, which is probably due to his very long history of being 100% on the side of the police in every case he's done.

foutre
Sep 4, 2011

:toot: RIP ZEEZ :toot:
I have friends who are doing organizing in SF and Oakland for protests related to Ferguson/coordinating Palestinian support as well, and can definitely ask them about it if you want. I've also done a good bit of research on it as well, so there's that too.

ShadowCatboy posted:

Could you elaborate more about the controversial grand jury decision? I've heard that there may have been either incompetence or malfeasance on the prosecutor's part when it came to how she handled things.

The prosecutor's a guy fyi. There's a bunch of ways that he hosed up, but I think it was willful rather than just incompetence.

First off, he should have recused himself. 70,000 people signed a petition urging him to do so, and a number of Missouri politicians outright said they had no faith in his ability to prosecute the case fairly. His Dad was a policeman killed by a black man so he was biased from the get go w/r/t the whole situation. He's made statements like "being a prosecutor is the closest thing to being a cop", and has a history of orchestrating grand juries that make sure police don't get indicted (this is the fifth time he's done it -- a lot of the other times were honestly way more hosed). He has a history of bias and shouldn't have been in charge at all.

He failed to list the possible crimes that Darren Wilson could be indicted for, which is standard practice in Grand Juries at the federal and state level, and instead let the media narrative make it out to be murder or nothing. This makes it much less likely to get an indictment -- rather than presenting things like manslaughter etc. etc. as options, essentially only homicide was left on the table. It narrowed the scope of the jury when it's the prosecutor's obligation to do the exact opposite.

He selectively called up and then dismantled witnesses, questioning those who didn't support the narrative he wanted while not doing the same to others, and threw in evidence/witnesses that shouldn't have been admitted in order to muddy the waters on the 'opposition' side.

He started the trial before forensic teams were done collecting evidence, which further confused the jury, and then qualified and hedged about the actual facts to the point that it was unclear even once all the evidence was in what had really happened.

He allowed Darren Wilson to testify for hours, which is unheard of at the Federal level (never done) and when it is done at the state level is used as an opportunity to poke holes in the defendant's version of events. Instead he let everything Darren Wilson said stand, prepped the jury etc. for his speech, and gave him time to tailor his defense to fit this hosed precedent that basically says that if the officer feels at the time that he's being threatened that whatever they did is justified. It's important to note that this case (whose name I'm forgetting, sorry) absolutely should not exist, and gives an out for police, given the proper presentation, to do basically anything. So, even if someone is exonerated under this statute, the statute itself is unjust, and any judgment made stemming from it is in question as well.

He straight up presented a statute to the jury about shooting fleeing suspects that had been deemed unconstitutional decades before.

He wasn't supposed to present exculpatory evidence to the degree he did, as various justices and whatnot have said.

Afterwards, he released 'all the records of the trial' in order to let the public decide and whatnot, but then it turned out that he selectively released documents that he thought looked good and left out ones he didn't, and only just released the rest (some of the rest?) now. Among the records he didn't release were statements talking about Darren Wilson's reputation for harassing black residents etc. -- stuff that doesn't make him look very good. He used the grand jury not just as a means of exonerating Darren Wilson, but also as a way to twist the media narrative.

Even if you believe that he conducted the grand jury in a way that was fair to Darren Wilson (which I don't think is true, but hey) it is absolutely true that it's very, very unusual for someone not to be indicted in a grand jury (a judge famously said that a prosecutor could indict a "ham sandwich" at a grand jury; in 2010 out of over 160,000 grand jury cases 11 returned without an indictment) unless they're a cop. Even if it were justice, the fact that it's only dispensed to the police is obviously wrong.

He made a grand jury operate as if it were a trial, which is absolutely not what it's meant to be, and then rigged it for Darren Wilson.

Even if Darren Wilson ultimately shouldn't have been found guilty of any crime, in our justice system that is absolutely not supposed to happen in a grand jury.

There's honestly a good bit more, and this is nowhere near the most hosed thing that this prosecutor, St. Louis, or the nation has done w/r/t the police/race etc., but hopefully that gives you some idea. A big part of the anger over it is that it's indicative and a product of systemic injustice and racism in our country.

e: Also, like, he's supposed to be a prosecutor, and you know, prosecute, what the gently caress.

foutre fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Dec 15, 2014

Baronash
Feb 29, 2012

So what do you want to be called?

What's the story here?

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

JohnSherman posted:

What's the story here?

He has a stable a few blocks away so he brought his horse out to one of the marches.

Iseeyouseemeseeyou
Jan 3, 2011
Did you get any footage of the mob burning down the store mike brown robbed shortly before his death?

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:

Did you get any footage of the mob burning down the store mike brown robbed shortly before his death?

The store is not burned down and is still standing in business to this very day.

Michael Scott
Jan 3, 2010

by zen death robot

Equine Don posted:

The protesters were dissatisfied with the performance of the police

What does this even mean?

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

Michael Scott posted:

What does this even mean?

Sorry I was tired when I wrote that. There's a not a lot of police oversight here, coupled with the thuggish way in which the police were used as tax collectors. People would get arrested for something in one county, pay their bail, and get transferred to another county's jail for another offense, which was usually something very petty like failure to provide insurance or a license. The police's work accounts for a huge amount of revenue in many of these cities. And then of course there is the way the police have handled the protests, and the prosecutor, and...

Chinaman7000
Nov 28, 2003

Good luck. Thanks for the effort in this.

Lord Windy
Mar 26, 2010
I don't live in America and I actively avoided the subject because it is my opinion that American's have a bad relationship with the police that colours any action they take. Can someone give me a summary of what happened without any spin one way or the other.

EDIT: My natural opinion would be to support the police 100%. I have never had a bad experience with the police and they are generally pretty reasonable even in our own police shows.

Michael Scott
Jan 3, 2010

by zen death robot

Lord Windy posted:

I don't live in America and I actively avoided the subject because it is my opinion that American's have a bad relationship with the police that colours any action they take. Can someone give me a summary of what happened without any spin one way or the other.

EDIT: My natural opinion would be to support the police 100%. I have never had a bad experience with the police and they are generally pretty reasonable even in our own police shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

The_White_Crane
May 10, 2008

Lord Windy posted:

I don't live in America and I actively avoided the subject because it is my opinion that American's have a bad relationship with the police that colours any action they take. Can someone give me a summary of what happened without any spin one way or the other.

EDIT: My natural opinion would be to support the police 100%. I have never had a bad experience with the police and they are generally pretty reasonable even in our own police shows.

Hold on, if you don't live in America are you making your judgement about supporting the police and never having had a bad experience with the police based on the police force of some other country?

foutre
Sep 4, 2011

:toot: RIP ZEEZ :toot:
Also you're basing it not just on your anecdotal experience with police in a different country, but also on.... police in television shows in a different country? The reason we have a bad relationship with the police is because they do a lot of lovely things -- to be honest, there are probably more people who have a better opinion of the police than they should than the other way around

Michael Scott
Jan 3, 2010

by zen death robot

foutre posted:

to be honest, there are probably more people who have a better opinion of the police than they should than the other way around

Your opinion is dumb and ignorant. There are tons of people who have no respect for the rule of law. Things tend to work better (in developed countries) when people have a healthy respect for the law and by extension police. Some might even say it is important for society.

Did you even read about this situation or the participants in any way? Your opinion reads like part of the problem.

Dude I used to believe what you do, but then I grew the gently caress up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNFTfR6WycA

Michael Scott fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Dec 16, 2014

foutre
Sep 4, 2011

:toot: RIP ZEEZ :toot:
Sorry, let me clarify. I'm not trying to say that people should repudiate the idea of a police force and the rule of law.

I'm saying that people should hold the police accountable when they act wrongly, and that blindly trusting them gets in the way of that. Yes, there are a lot of good cops, but they are people just like everyone else and they make mistakes. Further, there's a preponderance of evidence that the way we train policemen, the way that cultures in police stations etc. work, and the links between the prison system and the court system as well as the police all contribute to a culture that is racist and ultimately unjust. Obviously we still need the police and the rule of law (no poo poo) but we can do a whole lot better than we are now.

Also, you're fundamentally misunderstanding the situation as well. The problem isn't just that Darren Wilson might be guilty and the opportunity to find that out was denied by a mishandled grand jury. The problem isn't just that Michael Brown was killed.

The problem is that, with our current incarceration trends, one in every three black males born today can expect to go to prison at some point in their life, compared with one in every six Latino males, and one in every 17 white males. African Americans make up 13% of drug offenders, but 46% of those convicted. From 1980-2010 the police were twice as likely to arrest black youth, despite the fact that a studies over the same time period found that white youth were twice as likely to use illegal drugs. For adults, it was found that 5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites. The public defender system is, according to our Attorney General, "in a state of crisis" underfunded and failing to give poor people an equal shot at a fair trial. The majority of the people forced to use public defenders are black and latino, meaning that they have less of a shot in a trial all else being equal. We have counties, like in Ferguson, that fund themselves based on arrests which in practice has incentivized arresting poor minorities who can't fight the fine (because they can't fight it, the county is more likely to make money). We have private prisons that can lobby for policies that fill them.

We have 5% of the world population and 25% of the world's prison population. Every other first world nation with lower crime rates arrests a lower percentage of their population than we do.

I could keep going, but suffice to say our justice system is biased against minorities and the poor. Part of our justice system is a police force that is undertrained, has incentives to racially profile, discourages accountability (by making the internal affairs process operate within departments), etc. etc. Obviously there are good policeman, and of course we need a justice system, but the fact is the one that we have is profoundly broken, and unless people acknowledge the real state of our nation's police and justice system, and doesn't privilege police any further in a system that's already biased towards them.

If you actually look at the demands of the actual organizing committee around Ferguson rather than a youtube video cherry-picking a few protestor's responses, you'll see that they aren't calling for the dissolution of the justice system or for Darren Wilson's head.

They are asking for things like "an investigation into police brutality towards and harassment of minorities", body cameras, transparent records, etc. These are things that if you genuinely believe in police officers and the police force, you should support because it will exonerate them. It doesn't make sense to me that you can at once trust the majority of the police and support transparency and accountability.

goatsestretchgoals
Jun 4, 2011

foutre posted:

They are asking for things like "an investigation into police brutality towards and harassment of minorities", body cameras, transparent records, etc. These are things that if you genuinely believe in police officers and the police force, you should support because it will exonerate them. It doesn't make sense to me that you can at once trust the majority of the police and support transparency and accountability.

Police thread has a couple of good counterpoints on 24x7 body cameras: people will be even less likely to talk to the police about crimes they witness, potential for invasion of privacy when police enter a private home, and dickhead supervisors who will review footage in an attempt to write up police for stupid poo poo ("looks like you took 16 minutes on that coffee break, that's a written warning").

I think all these problems are fixable with the right policies, but the body camera issue isn't quite as black and white as I thought it was a month ago.

Nocheez
Sep 5, 2000

Can you spare a little cheddar?
Nap Ghost
I agree with the sentiment of the protestors, that black Americans receive worse treatment by the police than white Americans generally do. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that America still has a huge race problem, and that our political parties and media are happy to fan the flames.

When the Civil Rights Movement was occurring in the 50s and 60s, the leaders tried to use the best examples to rally behind. Case in point, Rosa Parks was just one of a few people who had refused to go to the back of the bus. She was chosen because she was a working-class person, and people were sympathetic to her plight. They chose Rosa over other incidents, such as a pregnant 15-year old girl who would probably not have been as well-received as Rosa.

I mention this because I am not sure that the Mike Brown case was the right one to ignite this cause. While his death is definitely tragic, we do not know for certain that Darren Wilson acted irresponsibly or with undue force. Mike being caught on camera committing a strong-arm robbery definitely hurts his image, and detracts from the impact of his death.

What do you think?

Not a Children
Oct 9, 2012

Don't need a holster if you never stop shooting.

I want to hear what lawyers have to say about the whole situation. Almost everything I hear and see posted about this case from a legal perspective is white noise about what prosecutors/grand juries can, should, and won't do, but if the law was really so simple that the average person could declare that there was misconduct, we wouldn't have law schools.

foutre
Sep 4, 2011

:toot: RIP ZEEZ :toot:
Yeah, I was getting most of my info about what the prosecutor did that was hosed up from a panel of law school profs. However, I should have made it more clear that they weren't sure that he'd actually done anything illegal, just unfair-- especially because it's hard to know exactly how things are meant to work in Missouri grand juries specifically unless you have specialized knowledge, which I guess even they weren't sure of. The impression I got from the talk was that even if the grand jury process in this case did result in an ok result, it set a double standard for police and everyone else (especially minorities) as to what the role of a grand jury was (even Scalia, admittedly a while ago, said that the point of a grand jury wasn't to provide exculpatory evidence).

What they didn't really go into, that I think would be interesting, is how to make it so that the legal processes better line up with what laymen think is just (with exceptions, of course, for when people who don't know much are just totally off, which I guess is where the kicker is).

bitcoin bastard posted:

Police thread has a couple of good counterpoints on 24x7 body cameras: people will be even less likely to talk to the police about crimes they witness, potential for invasion of privacy when police enter a private home, and dickhead supervisors who will review footage in an attempt to write up police for stupid poo poo ("looks like you took 16 minutes on that coffee break, that's a written warning").

I think all these problems are fixable with the right policies, but the body camera issue isn't quite as black and white as I thought it was a month ago.

That's interesting -- I wonder how that would function in terms of right to privacy. Seconding the request for a lawyer.

Nocheez posted:

I mention this because I am not sure that the Mike Brown case was the right one to ignite this cause. While his death is definitely tragic, we do not know for certain that Darren Wilson acted irresponsibly or with undue force. Mike being caught on camera committing a strong-arm robbery definitely hurts his image, and detracts from the impact of his death.

What do you think?

The awkward thing about social movements is that you can't really choose what ignites action. I think that there are certainly a lot of more sympathetic victims to choose from, and it feels like the movement is trying to open up to that. However, I agree that having Mike Brown as the genesis or what have you gives people an in to say "well, this guy was actually not great so therefore all the demands stemming from it are unreasonable" which is really too bad.

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]
I was featured on the radio and online in an article today.

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/challenges-face-project-documenting-protests-ferguson

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

Not a Children posted:

I want to hear what lawyers have to say about the whole situation. Almost everything I hear and see posted about this case from a legal perspective is white noise about what prosecutors/grand juries can, should, and won't do, but if the law was really so simple that the average person could declare that there was misconduct, we wouldn't have law schools.

I know just the person!

ActusRhesus
Sep 18, 2007

"Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Equine Don posted:

I know just the person!

Hi, Equine Don asked me to pop in and help give some lawyer's perspective. Happy to oblige, but rather than go through all the backlog, maybe best to just answer specific questions. Hope this helps.

Not a Children
Oct 9, 2012

Don't need a holster if you never stop shooting.

ActusRhesus posted:

Hi, Equine Don asked me to pop in and help give some lawyer's perspective. Happy to oblige, but rather than go through all the backlog, maybe best to just answer specific questions. Hope this helps.

What's your take on the prosecution in the case? Should he have recused himself, if only to avoid the appearance of the conflict of interest? Do you think that his decision not to do so had anything to do with, or perhaps was a result of underestimation of, the publicity the case was getting?

I've heard a lot of various accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, but none from an actual lawyers, so I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

skipdogg
Nov 29, 2004
Resident SRT-4 Expert

ActusRhesus posted:

Hi, Equine Don asked me to pop in and help give some lawyer's perspective. Happy to oblige, but rather than go through all the backlog, maybe best to just answer specific questions. Hope this helps.

What legal options do the feds have in this case, and what do you see likely happening?

ActusRhesus
Sep 18, 2007

"Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."
First off, I make a few assumptions here...and I certainly have a personal bias. I am a prosecutor. I practice in an extremely violent urban area with a lot of gang activity, and the majority of my cases are homicides. Unfortunately a disproportionate amount of them are black teens shooting other black teens. I don't think most people are "evil" including the prosecutors here, and I think we have to assume that any racism which played a part in Ferguson was subconscious rather than conscious. That said, we also can't ignore the impact that years of failing race relations in that community have had on everyone's perceptions.

Also, my state does not use grand juries, and our prosecutors are not elected officials, they are chosen by an independent commission which includes private attorneys and judges.

skipdogg posted:

What legal options do the feds have in this case, and what do you see likely happening?

So far as criminal charges go, the feds are pretty much limited to a criminal level civil rights case, which is an extremely difficult bar to meet. They would have to prove that Wilson consciously shot Brown *because* he was black. They would have to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. The only civil rights cases that have been successfully prosecuted involved things like someone getting beaten up while the attackers yelled "kill the Jew" or something like that. Frankly, knowing what the bar was, and what many of the facts here were, I think it was extremely irresponsible for the feds to initiate a civil rights investigation (which effectively undermined the state investigation) knowing full well it would probably result in nothing, and then quietly abandon it as Ferguson burns. A more responsible approach would be to announce the federal results in tandem with the state results, to make sure the public knew everything was on the same page, and help an already distrustful community go home thinking that maybe it wasn't the completely wrong result.

This is not to say they shouldn't do anything...again, I think there's a lot here that warrants investigation as far as the climate in Ferguson and systemic issues that have left an entire community willing to believe that a member of law enforcement would execution style murder a black teenager. But then, I also think Holder has been a pretty terrible and dishonest AG.

Not a Children posted:

What's your take on the prosecution in the case? Should he have recused himself, if only to avoid the appearance of the conflict of interest? Do you think that his decision not to do so had anything to do with, or perhaps was a result of underestimation of, the publicity the case was getting?

I've heard a lot of various accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, but none from an actual lawyers, so I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

Misconduct? No. I can't say I've seen anything that looks like deliberate misconduct (and I am very careful to accuse any attorney, defense or prosecutor, or ethics violations unless it's clearly indicated.) But there are certainly some things about the way it was done that make me uncomfortable.

I think first off, that one reason cop cases are hard is that there is a long term working relationship between cops and prosecutors. 99% of the time, they are on the same team. Prosecutors rely on cops to help build their case. Often their case requires cop testimony. I don't think a prosecutor would deliberately tank a cop case as a circle the wagons kind of thing...but look at it this way...if someone you know, and work with, and have relied on in the past, tells you something, you will be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, no? This is not "circling the wagons" it's human nature...we tend to trust those we've built relationships with. And even if he didn't know Wilson personally, Wilson gets the subconscious benefit of all the cops the prosecutor did know.

Add to that his personal story, and there is a major perception issue here. From the get-go, I thought he should recuse. If he were a potential juror in a case like this, he would be struck for cause. The case was going to be a powderkeg and it looked bad. Now, he may have been thinking "I'm the boss, the buck stops with me..." but since he isn't even the one who presented the evidence at all, and he left the whole case to two female DAs, I think he should have recused himself. His staying there completely overshadowed the things they did right, for example the fact the entire investigation was handled by a different police department because of conflicts etc.

I don't think he under-estimated the publicity...he would have to be a complete retard for that to be true...I think it was either arrogance at worst (you can't tell me to step down! even though I'm not even taking the case) or some kind of backfired leadership stance/desire to look strong for the next elections. One reason I hate elected prosecutors and judges.

The three big errors I saw were (1) giving the jury a copy of a statute that has been unconstitutional since 1986 (2) calling a witness (the loony with the racist diary) who had obvious credibility issues, and (3) spiking the football afterwards. Dude...not...helping.

ShadowCatboy
Jan 22, 2006

by FactsAreUseless

Lord Windy posted:

I don't live in America and I actively avoided the subject because it is my opinion that American's have a bad relationship with the police that colours any action they take. Can someone give me a summary of what happened without any spin one way or the other.

EDIT: My natural opinion would be to support the police 100%. I have never had a bad experience with the police and they are generally pretty reasonable even in our own police shows.

You should probably just watch this to get an idea of how black people and police officers all too often interact in the US.

Michael Scott
Jan 3, 2010

by zen death robot
As people who follow this sort of stuff know, that officer was immediately fired, arrested, and charged with felony assault; the trial is still ongoing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sean-groubert-former-south-carolina-trooper-charged-in-shooting/

This is a product of some states utilizing grand juries whereas others just go ahead and charge 'em.

ActusRhesus
Sep 18, 2007

"Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Michael Scott posted:

As people who follow this sort of stuff know, that officer was immediately fired, arrested, and charged with felony assault; the trial is still ongoing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sean-groubert-former-south-carolina-trooper-charged-in-shooting/

This is a product of some states utilizing grand juries whereas others just go ahead and charge 'em.

I can't say I'm a fan of the grand jury. In theory it's supposed to serve as a check on prosecutorial abuses and politically motivated prosecutions.

I see two solutions to this...don't elect prosecutors and don't hire prosecutors who are assholes.

ShadowCatboy
Jan 22, 2006

by FactsAreUseless

Michael Scott posted:

As people who follow this sort of stuff know, that officer was immediately fired, arrested, and charged with felony assault; the trial is still ongoing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sean-groubert-former-south-carolina-trooper-charged-in-shooting/

This is a product of some states utilizing grand juries whereas others just go ahead and charge 'em.

Actually I'd say that the reason the cop was prosecuted so quickly was due to the presence of the dash cam. It's just so obvious the guy was just leaning into his car casually to retrieve his license, and any bullshit on the cop's part that it was some aggressive leap into his truck to possibly retrieve a weapon is bullshit.

Alastor_the_Stylish
Jul 25, 2006

WILL AMOUNT TO NOTHING IN LIFE.

bitcoin bastard posted:

("looks like you took 16 minutes on that coffee break, that's a written warning").

Yeah why should police have to deal with anything that the rest of the labor force is subject to?

Woof Blitzer
Dec 29, 2012

[-]

Alastor_the_Stylish posted:

Yeah why should police have to deal with anything that the rest of the labor force is subject to?

Equine Don posted:

:siren:PLEASE BE CIVIL AND REMEMBER THIS IS NOT DEBATE AND DISCUSSION:siren:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ActusRhesus
Sep 18, 2007

"Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."
I have mixed feelings on the police cam question.

In theory it sounds like a great idea, and I'm sure police would love to have recordings too if it supports their word.

However, we have a huge problem getting people to talk and on-scene interviews are usually the best chance a cop has to get witness cooperation before people start developing selective amnesia. The maxim "snitches get stitches" is very real in some areas. Knowing they were being videotaped might have a chilling effect on witness cooperation.

Also, I would have some concerns about footage being taken out of context to push political agendas, and the fact that the camera can't always capture everything.

See e.g. the "collateral murder" video from wikileaks. To a civilian, looks like people cackling with glee "GET SOME GET SOME!" while gunning down unarmed civilians. The full video shows that the target was actively collecting not just the wounded, but their weapons as well, which makes him a lawful target under the laws of armed conflict. And anyone with insider military knowledge knows that with fully automatic weapon systems, shooters are sometimes taught to say "Get you some" while pressing the trigger to keep consistently timed bursts. Easy phrase to remember under pressure...has right duration for the appropriate burst. And an apache is not usually a patrol vehicle, it's usually called in support...which means something had to have happened prior to the video for them to be there in the first place.

However, if you could put in place policies like "camera must be clearly deactivated before interviewing witnesses, and witnesses must be told that they are not being filmed" and limit public release of the footage or prohibit cutting/editing, then it might be worth looking into.

  • Locked thread