Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, now the chief is backtracking on that (surely that doesn't surprise you, he certainly hasn't been consistent before). I figured he would have to after reading the dispatcher's transcript. <<FERGUSON, Mo.-- The chief of the Ferguson Police Department now says Officer Darren Wilson realized that he might be talking to suspects in a strong-armed robbery when he encountered 18-year-old Michael Brown and his friend, just before the incident in which Wilson fatally shot Brown. Jackson had told reporters Friday afternoon that Wilson stopped Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, because they pair were walking down the street and blocking traffic, but did not know Brown was identified as a suspect in the robbery in which a box of cigars was stolen. Jackson has since told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Wilson saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realized Brown might be the suspect.>> Source: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/chief-officer-might-have-realized-brown-was-robbe/77236/5Q4OigejZEGwyQdK602OcQ">http://www.ozarksfirst.com/sto...dK602OcQ</a> There have been several police shootings of unarmed people in Springfield MO (the closest large city to where I live) this year. Two of the victims were white people with psychiatric problems. In Missouri if you don't immediately comply with a cop's orders you are likely to be shot. That's just the way it is down here... does't make much difference what race you are. I really haven't read any complaints concerning police treatment of Blacks in Springfield. Of course that would be expected in a city where they are only 3.84% of the population. It obviously can't really be compared to the situation in Ferguson.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>In Missouri if you don't immediately comply with a cop's orders you are likely to be shot.<< Land of the free. Thanks for the warning. I'll be sure to stay away from the "Shoot Me State"
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I don't really understand the relevance of whether the cop knew Michael was a robber (I prefer "thug") or not. The fact that he previously behaved like a thug ought to make it a little more believable that he behaved like a thug around the cops, which is never smart but is particularly stupid in a town like that. Did he deserve to be shot based solely on the behavior caught on film? Probably not. But could he have behaved like a violent idiot in front of the cops? Um, watch the video. This guy was clearly a bully that felt the rules didn't apply to him. He could've gotten dangerously aggressive in the wrong situation.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The fact that he previously behaved like a thug ought to make it a little more believable that he behaved like a thug around the cops, which is never smart but is particularly stupid in a town like that.<< That is some epic blaming the victim, right there.
Originally Posted By ecdc Why do we have this double standard that says young black men have to behave *perfectly* before we actually say they didn't maybe have it coming? We would never say this about a white person. Here in Utah, a few years ago a prominent newscasters son was killed by police in an altercation. The son was mentally ill and was aggressive towards police. The outrage against the cops was intense. No one was saying, "Well, he was mental, so..." Last year, a woman was shot to death by cops here in Salt Lake. She was suspected of drug use, and she had a past criminal record. Cops were fired for that one, and an entire police department was upended. No one was saying, "Hey, look at her past record. Look at her behavior." She was white.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Whatever happened to cops tackling, subduing and cuffing an unarmed perp? How is it justified that they can murder any unarmed individual they deem "threatening"? Again, I think that a lot of people just shrug their shoulders thinking "I'm a good guy, that would never happen to me." Yet all it takes is a misunderstanding or maybe the cop just doesn't like you, and you too could be another statistic. IIRC, not too long ago a white guy was shot dead by an overzealous college campus cop during a traffic stop. Apparently the student (who was an honor student about to graduate) showed a little too much attitude and was shot dead. I read another story about an elderly farmer who was pulled over in his pickup truck. A cop shot him while he reached for his walking cane in the truck's bed. The gentleman survived and IIRC the cop was not disciplined. Had he killed the farmer he would have got away with it. I'm white and I'm scared of the cops. I've lectured my kids to never give any lip to cops and to always be "yes sir, no sir" with them and to follow their orders to the letter, because if they do not they are at risk of being shot dead. I remember the days when our media would deride the old Soviet Union for offenses like this. Now we accept it as normal here at home. Land of the free, my butt.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Here in Utah, a few years ago a prominent newscasters son was killed by police in an altercation. The son was mentally ill and was aggressive towards police. The outrage against the cops was intense. No one was saying, "Well, he was mental, so..."<< This is why white people need to wake up. It could be your kids shot dead over a routine traffic stop. And it doesn't matter how good your kid is, if the cops deem your son a daughter "a threat" they are in grave danger.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Last year, a woman was shot to death by cops here in Salt Lake. She was suspected of drug use, and she had a past criminal record. Cops were fired for that one, and an entire police department was upended. No one was saying, "Hey, look at her past record. Look at her behavior."<< It won't be long until cops can kill white people without repercussions. In fact, I'd say it's starting to happen. Don't you just love living in a police state? At least we can still go to Disney and pretend everything is still zippi-do-dah.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Certainly not. The trouble is that they're in a position of power and armed. So if you run into a real d-bag who's a customer service agent, you just kind of have a bad experience. If you run into a real d-bag who's a cop, it can be a lot more serious. I'm a white, middle class guy, and my relatively few encounters with cops have been mostly positive. I have great respect for (most) people who go into the profession. But even I, middle class non-threatening-on-the-small-side white guy, have had a couple of bad experiences. Will recount them if asked, but I think I've already done so on old threads.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Just curious. Is every cop bad now?<< I definitely don't think so. I think most cops are good people who absolutely mean well and want to help others. I think it's an extremely tough, challenging job that is likely underpaid. I also think this is a complex issue that defies easy solution. But I also think the militarization of the police is a serious problem that should be (but probably won't) rolled back. I also think that the challenges of the job probably jade even the most well-meaning, best cops. Dealing with criminals day in and day out has to wear on a person--I know I couldn't do it. But I do think that creates an environment where cops start viewing everyone as a potential threat and everyone as a potential criminal. The use of swat teams for drug busts, the use of deadly force against unarmed suspects, these kinds of things have skyrocketed in recent years. Everyone has their own stories they know about in their own community. Another one from here: a SWAT team broke down the door of the wrong home for a drug bust and killed a guy. The same team in the same city did the same thing a few months later, and nearly killed a guy. The guy--a "good guy with a gun" had a shotgun when he heard them breaking down the door. Even after they realized they had the wrong house, they threatened the man and his family because he had the gun. They told his wife that if her husband hadn't thrown the gun down as fast as he did, they would've wasted him. Having the kind of power and authority cops have creates an entitled attitude that anyone who defies you, challenges that authority, etc., deserves just about anything you can dish out.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No, not all cops are bad. I would say relatively few are. But the increasing militarization of the police is a real problem. We need more cops on the street... walking around getting to truly know the neighborhood. NOT driving through in heavily armed cruisers.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I asked because from reading this thread, a person sure can get the impression that's the group think here. Here in Long Beach there are certain "civic minded" people that are very upset that when budget cuts had to be made, cops were cut. It's an obsession with them. They want more cops, but when cops are out doing their jobs, they can never do the right thing, especially when cops kill someone. All cops who kill someone should be fired. They couldn't possibly have made the right call. But hey, we need more of them. It's a conundrum. Yes, there are bad cops, no doubt. But even the good cops are human, and humans can get scared. And scared humans can often make a quick, sometimes panicked decision out of self preservation. But rarely do I see that being an allowance made. A cop is either a good cop or a bad cop, there's no in between, there's no good cop who made a scared decision. Instead, it's good v. bad, race v. race, etc. It's really sad.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox My BIL has been a police academy/community college law enforcement instructor for decades. He walked a beat years before teaching other cops, so he's been on both sides of the street. While he claims that bad cops have always been around to some degree, he says there are clearly more of them now, especially individuals who only see law enforcement careers as a solid, well-paying jobs with little chance for layoff. These individuals are becoming cops because of the pay and benefits, not because they want to help their communities be safer places to live. As you can imagine, cops who do it for the money are probably no better at their jobs than doctors who do it for the money, like Frank Burns. Becoming a cop simply for the pay and the perks and job security is very bad motivation. You're only going to care about the paycheck, and not the consequences of your actions, especially when working for a department that's good at covering up bad decisions and behavior.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox And speaking of working for police departments covering up bad behavior... <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/doj-robbery-video-michael-brown-ferguson_n_5684654.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...654.html</a> <> The Ferguson Police Department on Friday released a video that allegedly shows Michael Brown robbing a convenience store. Critics lashed out at police, saying that the footage's release was an attempt to disparage Brown's character. CNN revealed on Saturday that the Department of Justice found out about the video earlier this week and asked police not to make it public. According to CNN, the DOJ was worried that the footage would spark more violence in Ferguson. On Friday night, mayhem hit Ferguson as cops sprayed crowds of protesters with tear gas and looters ravaged stores throughout the St. Louis suburb. Police held off releasing the robbery footage on Thursday, but ending up defying DOJ concerns on Friday. The alleged robbery is unconnected to Brown's death, as the officer who shot him didn't know he was a robbery suspect. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told reporters on Friday that he released the video "because the press asked for it," but didn't explain any further. <> So the DOJ asked them not to release the video, for fear of escalating violence. So Ferguson Police released the video yesterday. And more violence erupted last night. Gee... you'd think Ferguson Police actually *wanted* the violence to erupt, in order to distract attention away from their officer who murdered an unarmed teen. The Chief of Police needs to be fired and possibly serve some jail time for sedition. He should be working with the DOJ, not against them.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox The motivation behind law enforcement behavior should always be suspect. Always. Just assuming that the police always behave ethically, morally, and in the best interests of the communities they supposedly serve is very short-sighted in this day and age. Case in point: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/15/baltimore-man-charged-with-robbery-despite-being-in-jail-at-time-of-the-crime-prosecutor-still-insists-on-trial-and-judge-agrees/">http://jonathanturley.org/2014...-agrees/</a> <> One can certainly understand Tyree Threatt, 21, being confused. He was charged after a victim picked out his photo as the man who robbed her. However, the robbery occurred while Threatt was in jail on another robbery charge. Now here is the bizarre twist. Nicholas Cooksley, his public defender, showed the court the record proving that it was impossible for Threatt to have committed the crime. Indeed, what could be a better alibi than being in jail? Well, it was not good enough for the prosecutor who refused to drop the charge and insisted on a trial. Even more bizarre was the judge who agreed that a trial would be needed. The charges were only dropped after the media pressed the police, which eventually dropped the charges. The case demonstrates, yet again, that witnesses are often mistaken despite the heavy reliance on such testimony by many jurors. A detective spotted Threatt in the area of the crime as someone who matched the victim’s description. He was arrested on armed robbery and using a firearm in a violent crime. Both charges carry a maximum 20-year prison sentence. However, the real story is the initial position of the prosecutors and the ruling of the court. Exactly what is the trial supposed to show. Could a jury decide that Threatt could have been both in custody and miles away at the same time? On June 27th (the day of the robbery), Threatt was being held on charges of second-degree assault and false imprisonment. While charges were dropped that day, Threatt was not released until June 28th. There is no discussion of how the detective could have missed this obvious problem or any discussion of the position of prosecutor who was informed of the problem. Indeed, there is no mention of any investigation, let alone discipline, for the detective or the prosecutor for such negligence. There is also no mention of the name of the judge who agreed that a trial is warranted when the accused was locked away at the time of the crime. <> My jaw was on the keyboard as I read this story (article sourced Baltimore Sun). WTF is wrong with our legal system today? What's happening in Ferguson goes waaay beyond the pale. But crap like this? Wanting someone with an airtight alibi like being in jail to stand trial for a crime he obviously did not commit? Our country is seriously screwed up. We've become a militarized police state a la Soviet Russia where truth is tossed under the bus along with basic civil rights. And I fear it's only going to get worse.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The Ferguson police chief has never said WHO in the press asked for that footage to be released. He said there was a "crush" of press asking for it, so surely he'd have been able to name at least one outlet. But he didn't. And various journalists this weekend, including from some of the biggest and most well-connected journalistic organs out there, have said they didn't even know such a video existed. Why would they? Why would they even know a convenience store had been robbed? Everyone I've heard has said it was news to them that such a video even existed and that neither they nor anyone they knew had asked for it to be released. Now perhaps some press outlet heard the store was robbed, made a leap that maybe Brown was on it, and asked for it to be released. But no one in the press AFAIK has said it was them who did so, and the police chief refuses to say who it was. Which makes me wonder if anyone actually did, or it the Ferguson PD released it for entirely other reasons than the one given.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The chief was in kind of a damned if he did and damned if he didn't situation. Already some in town questioned why he withheld it for five days instead of releasing it immediately. It would have eventually come out anyway and it would have looked like the police were trying to hide something. Personally, for the sake of public peace I tend to think I would have chosen to be damned if I didn't and continued to withhold it. But I guess you never know what you will do for sure until you are in the situation.
