How does vandalism and looting accomplish anything???

[sunshinehighway]

I don't think they had a choice on the video, I think it was a freedom of information request from the media. I do wonder if the law influenced when it was released though, if it was purely a police choice with no legal reason I agree it was a bad decision.

I also agree the police tone was wrong. I think a big police presence was necessary but they took such a confrontational stance I think it just escalated the tension.

I think the whole freedom of information act excuse was bull. How could the media request a video they didn't know existed?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I wouldn't have left a dead body uncovered in the middle of the street for hours during the day. I wouldn't have shown up to a protest (before there was any violence) and set snarling, barking dogs at the front of the line. I wouldn't have gone against the recommendations of other law enforcement, including the DOJ to release a video which would likely just flare the flames which were dying down. I certainly wouldn't have officers shoving, tear gassing, arresting and threatening to shoot reporters.

Of large crowds gather, you would not expect police presence?

Typically of permitted events is the need to hire police on hand either due to permitting requirements or sheer common sense when a large crowd of people is gathered on one place.

I missed where freedom to assemble told is that police officers can never be present for peaceful protests.

If it was peaceful, what would drive their K -9's to bark? I have seen K-9's in crowds that are peaceful. They don't bark unless there is a reason.

You are constantly mentioning things you would not do. Are you in law enforcement by chance?

 

[livie1205]

Again, think from the other side. Of course they did not leave him there just to show off, there ARE things that have to be done before touching the body to preserve the crime . When those things get done they cover them and on from there. Just because we dont understand what they are doing and how does not make it wrong . They have guidlines for everything they do. Give it time and I am sure more answers will come out.this is not CSI where things get done in a hour long show its real... Very real.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think the whole freedom of information act excuse was bull. How could the media request a video they didn't know existed?

1. Journalist and television and radio media most often have police scanners. They can hear when stuff happens and send reporters accordingly. How else do you think a reporter just magically showed up at the scene of a crime, accident, fire, etc. Because they monitor activity in addition to checking their tipsters at various agencies.

2. The alleged robbery was disclosed prior to this video release.

3. Convenience stores have surveillance cameras.

4. If you know that a store has a claim of robbery and you know a store has cameras then you know there is a video and that police have it as evidence and you know to ask for it. This is not difficult to figure out.

5. You may think FOI is bull--but laws exist and it is against the law to withhold information unless there is a compelling legal reason to not do so. (I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs of blocking information.) Getting sued by journalists who may just win is a waste of money and time. (And the public would wonder what are trying to hide.)

6. Media knows way more than you think they do. It is their whole reason for being.

 

[Viva Las Disney]

I think the whole freedom of information act excuse was bull. How could the media request a video they didn't know existed?

The articles I've read say the ACLU used the sunshine law to request the incident report and the officers name. They may not have known about the video but if it was part of the incident report the police legally had to release it. The question is whether or not the robbery was part of that incident report or a separate incident.

Missouri's Sunshine Law specifies that requests for information be acted on as soon as possible, but "no later than the end of the third business day following the date the request is received."

The request was issued on Tuesday so IF it was part of the incident report they would have been breaking the law not to release it on Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/michael-brown-shooting_n_5675660.html

 

[sunshinehighway]

Of large crowds gather, you would not expect police presence?

Typically of permitted events is the need to hire police on hand either due to permitting requirements or sheer common sense when a large crowd of people is gathered on one place.

I missed where freedom to assemble told is that police officers can never be present for peaceful protests.

If it was peaceful, what would drive their K -9's to bark? I have seen K-9's in crowds that are peaceful. They don't bark unless there is a reason.

You are constantly mentioning things you would not do. Are you in law enforcement by chance?

I am only mentioning things I would not have done as a response to a poster who asked me how I would have handled it.

I don't know why the dogs were barking and such but that has been widely reported and criticized.
Of course there should be a police presence at a gathering with a large crowd like that.

To be honest, I'm over this thread. It was interesting but I'm bored with replying to a specific post (which i quote) and having other posters come at my responses like I just posted something random out of left field.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I am only mentioning things I would not have done as a response to a poster who asked me how I would have handled it.

I don't know why the dogs were barking and such but that has been widely reported and criticized.
Of course there should be a police presence at a gathering with a large crowd like that.

So it doesn't make sense you think there should be police presence for large crowd, but you would not have put them there.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The articles I've read say the ACLU used the sunshine law to request the incident report and the officers name. They may not have known about the video but if it was part of the incident report the police legally had to release it. The question is whether or not the robbery was part of that incident report or a separate incident.

Missouri's Sunshine Law specifies that requests for information be acted on as soon as possible, but "no later than the end of the third business day following the date the request is received."

The request was issued on Tuesday so IF it was part of the incident report they would have been breaking the law not to release it on Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/michael-brown-shooting_n_5675660.html

It is possible that even if it wasn't in that report but listed in a separate report by whomever filled out the incident report, it would not have been too difficult for journalists to track it down and put two and two together and still follows the same request timeline. Or does that sound farfetched?

 

[Viva Las Disney]

It is possible that even if it wasn't in that report but listed in a separate report by whomever filled out the incident report, it would not have been too difficult for journalists to track it down and put two and two together and still follows the same request timeline. Or does that sound farfetched?

I don't know, I re-watched the police conference and it's not clear, the Chief says he's had a lot of sunshine requests for information and documents before the conference but doesn't specify if the robbery info was one of the requests. Officer Wilson had left the call he was on to go to the robbery call when he ran across Michael Brown walking in the street though so it could be part of the incident report.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XJ1Kh1CTB8

 

[CPT Tripss]

The only issue with the protests is they don't know what happened, but they've decided they do know.

It's not really fair to protest in favor of "justice for Brown", because for all we know, justice may have already been served.


If they want to March for racial harmony, or to ask for a full investigstion, that's fine. But calling for murder charges or death to Wilson, I cannot support - no matter how peacefully they make this message.

Still, that is different from rioting & looting. The protesting may on occasion be counter-productive. But what it isn't is criminal. And that's a big distinction, obviously.

Really? I can accept that you might think that such a shooting would be legal. But serving justice? No way . . . There was absolutely no due process!

Early on I'd bet a lot of people thought the protests and riots were the same. I'd still bet that their are more then a few crossovers between the two groups. But I don't think it's the same people organizing both, however if I was in charge of organizing the protests which has (either directly or indirectly) set off looting and rioting, I'd probably stop my organized protests because even if it's indirectly it is causing harm to others.

So you, as a leader of a group that feels wronged and wants peacefully assemble and present their grievances, would allow the people who are committing the violence to prevail? Even if you did just go home, the bad apples would not. What message would that send?

 

[CPT Tripss]

1. Journalist and television and radio media most often have police scanners. They can hear when stuff happens and send reporters accordingly. How else do you think a reporter just magically showed up at the scene of a crime, accident, fire, etc. Because they monitor activity in addition to checking their tipsters at various agencies.

2. The alleged robbery was disclosed prior to this video release.

3. Convenience stores have surveillance cameras.

4. If you know that a store has a claim of robbery and you know a store has cameras then you know there is a video and that police have it as evidence and you know to ask for it. This is not difficult to figure out.

5. You may think FOI is bull--but laws exist and it is against the law to withhold information unless there is a compelling legal reason to not do so. (I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs of blocking information.) Getting sued by journalists who may just win is a waste of money and time. (And the public would wonder what are trying to hide.)

6. Media knows way more than you think they do. It is their whole reason for being.

The police released the convenience store tape because they felt it served their interest at the time. Using a FOI request as the reason for the release was convenient bs.

Police departments and other government entities routinely throw roadblocks in the face of FOI requests. They stonewall when they believe it's in their interest and force the requester into court. The also release heavily redacted documents that would have hidden the video in question.

 

[Disneychick75]

Perhaps if they had shown more respect for the community from the beginning they wouldn't have been in that position. If they hasn't fanned the flame when things had started to get under control, things likely would have quieted down sooner.

On the other hand, we have Al and Jesse who tend to get people excited.

What is typical protocol for a police shooting resulting in death of the person shot by police?

1. Cover body? (Do they carry something in squad cars for this purpose?)
2. Move body? (Who moves it? How long is reasonable for the coroner to snow up?)
3. If body is moved at what point can it be? (Right away? Or after pertinent photos and measurements and whatever else crime scene investigators do to assess a scene?)

I ask for this reason--

What was a REASONABLE expectation given standard protocol in a police shooting compared to say a situation where they discover a homocide and have to process the scene.

Was this intentional disrespect? Or expected because that is how it happens.

I did see photos of Mike Brown's body being covered--or so I thought--at some point.

Who knows how many coroner's vans there are? Brown was probably not the only person to die and the van may have been needed elsewhere. I would bet too that since this was a police officer involved shooting, that the FPD were being extra cautious to process the scene and then recheck it.

Again, think from the other side. Of course they did not leave him there just to show off, there ARE things that have to be done before touching the body to preserve the crime . When those things get done they cover them and on from there. Just because we dont understand what they are doing and how does not make it wrong . They have guidlines for everything they do. Give it time and I am sure more answers will come out.this is not CSI where things get done in a hour long show its real... Very real.

Lose/lose situation
If they had left in an hour, some people would be ticked off because the police left too quickly.

Really? I can accept that you might think that such a shooting would be legal. But serving justice? No way . . . There was absolutely no due process!
So you, as a leader of a group that feels wronged and wants peacefully assemble and present their grievances, would allow the people who are committing the violence to prevail? Even if you did just go home, the bad apples would not. What message would that send?

Self defense is legal.

The police released the convenience store tape because they felt it served their interest at the time. Using a FOI request as the reason for the release was convenient bs.

Police departments and other government entities routinely throw roadblocks in the face of FOI requests. They stonewall when they believe it's in their interest and force the requester into court. The also release heavily redacted documents that would have hidden the video in question.

It was probably little of both. Requests for information once word got out that Brown was a robbery suspect and the police were going to release Wilson's name. two birds, one stone

I don't know, I re-watched the police conference and it's not clear, the Chief says he's had a lot of sunshine requests for information and documents before the conference but doesn't specify if the robbery info was one of the requests. Officer Wilson had left the call he was on to go to the robbery call when he ran across Michael Brown walking in the street though so it could be part of the incident report.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XJ1Kh1CTB8

The Ferguson Police Dept addresses all media organizations and others requesting ....:
This is a copy of the the police report released on August 15th:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/15/ferguson-police-report.pdf

 

[Disneychick75]

Nevermind, thought I was editing my previous post.

 

[livie1205]

GOOD READ: found while reading news:

“He shot an unarmed man!”

“He wasn’t armed! Police had no reason to shoot him!”

How often have we heard those screams from an angry community? Trayvon Martin may be the first to come mind but it happens more often than most people think. Kansas City firefighter Anthony Bruno, unarmed and drunk, was shot and killed by an off duty police officer. And, of course, the most recent case of Michael Brown in St. Louis, Missouri.

The problem with the public outcry and the rioting in pursuit of “JUSTICE” is that most people know exactly nothing about physical combat and life threatening situations. They assume that if a person is unarmed that deadly force cannot and should not be employed. And they are wrong.

Have you seen the viral videos of “the knockout game?” Many of those videos involve one solid blow to the head that results in an unconscious victim. There is laughing and yelling and everyone runs away. Well, what if they didn’t want to stop there? What if the attacker decided that he would just kill someone today? He now has an unconscious, helpless victim to beat to death.

Take the case of Michael Fobbs as an example. He walked up to a man sitting on a bench and simply started hitting him repeatedly until the man was dead at an Amtrak station in Texas. Would that victim have been authorized the use of deadly force? Fobbs was unarmed.



Bear in mind that more people were beaten to death with hands and feet than were killed by so-called assault rifles in 2012. Those victims were not allowed to use deadly force simply because their attacker did not have a weapon? I think not. Laws on self defense seldom mention the use of a weapon. They are based on a reasonable fear that your life is in jeopardy, not the presence of a weapon in the hands of your attacker.

You may have missed the television programs on the science of fighting. In that series, Randy Couture was studied. In his well-known “ground and pound” method of dispatching an opponent, Couture was able to generate over 2,000 pounds of force in his downward blows to an opponent’s head. That’s the equivalent of dropping a car on your face. Trained fighters seldom take the full force of those blows because they are moving and defending with their own arms and hands but what if the victim was not a trained fighter? Couture, and any other trained fighter, could kill you with just a couple of blows to the head.

The rise in popularity of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and MMA style sports has also added new weapons to the attacker’s hands only arsenal. Have you ever been choked out? In MMA sports, the defender can “tap out” or the referee can end the fight and pull the attacker off of you. In the real world, you will be choked until you die. That’s a real fight.

So, if your attacker is unarmed and gets you in a choke, is that it? You’re just going to let yourself die because you won’t use lethal force against an unarmed opponent? How about if you are on your back being hammered in the face and you are moments away from losing consciousness and eventual death? Just going to accept your fate? I seriously doubt that.

I’m not. If I’m armed, I’m going to kill you. Dead.

If a cop walks up to someone out of the blue, draws his pistol, and shoots them dead in the street, that’s one thing. But, shooting an unarmed assailant during a fight in the street is another. You do not know the intentions of the attacker and cannot allow yourself to be overpowered or knocked unconscious. You will only be another statistic.

You also have no idea if your attacker IS armed and they just haven’t used their weapon yet. You can’t wait until you are unable to defend yourself to find out. I suspect most of you reading this would not. So, why are we judging a police officer who makes the same decision you would make under the same circumstances?

Get a reality check, folks.

Ross

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Really? I can accept that you might think that such a shooting would be legal. But serving justice? No way . . . There was absolutely no due process!



So you, as a leader of a group that feels wronged and wants peacefully assemble and present their grievances, would allow the people who are committing the violence to prevail? Even if you did just go home, the bad apples would not. What message would that send?

If my so called "peacefull" protests where being use as an excuse or to hide in plain sight by those wanting to loot and riot. Yes I would stop, if my intention was to Peacefully Protest, I might start protesting during the day instead of at night.
As Gumbo said how can you protest the lack of justice, for all we know it might have already been served or if you believe Wilson was wrong in shooting, it takes time to investigate.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Really? I can accept that you might think that such a shooting would be legal. But serving justice? No way . . . There was absolutely no due process!

Due process simply isn't an option 100% of the time. Sometimes it's kill or be killed. And if that's the case here, then justice was served. That's why they call it "justifiable homicide".

If Wilson denied Brown his due process, that is one thing. If Brown denied it to himself because of his own actions, that's another.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

As Gumbo said how can you protest the lack of justice, for all we know it might have already been served or if you believe Wilson was wrong in shooting, it takes time to investigate.

And Wilson is currently the one who is owed due process.

 

[livie1205]

Excuse you? I dont know WHERE the link is, i saw this article on another persons Fb/ news site feed and copy & pasted it... I know care two flips where it was just the fact I read it and it is true either way, PERIOD. No you do not need a weapon to kill someone and THAT is what is it speaking of. Those little whistle faces are not doing anything..

 

[TLSnell1981]

Almost seems like the old days.

 

[livie1205]

Again, what does it matter where it came from? Got it through another outlet and did not post a link to a " bad website" so what is your argument? Really? What is it that your complaining about ? because I am not clear .. Is it that I posted something that does not fit with your views? I think its pretty telling that you felt the need to "track it down" its a very clear point, not even taking sides but reminding people that someone does not have to have a weapon to kill you.
While your keeping my posts in your memory bank I will make it clear ....
- im a Republican
- pro life
- do not believe in welfare ( unless strictly controlled)
- I like G.W. Bush
- oh heck, I like all the Bush's!