Thread: The recent Ferguson Missouri shooting and robbery

This is the store surveillance camera images of the robbery suspect police say is Michael Brown. I'm not familiar with these types of images. Can anyone explain why the photos in this link seem to be cropped, and why the person's face seems to be obscured with gray disks in some shots?

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/345716...5-562-65-0.png

Also, can someone offer any ideas why the police didn't immediately publicize, even without the images, that the officer was responding to this robbery instead of allowing the protests to continue for days?

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

This is the store surveillance camera images of the robbery suspect police say is Michael Brown. I'm not familiar with these types of images. Can anyone explain why the photos in this link seem to be cropped, and why the person's face seems to be obscured with gray disks in some shots?

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/345716...5-562-65-0.png

Also, can someone offer any ideas why the police didn't immediately publicize, even without the images, that the officer was responding to this robbery instead of allowing the protests to continue for days?

You can't be the police, judge, jury and executioner all in one. If they shot him because of the prior robbery that makes them even more corrupt.

What's weird is, I used to live in Ferguson, Missouri....When we first moved to St. Louis in 1977, we had an apt. there for a couple of years. I was pretty much the only white kid in the complex. but, hey, life lessons learned.

Edit: Our next door neighbor at the time was a Nigerian family. The father was a medical doctor, and the wife was a nurse. They had two boys, one my age, and one 4 years younger. Tunde...the younger of the two has stayed in touch with my Mom all these years...and still comes to dinner occasionally with his wife when he's in town.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You can't be the police, judge, jury and executioner all in one. If they shot him because of the prior robbery that makes them even more corrupt.

That's a big IF, isn't it? Why not wait until some facts are in?

The officer didn't know the boy robbed anyone.

Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer did not know the teen was a robbery suspect at the time of the shooting and stopped Michael Brown and a companion "because they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic."
Photos: Protests over Missouri teen's death
Related: Officer's name begins to lift weeklong mystery
Related: Missouri protests call attention to police 'militarization'
Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white officer, has patrolled suburban St. Louis for six years and had no complaints filed against him, Jackson said.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You can't be the police, judge, jury and executioner all in one. If they shot him because of the prior robbery that makes them even more corrupt.

That's a big IF, isn't it? Why not wait until some facts are in?

It's a fair statement. People are using this to defend the cops actions. It is entirely reasonable to point out that this is a nonsense defense, because event if the tape is real, it does nothing to minimize the officer's actions. Bob isn't making the claim that the cop did or didn't shoot the kid based on priors. He's simply saying that the truth nor falsehood of this video can in no way exonerates the cop. And I agree with him. Unless there's major pieces of evidence yet to come to light that indicate any shred of the cop's story isn't complete bullocks, I hope this cop never gets out from behind bars.

But unfortunately, he's unlikely to get more than fired. Past evidence has shown that cops can, on video, beat a homeless person to death who surrendered after the second or third punch. He can lock a prisoner in a box of hot water and leave them there, ignoring his screams for mercy, until his skin literally melts off and avoid jail time. He can get drunk and go into a park filled with homeless people and start destroying all their possessions and tear apart their tents because he thinks it's funny and get a suspension. He can punch somebody for insulting him and get a reprimand where someone doing the same to him can go to prison. Thomas Jackson is just another waste of air, another drop in the bucket of scumbag fascists that have infiltrated our police system. I wouldn't blame cops as a whole, except they protect these people instead of trying to out them. Making the whole law enforcement system culpable for these atrocities.

It's like a church. If a member, say, molests a child and is immediately turned over to the authorities with full cooperation from the church? They should be more careful in the future, but I don't find them culpable. If they protect the criminal? They are all culpable.

Also, to the OP, we can't judge why they did or didn't do anything because this police department is insane. They staged an armed rebellion, a coup of the local government. This was an armed coup by every definition. These cops were not lead by a sane individual, and it is likely a number of them aren't sane themselves. There's no indication this Thomas guy is sane.

Sure, we can wait for more evidence. But there's more than enough to condemn the Ferguson police department and this officer. Exonerating or condemning evidence will serve to clarify the level of guilt the authorities have, not if they are guilty. They clearly are.

Looks like the lynch mob is out in force.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Looks like the lynch mob is out in force.

Do you have actual arguments? I think it's perfectly reasonable for a citizenry to be fed up with a system where police officers have zero accountability. That system leads to stuff like this. That the Ferguson police department literally staged an armed coup gives me even less trust to their judgement, (the police or military taking control of a town and stepping into the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches, trying to black-out the media, illegally cordoning off areas without following the legal process, etc. etc. is the definition of a coup. So many things were done by the police department of Ferguson that are absolutely illegal without allowance from the other branches. That's how the system works.) Going back the the initial shooting, everything we know about the incident indicates that the officer was at fault. How much at fault is yet to be seen. What's your disagreement here? Are we supposed to wait until the conclusion of the trial for every single crime that is ever committed to form any kind of an opinion?

Not to mention that the Ferguson PD is historically racist.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Looks like the lynch mob is out in force.

Do you have actual arguments? I think it's perfectly reasonable for a citizenry to be fed up with a system where police officers have zero accountability. That system leads to stuff like this. That the Ferguson police department literally staged an armed coup gives me even less trust to their judgement, (the police or military taking control of a town and stepping into the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches, trying to black-out the media, illegally cordoning off areas without following the legal process, etc. etc. is the definition of a coup. So many things were done by the police department of Ferguson that are absolutely illegal without allowance from the other branches. That's how the system works.) Going back the the initial shooting, everything we know about the incident indicates that the officer was at fault. How much at fault is yet to be seen. What's your disagreement here? Are we supposed to wait until the conclusion of the trial for every single crime that is ever committed to form any kind of an opinion?

What facts do you base all of this on?

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Looks like the lynch mob is out in force.

Do you have actual arguments? I think it's perfectly reasonable for a citizenry to be fed up with a system where police officers have zero accountability. That system leads to stuff like this. That the Ferguson police department literally staged an armed coup gives me even less trust to their judgement, (the police or military taking control of a town and stepping into the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches, trying to black-out the media, illegally cordoning off areas without following the legal process, etc. etc. is the definition of a coup. So many things were done by the police department of Ferguson that are absolutely illegal without allowance from the other branches. That's how the system works.) Going back the the initial shooting, everything we know about the incident indicates that the officer was at fault. How much at fault is yet to be seen. What's your disagreement here? Are we supposed to wait until the conclusion of the trial for every single crime that is ever committed to form any kind of an opinion?

Not to mention that the Ferguson PD is historically racist.

If the victim put his hands up in surrender but kept walking forward maybe there is a level of threat that justifies a shooting. All I've heard on the reports was that he had his hands up, showing he was unarmed, but did he stop advancing on the officer?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Looks like the lynch mob is out in force.

Do you have actual arguments? I think it's perfectly reasonable for a citizenry to be fed up with a system where police officers have zero accountability. That system leads to stuff like this. That the Ferguson police department literally staged an armed coup gives me even less trust to their judgement, (the police or military taking control of a town and stepping into the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches, trying to black-out the media, illegally cordoning off areas without following the legal process, etc. etc. is the definition of a coup. So many things were done by the police department of Ferguson that are absolutely illegal without allowance from the other branches. That's how the system works.) Going back the the initial shooting, everything we know about the incident indicates that the officer was at fault. How much at fault is yet to be seen. What's your disagreement here? Are we supposed to wait until the conclusion of the trial for every single crime that is ever committed to form any kind of an opinion?

What facts do you base all of this on?

Which part? Do you want the numbers for traffic stops/percentage of white cops in a predominately black community?

Or that evidence indicates that the officer at the very least did not follow the proper procedures before disarming his weapon and almost certainly lied about the incident to cover himself, and at the most might have straight up murdered a kid for hitting him then running away?

Or the overwhelming evidence that the police department took actions that the law says they need approval from the state before doing?

... the video doesn't justify the cop's action .. .
... the cop didn't know that the kid may have robbed the store ...
NEW
... the kid's family says that it looks like him in the video ...

So, the video does nothing to justify the cop; HOWEVER, if the kid did rob the store, the kid knew it, and so, how would he react to a cop who probably intended to take him to the station?

But I see a couple problems with the theory that the kid robbed the store:

• Why didn't the police say this from the beginning (or at least in the first 24 hours)?
• The police say that the kid's friend was his accomplice, but I haven't heard that the police seek his arrest?

ANYWAY, no one has answered my original questions: Why do the stills from the store security video look doctored?

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

... the video doesn't justify the cop's action .. .
... the cop didn't know that the kid may have robbed the store ...
NEW
... the kid's family says that it looks like him in the video ...

So, the video does nothing to justify the cop; HOWEVER, if the kid did rob the store, the kid knew it, and so, how would he react to a cop that probably intended to take him to the station?

But I see a couple problems with the theory that the kid robbed the store:

• Why didn't the police say this from the beginning (or at least in the first 24 hours)?
• The police say that the kid's friend was his accomplice, but I haven't heard that the police seek his arrest?

ANYWAY, no one has answered my original questions: Why do the stills from the store security video look doctored?

To be fair, security camera footage is of notoriously bad quality.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

... the video doesn't justify the cop's action .. .
... the cop didn't know that the kid may have robbed the store ...
NEW
... the kid's family says that it looks like him in the video ...

So, the video does nothing to justify the cop; HOWEVER, if the kid did rob the store, the kid knew it, and so, how would he react to a cop who probably intended to take him to the station?

But I see a couple problems with the theory that the kid robbed the store:

• Why didn't the police say this from the beginning (or at least in the first 24 hours)?
• The police say that the kid's friend was his accomplice, but I haven't heard that the police seek his arrest?

ANYWAY, no one has answered my original questions: Why do the stills from the store security video look doctored?

In NZ they would blank faces for otherwise it could influence witnesses to make a false identification.

I am utterly aghast to understand how the Ferguson police seemingly fail to understand that the protesters want justice for what they see as the murder of the kid, and that anything else simply won't do.

They don't want to hear that:

• the cop is a six-year veteran with no complaints, because guess what, he's got one now — it's a big one, and it's called murder.
• the kid was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery. The cops should know that "clairvoyance" is not an excuse — that is, clairvoyance means that, even though the cop didn't know, it turned out to [somewhat] justified the use of deadly force.

They want to hear that:

• the cops botched the initial phase by not requesting/sending an ambulance to the scene.
• the cop has surrendered his police firearm, at least for now.
• the cop is not patrolling the streets, at least for now.
• the cop is not allowed in Ferguson (in fact, he lives 18 miles away), at least for his own safety.
• the authorities are considering charges against him, otherwise what're all these investigations about? Only to confirm the blind assumption that he's completely innocent??

And they want to hear that the riot cop who said, "Bring it, you f—ing animals, bring it!" has likewise surrendered his firearm, is not allowed in Ferguson, and that the authorities are considering charges against him too (such as inciting a riot).

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I am utterly aghast to understand how the Ferguson police seemingly fail to understand that the protesters want justice for what they see as the murder of the kid, and that anything else simply won't do.

They don't want to hear that:

• the cop is a six-year veteran with no complaints, because guess what, he's got one now — it's a big one, and it's called murder.
• the kid was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery. The cops should know that "clairvoyance" is not an excuse — that is, clairvoyance means that, even though the cop didn't know, it turned out to [somewhat] justified the use of deadly force.

They want to hear that:

• the cops botched the initial phase by not requesting/sending an ambulance to the scene.
• the cop has surrendered his police firearm, at least for now.
• the cop is not patrolling the streets, at least for now.
• the cop is not allowed in Ferguson (in fact, he lives 18 miles away), at least for his own safety.
• the authorities are considering charges against him, otherwise what're all these investigations about? Only to confirm the blind assumption that he's completely innocent??

And they want to hear that the riot cop who said, "Bring it, you f—ing animals, bring it!" has likewise surrendered his firearm, is not allowed in Ferguson, and that the authorities are considering charges against him too (such as inciting a riot).

The populace shouldn't resort to looting as some sort of right.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I am utterly aghast to understand how the Ferguson police seemingly fail to understand that the protesters want justice for what they see as the murder of the kid, and that anything else simply won't do.

They don't want to hear that:

• the cop is a six-year veteran with no complaints, because guess what, he's got one now — it's a big one, and it's called murder.
• the kid was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery. The cops should know that "clairvoyance" is not an excuse — that is, clairvoyance means that, even though the cop didn't know, it turned out to [somewhat] justified the use of deadly force.

They want to hear that:

• the cops botched the initial phase by not requesting/sending an ambulance to the scene.
• the cop has surrendered his police firearm, at least for now.
• the cop is not patrolling the streets, at least for now.
• the cop is not allowed in Ferguson (in fact, he lives 18 miles away), at least for his own safety.
• the authorities are considering charges against him, otherwise what're all these investigations about? Only to confirm the blind assumption that he's completely innocent??

And they want to hear that the riot cop who said, "Bring it, you f—ing animals, bring it!" has likewise surrendered his firearm, is not allowed in Ferguson, and that the authorities are considering charges against him too (such as inciting a riot).

The populace shouldn't resort to looting as some sort of right.

Was that a claim he made?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I am utterly aghast to understand how the Ferguson police seemingly fail to understand that the protesters want justice for what they see as the murder of the kid, and that anything else simply won't do.

The populace shouldn't resort to looting as some sort of right.

Agreed. But that has little to do with his statement.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I am utterly aghast to understand how the Ferguson police seemingly fail to understand that the protesters want justice for what they see as the murder of the kid, and that anything else simply won't do.

The populace shouldn't resort to looting as some sort of right.

Agreed. But that has little to do with his statement.

They were wanting a list of ideals but then a group of them will turn it into an opportunity to steal and loot. I struggle to see how you can deliver those ideals when they persist in the looting. That is why I feel the posts are linked and I didn't think it necessary to explain it.

I think the looting results from some black protesters feeling oppressed by white authorities, which the recent killing inflamed.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I think the looting results from some black protesters feeling oppressed by white authorities, which the recent killing inflamed.

Of course, that still doesn't justify stealing from other citizens who are likely equally marginalized.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I think the looting results from some black protesters feeling oppressed by white authorities, which the recent killing inflamed.

It doesn't look like that to me. They are taking the opportunity while the police are on the backfoot.

Chaos broke out in the streets of Ferguson on Friday night, the same day that police announced the name of the officer who killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown and released footage appearing to show Brown stealing cigarettes from a convenience store. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson later said Friday the initial contact between Brown and officer Darren Wilson was not related to a convenience store robbery.

A peaceful protest on Friday night turned into another confrontation with police after some in the crowd reportedly threw rocks and people began looting stores, including the convenience store that Brown was accused of robbing. Police formed lines and fired tear gas to disperse the crowd.

In the midst of it all, protesters took it upon themselves to guard stores against looting.

source

What's sad is that they loot their own black owned stores and don't care at all.

The Department of Justice urged Ferguson police not to release surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a store shortly before he was shot and killed by police, arguing the footage would further inflame tensions in the St. Louis suburb that saw rioting and civil unrest in the wake of the teenager’s death.

But on Friday, police released the video that stoked outrage in Ferguson, with Brown’s family calling it “character assassination” and a smear campaign. A law enforcement source told NBC News that Ferguson police wanted to release the video Thursday, but the Department of Justice convinced them to withhold the footage over fears it would spark further unrest.

Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson released the video Friday, telling reporters that he had no choice because the media requested the release under the Freedom of Information Act. The Department of Justice, which is conducting its own investigation into Brown’s Aug. 9 death, has had a copy of the footage all along and never considered releasing it to the public, the source said. Early Saturday, a lull in the violence which has rocked the town of about 21,000 people was shattered when more stores were looted and tear gas was once again used to disperse crowds.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said his office was unaware that a surveillance video allegedly showing Michael Brown stealing cigars before being shot and killed by a police officer would be released by local police — and he "deeply" disagreed with the decision to make the video public.

The release of the footage purportedly showing Michael Brown getting into a confrontation inside a convenience store "put the community, and quite frankly, the nation on alert again," Nixon said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

source

Of course, the media might have been told about the existence of the video. I don't know exactly how the FOIA works. Can it take the form of give us everything you have about something, or must it be specific. The police refused to even identify the officer, so had the media made an FOIA request about the officer, and the police refused?

I'm thinking that some law enforcement entity eventually needs to arrest the officer who shot/killed Brown. The last of the two shots longitudinally to the head were very serious. By "longitudinally", I mean along the long axis of his body. The first went in his eye, exited his jaw, and re-entered his shoulder. The last one entered the top of his head and killed him.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I'm thinking that some law enforcement entity eventually needs to arrest the officer who shot/killed Brown. The last of the two shots longitudinally to the head were very serious. By "longitudinally", I mean along the long axis of his body. The first went in his eye, exited his jaw, and re-entered his shoulder. The last one entered the top of his head and killed him.

Of course the wounds were serious. He's dead. But what specifically about the autopsy leads you to the conclusion that the officer should be arrested?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

I'm thinking that some law enforcement entity eventually needs to arrest the officer who shot/killed Brown. The last of the two shots longitudinally to the head were very serious. By "longitudinally", I mean along the long axis of his body. The first went in his eye, exited his jaw, and re-entered his shoulder. The last one entered the top of his head and killed him.

Of course the wounds were serious. He's dead. But what specifically about the autopsy leads you to the conclusion that the officer should be arrested?

Latest from CNN there were witness reports victim was charging at the police. It sounds like he was wanting to die, "suicide by police" is a term I've heard used before now.

what specifically about the autopsy leads you to the conclusion that the officer should be arrested?

Two bullets, including the one that killed him, entered his head latitudinally (top down) as if the kid was slumping forward and/or collapsing.

A witness has said that the cop kept shooting the kid until he went down.

Now Robittitybob1 says some witnesses are saying the kid was charging toward the cop, which can also be done with the head down.

Either way, this is a situation for the court to discern, and so, this is why he should be arrested.

###

Also, the Ferguson Chief of Police is probably serving on borrowed time. Whether or not he intentionally incited the residents probably won't matter. His department's actions seem distinctly biased, such as: withheld officer's name, but released store security video even though the reasons (safety concerns and FOIA requirement, respectfully) could have been swapped around where he released the officer's name because FOIA required it, but withheld the video due to safety concerns. The system will make a scapegoat of him. He won't be chief come next year; he may be lucky to have a few months left. Wait and see.

Now someone has allegedly leaked the account of events given by the officer involved in the shooting supposedly described to leaker by the officer's significant other the day after the shooting.

Alleged account of events given by the officer

This is also what I mean by mismanagement of information. Even if this is the truth, it's too little too late.

I'm still convinced that this killing cannot be appropriately resolved through administrative review, and so, it will most likely go before the courts.

I wonder why a taser wasn't used to handle this situation because the boy was unarmed so the threat level was only that of the cop being beaten up but not killed.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

what specifically about the autopsy leads you to the conclusion that the officer should be arrested?

Two bullets, including the one that killed him, entered his head latitudinally (top down) as if the kid was slumping forward and/or collapsing.

A witness has said that the cop kept shooting the kid until he went down.

Now Robittitybob1 says some witnesses are saying the kid was charging toward the cop, which can also be done with the head down.

Either way, this is a situation for the court to discern, and so, this is why he should be arrested.

###

Also, the Ferguson Chief of Police is probably serving on borrowed time. Whether or not he intentionally incited the residents probably won't matter. His department's actions seem distinctly biased, such as: withheld officer's name, but released store security video even though the reasons (safety concerns and FOIA requirement, respectfully) could have been swapped around where he released the officer's name because FOIA required it, but withheld the video due to safety concerns. The system will make a scapegoat of him. He won't be chief come next year; he may be lucky to have a few months left. Wait and see.

Threat of riots should have no impact on the justice system. That is mob rule you are advocating.

Just curious if anyone knows what the purported reason for arresting the journalists - afterwards, inside a McDonalds?? What had they done?

Originally Posted by DianeG

Just curious if anyone knows what the purported reason for arresting the journalists - afterwards, inside a McDonalds?? What had they done?

They made documented attempts to prevent the filming of police activities, as well as firing on journalists with tear gas and non-lethal guns before illegally stealing footage.

Here is another, less intense incident that didn't end in assaulting and mugging a news crew.

Officer 1: You’ve got your choice: that way or my way.
Lee: We’re in the city of Ferguson, officer.
Officer 1: No, you are not.
Officer 2: You’re still in us. (sic)
Officer 1: You’re still in Kinloch. Don’t feed me no bullsh*t. [Pointing to me] Take it that way.
Lee: What’s the problem, officer?
Officer 1: What’s the problem? What do you think the problem is?
Lee: I don’t know. What’s the problem?
Officer 1: Take them out of here. This is not an area where you’re supposed to be right now.
Lee: Why not? Who cannot be in Kinloch?
Officer 1: I tell you what. Take them out of here.
Lee: What did we do wrong?
Officer 1: I’m not saying you did anything wrong, I’m saying that I don’t want you here at this time of night.
After Lee asked the officer for his name, which he refused to divulge, the officer threatened to tow the cab for illegal parking. And then, he turned to us.
JP: I need to shoot the sign.
Officer 1 [To JP]: You don’t need to shoot nothing. Take a hike.
JP: No, I need to shoot the sign for our story.
Officer 1: [To me] You need to take a hike.
Me: We need to shoot the sign first.
Officer 1: No, you don’t.
Me: Yeah, we do.
Officer 1: No, you don’t. You come back when it’s daylight.
Me: Sir could you …
Officer 1: Did you hear what I said? … You want to go, we’ll go.
At this point, the officer approached me and grabbed my wrist.
Officer 1 [Holding my arm]: Don’t resist. I’ll bust your ass. I’ll bust your head right here.
Me: [To JP] Are you filming this?
Officer 1: Film it! I don’t give a sh*t. Because you’ll go, and I’ll sure confiscate your film for evidence.
JP: No, what I’m saying is …
Officer 1: I’m asking you to leave!
Officer 2: Go now, or you get locked up!
Officer 1: That’s it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Threat of riots should have no impact on the justice system. That is mob rule you are advocating.

Recapping my posts:

#01 — Why do the store images look doctored?

#12 — The cop didn't know the kid robbed the store, but the kid certainly knew he did.

#15 — My ideas on what the protesters do and don't want to hear.

#20 — My idea on why some protesters are looting stores.

#23 — Some protesters are guarding store against the looters.

#25 — The US DOJ and the Missouri governor disagreed with the Ferguson police releasing the store robbery video.

#26 — The shooting officer should eventually be arrested because of the two longitudinal shots to the head, one of which killed the kid.

#29 — Some witnesses say the kid was surrendering; some say the kid was charging the cop. This is for the courts to decide. The Ferguson Police badly mismanaged the aftermath of the shooting, and I think the system will scapegoat the police chief by firing him.

#30 — Account by the shooting officer allegedly leaked. It should go to the courts as an administrative review cannot appropriately resolve this.

Only my last three of my nine posts to date talk about involving the justice system (in red) in this matter, along with the purported evidence and testimony.

I'm not really seeing threats of riots or mob rule anywhere in any of my posts.

You are jumping to conclusions based on unconfirmed witness reports given to the news media, and the mob's reaction. In this way, you encourage that kind of mob behavior. If the actual evidence supports the officer's version of events, there would be no reason to press charges or involve the courts.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You are jumping to conclusions based on unconfirmed witness reports given to the news media, and the mob's reaction. In this way, you encourage that kind of mob behavior. If the actual evidence supports the officer's version of events, there would be no reason to press charges or involve the courts.

Of course, it is difficult to trust any claims of an investigation from a police force that is willing to assault journalists legally filming them. Such a police is willing to break the law in order to cover up evidence of what was going on during the siege, how can I trust their internal investigation? I'll put some stock in claims from outside investigators.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

1. You are jumping to conclusions based on unconfirmed witness reports given to the news media, and the mob's reaction. In this way, you encourage that kind of mob behavior.

2. If the actual evidence supports the officer's version of events, there would be no reason to press charges or involve the courts.

1. I don't see to what conclusions I am supposedly jumping, and no, I never said anything based on the mob's reaction. Never.

2. Speaking of unconfirmed witness reports, what we know of the officer's version of events is only from totempole hearsay (officer → wife → friend → media). What if the officer's actual version of events is something like this: My wife and I had a bad argument that morning, I went to work angry and quickly got fed up dealing with those f—ing animals, so I just kept shooting at the kid until he went down and then I plugged him twice in the head for good luck.

St. Louis County prosecutors plan to begin presenting evidence Wednesday to a local grand jury as part of an investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a spokesman said Tuesday.

source

Why are you continuing with this wild speculation?

Whatever the reason is, it does seem obvious that a problem exists with police policy in Ferguson Missouri.
From my limited reading of the news they seem to have created a very polarized situation where people have very little trust for the police and the police seem to be acting like an occupying force instead of as a functioning part of the community.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

St. Louis County prosecutors plan to begin presenting evidence Wednesday to a local grand jury as part of an investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a spokesman said Tuesday.

source

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why are you continuing with this wild speculation?

Because we don't know the officer's version of events unless we want to believe the media's reporting of a friend of the wife of the officer. The term "totem pole hearsay" is an actual legal term; say "totem pole hearsay" to a judge, and he knows exactly what you're talking about (at least in Massachusetts).

And a spokesman for St. Louis County prosecutors said Tuesday that they plan to begin presenting evidence Wednesday to a local grand jury as part of an investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

Likewise ...

A suburban St. Louis police officer was suspended indefinitely for pointing his rifle at a demonstrator in Ferguson, Missouri, and threatening to kill him during protests over the police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, police said Wednesday.

source

... because police said Wednesday that officials suspended a suburban St. Louis police officer indefinitely for pointing his rifle at a demonstrator in Ferguson, Missouri, and threatening to kill him during protests over the police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

Working as a police officer can be a very difficult job. Police must, on rare occasions, put themselves in dangerous situations and be alert and responsive, and still remain calm, reasonable and prudent. Not everyone can be depended upon to act accordingly.

Simply pointing a gun at someone is an act of assault/threatening with a dangerous weapon, at least in Massachusetts, and probably elsewhere.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

St. Louis County prosecutors plan to begin presenting evidence Wednesday to a local grand jury as part of an investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a spokesman said Tuesday.

source

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why are you continuing with this wild speculation?

Because we don't know the officer's version of events unless we want to believe the media's reporting of a friend of the wife of the officer. The term "totem pole hearsay" is an actual legal term; say "totem pole hearsay" to a judge, and he knows exactly what you're talking about (at least in Massachusetts).

That makes NO sense. You don't have any facts about the officer's version of events, so therefore you will engage in wild speculation? Do you even read what you type?

And

a spokesman for St. Louis County prosecutors said Tuesday that they plan to begin presenting evidence Wednesday to a local grand jury as part of an investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

They are presenting it to a grand jury, possibly because of political pressure due to riots. Is that the right way to run a criminal justice system?

Likewise ...

A suburban St. Louis police officer was suspended indefinitely for pointing his rifle at a demonstrator in Ferguson, Missouri, and threatening to kill him during protests over the police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, police said Wednesday.

source

... because police said Wednesday that officials suspended a suburban St. Louis police officer indefinitely for pointing his rifle at a demonstrator in Ferguson, Missouri, and threatening to kill him during protests over the police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

What does that have to do with the Michael Brown shooting?

Working as a police officer can be a very difficult job. Police must, on rare occasions, put themselves in dangerous situations and be alert and responsive, and still remain calm, reasonable and prudent. Not everyone can be depended upon to act accordingly.

Simply pointing a gun at someone is an act of assault/threatening with a dangerous weapon, at least in Massachusetts, and probably elsewhere.

Yeah. Are you saying that if a cop points his gun at an attacker, the cop is guilty of assault?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why are you continuing with this wild speculation?

Because we don't know the officer's version of events unless we want to believe the media's reporting of a friend of the wife of the officer. The term "totem pole hearsay" is an actual legal term; say "totem pole hearsay" to a judge, and he knows exactly what you're talking about (at least in Massachusetts).

That makes NO sense. You don't have any facts about the officer's version of events, so therefore you will engage in wild speculation? Do you even read what you type?

Harold, the same applies to you. (See below, emphasis mine.) You don't have any facts about the officer's version of events, so therefore you will engage in wild speculation? Do you even read what you type?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You are jumping to conclusions based on unconfirmed witness reports given to the news media, and the mob's reaction. In this way, you encourage that kind of mob behavior. If the actual evidence supports the officer's version of events, there would be no reason to press charges or involve the courts.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

A spokesman for St. Louis County prosecutors said Tuesday that they plan to begin presenting evidence Wednesday to a local grand jury as part of an investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

They are presenting it to a grand jury, possibly because of political pressure due to riots. Is that the right way to run a criminal justice system?

The word "possibly", which I emphasized above, indicates speculation on your part. To present evidence to a grand jury when appropriate to do so is the right way to run acriminal justice system.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

A suburban St. Louis police officer was suspended indefinitely for pointing his rifle at a demonstrator in Ferguson, Missouri, and threatening to kill him during protests over the police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, police said Wednesday.

What does that have to do with the Michael Brown shooting?

The demonstrator was protesting the Michael Brown shooting.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Simply pointing a gun at someone is an act of assault/threatening with a dangerous weapon, at least in Massachusetts, and probably elsewhere.

Yeah. Are you saying that if a cop points his gun at an attacker, the cop is guilty of assault?

No, I'm saying that a suburban St. Louis police officer was suspended indefinitely for pointing his rifle at a demonstrator in Ferguson, Missouri, and threatening to kill him.

Originally Posted by DianeG

Just curious if anyone knows what the purported reason for arresting the journalists - afterwards, inside a McDonalds?? What had they done?

I would think that those reporters were asked to leave the area but they didn't so they were arrested for failure to obey a police officer. I think that the police just wanted everyone out of the area no matter who they were. If you could see those journalists they looked like everyone who was there so they could look like others there causing problems.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by DianeG

Just curious if anyone knows what the purported reason for arresting the journalists - afterwards, inside a McDonalds?? What had they done?

I would think that those reporters were asked to leave the area but they didn't so they were arrested for failure to obey a police officer. I think that the police just wanted everyone out of the area no matter who they were. If you could see those journalists they looked like everyone who was there so they could look like others there causing problems.

The Al Jazeera reporters were doing there jobs. It is illegal to detain someone or demand they leave who is acting as press in a public area. Otherwise, the cops can do literally anything they want. Freedom to press is the most central freedom, more important than any other civil liberties, because there is no way to hold the government accountable for our liberties otherwise.

The Russians have noticed Ferguson.
ITAR-TASS: Russia - Russia ruling party calls for international committee over US Ferguson riot break-up

MOSCOW, August 21. /ITAR-TASS/. Vice-Speaker of the Russian lower house and senior official of United Russia ruling party Sergei Neverov urged international organizations to set up a special committee which would assess actions that the US authorities had taken when breaking up riots in the US city of Ferguson, Missouri.
“Events in the state of Missouri showed that the United States has serious problems with racial discrimination,” the press service quoted Neverov as saying. Meanwhile, “the question is whether such a brutal suppression of protest actions was justified,” he said. “The world community should not stay aside,” Neverov said. “Moreover, the situation has emerged in a country which claims to set an example of democracy.”.......

Originally Posted by dan hunter

The Russians have noticed Ferguson.
ITAR-TASS: Russia - Russia ruling party calls for international committee over US Ferguson riot break-up

MOSCOW, August 21. /ITAR-TASS/. Vice-Speaker of the Russian lower house and senior official of United Russia ruling party Sergei Neverov urged international organizations to set up a special committee which would assess actions that the US authorities had taken when breaking up riots in the US city of Ferguson, Missouri.
“Events in the state of Missouri showed that the United States has serious problems with racial discrimination,” the press service quoted Neverov as saying. Meanwhile, “the question is whether such a brutal suppression of protest actions was justified,” he said. “The world community should not stay aside,” Neverov said. “Moreover, the situation has emerged in a country which claims to set an example of democracy.”.......

That would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

In the ensuing aftermath of the shooting, did either the police or the community do anything to prevent the perpetuation of stereotypes? I mean the police continued to look like gunslingers and the community rioted and looted. Are they doing the things we've grown to expect? Why are we not surprised?