Ferguson, Missouri

[loftguy]

I am not sure what all of these various inquiries are going to find but I think many assume there will be a finding that the cop used excessive force and that justice will occur when he is charged. Wonder what will happen if the inquiries find the use of force was justified? Will justice be served in that instance? Or if the different inquiries come to different conclusions?

Lots of 'what ifs' AKP.

Underlying the social tension, is the not-unreasonable assumption by the black community that the butchers thumb will be weighted on the scale of justice.

On another note, last night I scanned the current media reports of Ferguson. It is outrageous how 'journalists' play with the facts. On CNN and CBS and NBC reports, I saw statements offered as gospel that were the opposite of the truth of what has occurred. These were not simply errors, but appeared slanted to create an outcome. And most appeared to be constructed to create greater support for the side of the authorities. Perhaps I'm late to this realization, but it's not just FOX news spinning tales.

I just keep hearing 'if you say it enough, it becomes true...'.

Lot's of us are feeling the uneasy shift, Warwickland.

[mean]

I don't think anyone expects the cop to actually be found guilty of anything. It is well understood that police are pretty much incapable of murder. Not that they won't throw a few more riots when Wilson is aquitted--they will, but not because they expected a different outcome.

[beautyfromashes]

This is going to be bad either way. If they charge and convict, Eric Holder and Obama take the heat for administering charges to placiate the rioters. If he isn't charged, then the riots will continue and get worse.

[kcjak]

I don't think anyone expects the cop to actually be found guilty of anything. It is well understood that police are pretty much incapable of murder. Not that they won't throw a few more riots when Wilson is aquitted--they will, but not because they expected a different outcome.

I would argue that a large percentage of the african american community (and a significant percentage of white and other minority groups) DOES believe the cop will be found guilty of something. Isn't that the basis for the 'No Justice, No Peace' slogan?

[im2kull]

It is worth noting that there have been approximately zero reports, except from the cops themselves, of Molotov cocktails being thrown. There was one photo, now at least a week old, of protesters apparently trying to light what appears to be a Molotov cocktail. As far as I know, there is no other documentation of any Molotov cocktails at the protests, only the words of police. There have been reports of live ammunition fire, but no cop has actually been shot. The only shootings I've heard of so far are minor shootings of protesters (who, admittedly, could have been shot either accidentally or intentionally by other protesters), and last night a journalist tried asking several cops if any of their guns were loaded with live ammunition and they all declined to answer.

Reports on the ground from media and other observers pretty consistently describe indiscriminate use of teargas (not smoke -- people can tell the difference, and while it's smoke sometimes, it's teargas others) and other police provocation. Somebody posted a link on the first page documenting the reactions of various military veterans to police tactics. I've heard from other veterans personally about how ridiculous police tactics have been, how soldiers in active war zones are trained to handle civil unrest. The police don't have a clue. They complain of "Molotov cocktails," but have not produced any. They complain of people throwing "bottles," but decline to elaborate that these are plastic water bottles. They arrest dozens of people, but the vast majority of these arrests are for "failure to disperse" rather than for looting, vandalism, assaulting an officer, etc. These "violent" protests are producing tons of arrests for non-violent offenses.

Although I understand in the abstract where it comes from, I nonetheless find it incredible that anybody can look at what the police are doing in Ferguson with approval. Even the very most generous read is that they're utterly (but innocently, because we're being as generous as possible) incompetent. That anybody is white knighting for the cops here is disgusting. When the state fights the people, who the fuck sides with the state?

Everything you mention has already been directly contradicted by ...

A. Media reports
B. Witness videos (Live streaming/etc)
C. Police calls, hospital records, etc.
D. EM Dispatch and Scanner Traffic


I'm not even going to debate this. 4 people have now been shot by "Protestors" in a 3 day span and are in intensive care at the hospital. The police track how much "Tear gas" they unload, and even Anderson Cooper mentioned last night that for two days now there has not been a single tear gas cannister fired...just smoke to disperse the crowd (Because, believe it or not..synthetic smoke is extremely unpleasant and irritating).

I suppose that QT just happened to burn down by itself?

[im2kull]

Live Scanner Feed:
"Men shooting at random white people. Woman who was shot was white..."

Source: Broadcastify scanner traffic

[aknowledgeableperson]

On another note, last night I scanned the current media reports of Ferguson. It is outrageous how 'journalists' play with the facts. On CNN and CBS and NBC reports, I saw statements offered as gospel that were the opposite of the truth of what has occurred. These were not simply errors, but appeared slanted to create an outcome. And most appeared to be constructed to create greater support for the side of the authorities

What is the truth? Yes, a black youth was shot and killed by a white police officer (that is a truth) but beyond that there seems to be much discussion or disagreement as to what is true or actually happened.

Just curious. Where you there to witness the incident? Is that how you know what the truth is?

[LenexatoKCMO]

This is going to be bad either way. If they charge and convict, Eric Holder and Obama take the heat for administering charges to placiate the rioters. If he isn't charged, then the riots will continue and get worse.

Barring some sort of smoking gun evidence we haven't yet seen, I would put the odds of a federal prosecution in this case at nil. They would have to be able to prove he shot him with some degree of intent to violate his civil rights. That is a steep evidentiary hill absent some more details about what the cop was thinking at the time - right now this looks like it could pretty easily be refuted by simply asserting that he reacted on instinct. If there is any hope of a prosecution here, I have to suspect it will be local, not federal.

[phuqueue]

It is worth noting that there have been approximately zero reports, except from the cops themselves, of Molotov cocktails being thrown. There was one photo, now at least a week old, of protesters apparently trying to light what appears to be a Molotov cocktail. As far as I know, there is no other documentation of any Molotov cocktails at the protests, only the words of police. There have been reports of live ammunition fire, but no cop has actually been shot. The only shootings I've heard of so far are minor shootings of protesters (who, admittedly, could have been shot either accidentally or intentionally by other protesters), and last night a journalist tried asking several cops if any of their guns were loaded with live ammunition and they all declined to answer.

Reports on the ground from media and other observers pretty consistently describe indiscriminate use of teargas (not smoke -- people can tell the difference, and while it's smoke sometimes, it's teargas others) and other police provocation. Somebody posted a link on the first page documenting the reactions of various military veterans to police tactics. I've heard from other veterans personally about how ridiculous police tactics have been, how soldiers in active war zones are trained to handle civil unrest. The police don't have a clue. They complain of "Molotov cocktails," but have not produced any. They complain of people throwing "bottles," but decline to elaborate that these are plastic water bottles. They arrest dozens of people, but the vast majority of these arrests are for "failure to disperse" rather than for looting, vandalism, assaulting an officer, etc. These "violent" protests are producing tons of arrests for non-violent offenses.

Although I understand in the abstract where it comes from, I nonetheless find it incredible that anybody can look at what the police are doing in Ferguson with approval. Even the very most generous read is that they're utterly (but innocently, because we're being as generous as possible) incompetent. That anybody is white knighting for the cops here is disgusting. When the state fights the people, who the fuck sides with the state?

Everything you mention has already been directly contradicted by ...

A. Media reports
B. Witness videos (Live streaming/etc)
C. Police calls, hospital records, etc.
D. EM Dispatch and Scanner Traffic


I'm not even going to debate this. 4 people have now been shot by "Protestors" in a 3 day span and are in intensive care at the hospital. The police track how much "Tear gas" they unload, and even Anderson Cooper mentioned last night that for two days now there has not been a single tear gas cannister fired...just smoke to disperse the crowd (Because, believe it or not..synthetic smoke is extremely unpleasant and irritating).

I suppose that QT just happened to burn down by itself?

I mean much of what I said came directly from the livestreams, so I guess I don't really know what more to say except that no, they don't contradict me. When, for instance, people on the livestream report that the air is thick with teargas (which they do, and yes, they can tell the difference between teargas and smoke), I'm inclined to trust them over im2kull quoting Anderson Cooper presumably quoting the cops (who have been sooooooo forthcoming and transparent through this whole thing, who could dare question them?). Most of the rest of my post came from various media outlets (primarily NYT and WaPo), journalists tweets, etc. I'm glad you're not even going to debate this. It's for the best that you don't debate it if you're just going to spew bullshit.

[grovester]

I'm glad you're not even going to debate this. It's for the best that you don't debate it if you're just going to spew bullshit.

Can we apply this to all the topics he posts on?

[aknowledgeableperson]

Looks like one of the people hired by the Brown family has a checkered past. And he is a local person as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-medical- ... 36981.html

The chief medical examiner of St. Louis County, who performed the first autopsy on Michael Brown after he was shot on Aug. 9, says that she is concerned by one of the men hired by the Brown family to conduct its own exam.

“I can tell you absolutely that I find what Parcells does to be abysmal,” Dr. Mary Case told The Daily Caller when asked about Shawn Parcells, a Kansas-based forensic pathologist assistant. He has been accused in the past of fabricating his job title and of conducting autopsies without a license.

Parcells, along with Dr. Michael Baden, was hired last week by the Brown family to conduct an independent private autopsy. They did so, they said, because they did not trust local authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into Brown’s police shooting death.

The team released its results on Monday and determined that Brown was shot at least six times.

One crucial determination was the trajectory of the bullet that killed Brown. Parcells explained to TheDC earlier this week that the bullet was traveling in a back to front direction, indicating that Brown was bent over in some fashion when he was struck.

The location of Brown’s head when he was shot is sure to figure prominently in the investigation. The Brown family and many across the U.S. believe that Brown was “executed” by Ferguson, Mo. police officer Darren Wilson in broad daylight. Wilson reportedly claims he shot Brown in self-defense.

But Mary Case, along with a number of other medical examiners and pathologists have been heavily critical of Parcells.

“He is doing forensic autopsies which may send someone to prison, and he is not a physician much less a forensic pathologist,” she told TheDC, adding that forensic pathologists and medical examines throughout the U.S. “are shocked by this man and how bold he is to do what he does.”

“No one stops him,” she said.

Case said that Baden, 80, “is an excellent forensic pathologist.” At a press conference Monday, Baden said the same thing about her.

But Case claims that Baden was unaware of what she called Parcells’ “baggage.”

...

Parcells operates National Forensic Autopsy & Tissue Recovery Services out of Overland Park, Kan.

Forensic pathologist Dr. Erik Mitchell complained to a Kansas City news station earlier this week that Parcells is working without a license.

And Dr. Thomas Young, the former medical examiner of Jackson County, Mo., told the station that Parcells was misrepresenting himself when he said Young was his mentor. (RELATED: NONE In The Back: Brown Autopsy Shows He Was Shot In The Front Of The Body)

“He has been representing himself in a way that is not appropriate by giving forensic pathology opinions when he is not qualified to do so,” Young told the station.

[pstokely]

What are the demographics of the Raytown and Grandview city councils. police, and school boards?

[aknowledgeableperson]

I am not sure what all of these various inquiries are going to find but I think many assume there will be a finding that the cop used excessive force and that justice will occur when he is charged. Wonder what will happen if the inquiries find the use of force was justified? Will justice be served in that instance? Or if the different inquiries come to different conclusions?

Lots of 'what ifs' AKP.
.

There has been a few articles lately about this possibility. Believe it is very good possibility that there will be no charges against the officer in Brown's death. Reason is the story told by Brown's buddy has some holes in it, enough for many to question the statement in its entirety. And the evidence may show the story told by the officer's friend on the radio is a more accurate description of what happened.

What may happen though is the Justice Dept will find some problems in the Ferguson PD.

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill told The Associated Press she's pushing for federal and local investigations to be completed around the same time so that all evidence in the case can be made public — a step many consider important should prosecutors decide not to charge the officer. Her office said Friday that the Department of Justice hasn't given a timeline for the federal investigation, which centers on whether a civil rights violation occurred when officer Darren Wilson fatally shot the unarmed Brown Aug. 9.

from news.msn.com

[mean]

The media have officially gone from sympathetic to Brown to preparing the public for Wilson to not even face charges. It is surreal.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Guess that happens as the truth works it way to the surface.

[phxcat]

Guess that happens as the truth works it way to the surface.

You mean when lack of truth works its way to the surface. The media has been quick to believe a badly photoshopped MRI and the account of an anonymous witness who wasn't there over the accounts of several known witnesses who were there, whose testimony is largely consistent with what evidence we do have. Much like with George Zimmerman, the question will not be whether Wilson is guilty, so much as whether the evidence will be sufficient to convict, or even to indict, and whether the Powers that Be will investigate to the extent that they will recover enough evidence to indict or convict. I think that where a lot of the anger comes from is the assumption that he (like Zimmerman) will not only get off, but that the police, rather than doing a sufficient investigation to determine what really happened, will protect their own. And also the Conservative and even in many cases White reaction to automatically assume that the Black witnesses less reliable than hearsay testimony provided by anonymous White witnesses.

[aknowledgeableperson]

So, what you are saying the truth was evident from the beginning with the witness statement that Brown was shot in the back. Many questions remain unanswered after some of the initial statements have been proven false or misleading or inaccurate.

The media was quick to believe many of those initial statements. And much of what happened in Ferguson is the result of this overblown media feeding frenzy.

[phxcat]

No, I'm really not sure where you are getting that from what I said unless you (like so many others) are predisposed to assume that the witnesses are lying and that the shooting was justified. The witnesses thought he had been shot in the back because they saw him running, saw shots being fired, saw him turn around and then get shot to the ground. In the heat of the moment, their perception would have been that he was shot in the back. The question is whether or not he was hit- maybe one grazed him, maybe not, but salient question is not whether the the officer hit him or not at that time, but that he tried. The fact that you glom onto that one piece of testimony indicates that you are not interested in the actual truth, just anything that may indicate that the shooting was justified. Eyewitness testimony is rarely 100% accurate, especially in a case such as this, but with the exception of when the first shots hit, which is immaterial, the initial statements were not proven false- in fact, most of those statements are so far supported by the evidence. The only statements that have not been supported were the ones that indicated the orbital blowout and the anonymous call in support of Wilson.

The media reported the statements they were given by people who were there, as that was the only evidence they had available. What happened in Ferguson was the result of a pattern of abuse by a largely White police force against a predominately Black population over time, culminating in a death that was, by all eyewitness accounts, avoidable, and compounded by the mishandling of the militarized occupation of that population and probably not helped by the fact that people on the right and in the media are so quick to believe a fabricated account of an anonymous caller to a radio show over the eyewitness accounts of several locals.

[LenexatoKCMO]

So, what you are saying the truth was evident from the beginning with the witness statement that Brown was shot in the back. Many questions remain unanswered after some of the initial statements have been proven false or misleading or inaccurate.

The media was quick to believe many of those initial statements. And much of what happened in Ferguson is the result of this overblown media feeding frenzy.

What hasn't changed is that the kid was unarmed. And for some of us there is a valid question whether it is ever legitimate for an officer to unload six rounds into an unarmed citizen, no matter how menacing he may be. The standards that have evolved justifying almost any use of lethal force when the officer is threatened create an ever more troubled relationship between police and the public. Kneejerk acceptance of the use of force does not help.

[aknowledgeableperson]

And for some of us there is a valid question whether it is ever legitimate for an officer to unload six rounds into an unarmed citizen, no matter how menacing he may be.

There has been one question that I have yet seen an answer to - why did the officer shoot? Was he just pissed off at Brown, did he have a fear for his own safety, or what? During the elections earlier this month I talked to a Cass County Sheriff's Deputy. I asked him about his equipment belt. He pointed out this and that. One item was a taser. Did the Ferguson officer have this non-lethal option? If so why wasn't that used. If not then the only option would be a gun for defense.

Why 6 rounds? Don't know how they can tell but according to the released autopsy results the initial wounds were to the arm area, wounds that wouldn't incapacitate Mr Brown. So, if Brown kept on rushing to the officer then he would keep firing until Mr Brown stopped.

Who started the fight? Depends on which side you want to believe. Mr Brown's friend said the officer started it. But the friend also stated that Mr Brown was shot in the back, something the autopsy shows isn't true so what else in his statement is inaccurate? Another witness also stated she saw Brown shot in the back and his body jerked. So if she says Mr Brown was shot in the back how much of her statement is accurate?

How many times did the officer fire his gun? 6 wounds but the audio that recently surfaced has the sound of 10 shots. Of course the audio has not been verified nor has it been released how many times the officer fired his gun.