MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Truthy said:
Are you saying Ferguson police do not have to wear full uniform while on duty? Link please. Most LE agencies do have detailed and strict regulations about that. As well as procedures that arresting officers must ID themselves, which was refused- hence the filing against "John Doe". I siad nothing about photgraphing anything.

Were all the reporters misinformed about this? I guess the suit will be dismissed shortly if that is the case. We shall see, IMHO, it will cost them. And if that's what it takes for them to follow proper procedures in the future, it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

No. I am replying to your statement that LEOs were breaking the law by not being in full uniform during an arrest. I asked for the Revised Code to which law they are breaking. I know there is no such law. LEOs do not have to be in full uniform to arrest anyone. On duty undercover officers and off duty officers can arrest people. They are not in full uniform and it doesn't break any laws or violate anyone's civil rights. Arresting officers must identify themselves as police officers. They do not have to give personaly identifying information. The issue came up because they were being filmed by some people being arrested, as is stated in the lawsuit. To think that the LEOs are breaking any law because they failed to give that information while being filmed is a myth. Myths are dangerous.

The lawsuit filed has nothing to do with either of these issues. It is for false arrest and assault and battery. You do not have grounds to sue anyone for violating your civil rights because they did not follow a procedure. They have to have actually violated your civil rights. You can't sue a Walmart clerk for not wearing a name tag while checking you out claiming they broke the law and violated your rights. The lawsuit doesn't do that anyway. It would be thrown out if it did.
 
Truthy said:
Maybe because the FPD is funding is operations by unfairly and excessively targeting people in this community, for their own profit? That is an issue being looked at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...first_amendment_violations_are_only_part.html
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure how your link explains how the community is being targeted to bankroll the police...even the link within the article fails to provide statistics or examples of this abuse.

Regardless, I fail to see how your comment is an answer to the questions I posed to your original comment.
However, The Slade article you linked to, IMO provides a number of examples that the potential awards from a lawsuit against the StLPD would serve the community better if it actually was done in the name of the community, and any monies awarded were put back into the community to benefit the community as a whole. Which was, in fact, the entire point of my previous comment.
 
Muffet said:
He said that on the show I saw too. This would have been Wednesday afternoon? The day after the night he came out with the tape.

He said that once he finally got the tape (which his intern or underling had forgotten to give him for several days), he got on the phone and called her.

And he said it just so happened that when he called her, she was meeting with the FBI.

I'm having a very hard time finding videos of old episodes from my phone. :(

It would have been aired around 5:30 that day.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen yesterday's show. But Don Lemon talked about this audio tape again today, at about 2 p.m. It's very similar how you described it. If there is a transcript later on, I will post it.
 
cady said:
A recorded dispatch for back-up to arrest the suspect(s) in the robbery would be solid proof. JMO
Click to expand...

And would that call come before or after Mike more than tussled in the SUV ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Update: Video App Confirms Shots Fired About Time Michael Brown Died
Posted 2:26 pm, August 28, 2014

(CNN) — A company behind the video messaging service that allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown’s shooting this month said Thursday the recording was created at about the time Brown was killed.

CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the tape.

<modsnip>

CNN has asked the FBI for confirmation of that interview.



http://cw33.com/2014/08/28/update-video-app-confirms-shots-fired-about-time-michael-brown-died/
 
I found it! :D

DON LEMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I sat there with my producer, and we listened to it. He said he couldn't hear it. And I said, "You can't hear it right after he says, 'You know, you're pretty.' Listen."*

And then finally, he says, "Oh, my gosh, yes, I can hear it."*

And we immediately called, because we got that tape from a source, and so we immediately tried to find the attorney. And we got in touch with the attorney.*

And what's interesting about that, Wolf, is that I called the attorney and got the -- someone in our office on the phone at the exact time that they were being interviewed by the FBI.*

-snip discussion about delay, false info, etc -

FUENTES: Absolutely. That would be a crime. But the other question here is that, if this witness just now is coming forward to the FBI with the tape, you know, you would think that the person would be aware of everything that's happened in Ferguson for the last two weeks...*

LEMON: I can explain that.*

BLITZER: All right. Go ahead, Don.*

LEMON: I can explain that. So here's what happened.*

So the person had seen us out in the field, CNN. And they gave the tape to a CNN producer, thinking that it was my producer. And somehow it did not get to me. But -- but he was concerned about his -- about his identity being out there. He did not want people to know who he was.*

So after I didn't contact him, because I didn't get the tape, he went to a friend -- I think it was a roommate -- who is an attorney, who happens to be that attorney.
And they explained what happened, and the guy said, "I don't want to be identified. I'm concerned about my safety. And I'm concerned about my identity being out there."*

And so it was this sort of just weird confluence of events that led me to them and then them coming on to do it.

But listen, the guy did not want to be identified. He does not want publicity. He was involved in a chat, which many red-blooded American men do with their sweethearts or women, with their sweethearts. "How are you, honey?" You send a selfie. You do whatever. So he was a little bit embarrassed about that. I don't see why he was embarrassed, because any -- everybody -- not everybody but many people do that.*

So that's what happened. He was trying to get in touch with someone who he thought was an authority figure. But not -- most people don't just know how to pick up the phone and call the FBI. And so once he got in touch with the attorney, then the ball started to roll.*

​
ETA link:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/26/sitroom.02.html

ETA 2- underlined... So the guy gave it to CNN first, then after waiting and getting no response from CNN, he got a lawyer friend, and she took it to the FBI.

Lemon finally got the tape, and by the time he called, the FBI was interviewing with the attorney.

Whew. And all for something I'm kind of ho-hum about. :silly:
 
Muffet said:
He said that on the show I saw too. This would have been Wednesday afternoon? The day after the night he came out with the tape.

He said that once he finally got the tape (which his intern or underling had forgotten to give him for several days), he got on the phone and called her.

And he said it just so happened that when he called her, she was meeting with the FBI.

I'm having a very hard time finding videos of old episodes from my phone. :(

It would have been aired around 5:30 that day.
Click to expand...
This? (jinx) you beat me.
LEMON: I can explain that. So here's what happened.*

So the person had seen us out in the field, CNN. And they gave the tape to a CNN producer, thinking that it was my producer. And somehow it did not get to me. But -- but he was concerned about his -- about his identity being out there. He did not want people to know who he was.*

So after I didn't contact him, because I didn't get the tape, he went to a friend -- I think it was a roommate -- who is an attorney, who happens to be that attorney. And they explained what happened, and the guy said, "I don't want to be identified. I'm concerned about my safety. And I'm concerned about my identity being out there."*

And so it was this sort of just weird confluence of events that led me to them and then them coming on to do it.*

But listen, the guy did not want to be identified. He does not want publicity. He was involved in a chat, which many red-blooded American men do with their sweethearts or women, with their sweethearts. "How are you, honey?" You send a selfie. You do whatever. So he was a little bit embarrassed about that. I don't see why he was embarrassed, because any -- everybody -- not everybody but many people do that.*

So that's what happened. He was trying to get in touch with someone who he thought was an authority figure. But not -- most people don't just know how to pick up the phone and call the FBI. And so once he got in touch with the attorney, then the ball started to roll.*

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/26/sitroom.02.html

All posts are MOO
 
hambirg said:
No. I am replying to your statement that LEOs were breaking the law by not being in full uniform during an arrest. I asked for the Revised Code to which law they are breaking. I know there is no such law. LEOs do not have to be in full uniform to arrest anyone. On duty undercover officers and off duty officers can arrest people. They are not in full uniform and it doesn't break any laws or violate anyone's civil rights. Arresting officers must identify themselves as police officers. They do not have to give personaly identifying information. The issue came up because they were being filmed by some people being arrested, as is stated in the lawsuit. To think that the LEOs are breaking any law because they failed to give that information while being filmed is a myth. Myths are dangerous.

The lawsuit filed has nothing to do with either of these issues. It is for false arrest and assault and battery. You do not have grounds to sue anyone for violating your civil rights because they did not follow a procedure. They have to have actually violated your civil rights. You can't sue a Walmart clerk for not wearing a name tag while checking you out claiming they broke the law and violated your rights. The lawsuit doesn't do that anyway. It would be thrown out if it did.
Click to expand...



I know undercover and off duty police do not have to wear name tags- that is why I said on duty. On uniformed duty.
There are codes of conduct that LE agree to while on duty as to what constitutes being "in uniform". I remember my brother saying people were writtten up for having part of their gear missing or yes, obsecuring their badge number.
Again, I said nothing about taking photos, but officers failing to give their names to those they were arresting.
I mentioned two specific things, and no one here seems to know if these cops were breaking the rules yet. In the NYPD, they were pretty die hard rules, but no one seems to know about the FPD. Not seeing any links specifically adressing these issues, except to say officers did it out of fear.
But you really did not address the two specific issues I spoke about- was not discussing plain clothes cop or photography, and I thought I was pretty clear on that.
 
popsicle said:
Its president and founder, Malik Z. Shabazz, said in a press conference that "police were completely out of control"and "used excessive force on a regular basis," calling it "virtually a police riot."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_8c835d72-d7c6-583e-a89f-88318c05999a.html
Click to expand...

He would know all about riots, wouldn't he?!? After all, wasn't he the one that started the "protestors" chanting the Who do we want? Darren Wilson. How do we want him? Dead.

It's a shame that folks don't understand that if/when you throw glass bottles at LE, throw Molotov cocktails at LE, fire guns at LE AND other protestors, claim that they want A cop dead (doesn't really matter which one, any one will do), that LE is entitled to not only protect themselves (and the public) but also allowed to arrest you (general you).

MOO
 
TheDuchess said:
Hmmmm....in your hypothetical situation laid out here....what do you think the chances are that someone who just committed a strong armed robbery just so happens to run into the most psycho bloodthirsty racist cop in the world who is just itching to kill a black kid in the middle of the day...and that same psycho cop had somehow managed to keep an impeccably clean record his entire career, awaiting just the right opportunity to do that.
Click to expand...

Slim to none
 
This a rumor!!! This was posted on facebook, not MSM by a local St. Louis radio station.
It is the same radio station that reported on Dr.B's autopsy findings before they were released. New info from them, but not fact.

Link: https://www.facebook.com/1007TheViper?ref=br_tf

This is only a rumor, the St. Louis radio station posted new information from their "source." This is what they post on facebook, (paraphrased)

MB's DNA was found on OW's gun, face, and hands.
and
OW's DNA was found on MB's hands and arms.


I thought this was interesting since the station and the source were right about Dr. B's autopsy (6 shots to the front and reported that the day before it was released)
I am stressing this is not fact, just paraphrasing what they are posting, please take it with a grain of salt...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 322 (members: 96, guests: 226)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
226
Total visitors
322
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,156
Messages
18,250,187
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top