MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #15

[bettybaby00]

There is no way anything in MB's record would be relevant imo IF the case didn't hinge on whether or not he assaulted and threatened ODW.

I think some of it could be relevant because THAT question is clearly the basis of ODW's defense, AND the protesters are basing their protests on an image of MB being non-threatening to ODW (including arguments that MB wouldn't have dared to come toward a firing officer).

Anything that would show MB's having a reason or propensity - drug-induced or by nature - to dare those things are important to know.

When. Needs to know how much when?
Not as clear. I would say it would be important only at trial, but at this point, subduing the motives to protest is important.

Think about how many changed their minds and did not join in because of the video.

Just another of my hunches, but I think the reason the activists are trying so hard to suppress the juvenile record is because they know they will lose even more support.

The best thing that can happen now, I believe, is for the MB vs ODW outrage to be acknowledged as another Duke LaCrosse miss-fire, and the focus be turned toward a transparent, fair, non-political analysis of this department and the bigger picture.

(Caps used only because formatting for emphasis is a pain from mobile. )

But what is up with people making racial animis, and then it blows up. Re. Duke case. 2 f those boys were from my town. Holder adds to it IMO sorry

 

[CHERIE.T]

"Naw, this guy wouldn't hurt anybody." - yeah right. We saw the video of him shoving the shop owner into a food display.

I'm in total agreement with you there Gypsy Road.

K_J stellar post

 

[CHERIE.T]

Down here, it is the ambulance and a fire truck with a paramedic. LE will respond to the call also if it is a domestic violence injury, a shooting, etc. If it is a call for an ambulance for a heart attack, there is no reason for them to respond, IMO. I can only speak for my area, so MOO.

hey LaLaw2000 :loveyou:


Jumping off your post and a bit OT..
When my elderly momma passed away at home, we had to call for transport to the funeral home. The funeral home called an ambulance, who called LE, who called the fire dept.

We had a funeral home vehicle, an ambulance, a cop car and a fire truck.
My dad -who was 88 at the time-- and very funny said....

WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS MUCH COMPANY IN A LONG TIME. :laughing: :hilarious:

 

[CHERIE.T]

I have been listening to Eric Holder's PC. If I were a St. Louis County police officer, I would walk off the job today. Let Holder police Ferguson. This is just what I would do personally.

Next topic:
Until an LE officer has enough experience they do have a partner. A rookie will never patrol alone. Even a new detective will have a partner until they are 'broken in'. My late husband was the night commander for the 3rd largest city in my state until he retired. He had to respond to every accident, every fatality accidental or via homicide, and so forth. By the time an officer had been on the job for at least 6 months, he or she did not patrol alone. This was just my experience in my state. Not every state is the same, obviously.

The reason Officer Wilson responded with the ambulance on the sick call is probably the nature of the call. IIRC, wasn't it a baby and the baby had respiratory failure? There could have been a suspicion of child abuse, IMO, or suspicion of impending death.

I lasted 10 years in LE spending only one year of that time on patrol. I only spent 8 months on patrol alone before I got a chance for promotion because the AFIS system was coming into being and someone had to train for it with the State Police so it could be taught to booking officers. I got lucky.

Again, I would absolutely walk off the job and leave Eric Holder to police the area if I were a Ferguson LE officer. Law enforcement in and around Ferguson will effectively be practically shut down with this so-called 'investigation'.

This is just all my personal opinion.

Abdsodamlutely!
I'd quit in a heartbeat.

 

[jggordo]

I am amazed that news anchors have not crossed Crump on continuing to use language like "executing" MB in broad daylight. Especially when we as Americans have had to witness true executions of journalist's over the last two weeks. It is not only unproven but inflammatory, freedom of speech only goes so far, for so long.

JMO's

 

[popsicle]

[h=1]VIDEO: Charlie Dooley is asking St. Louis to blame him for the events in Ferguson[/h]
http://fox2now.com/2014/09/04/video...ouis-to-blame-him-for-the-events-in-ferguson/

 

[katydid23]

If someone was shot on a middle class suburban street, would we find it suspicious that the people who witnessed the shooting discussed the event among themselves while observing the police investigation?

If one of the people in the group was a political activist, and the stories went against the Police version, then yes, I would be suspicious.There are white 'anarchists' that pull chit like that all the time.

 

[CHERIE.T]

I am amazed that news anchors have not crossed Crump on continuing to use language like "executing" MB in broad daylight. Especially when we as Americans have had to witness true executions of journalist's over the last two weeks. It is not only unproven but inflammatory, freedom of speech only goes so far, for so long.

JMO's

I agree. How and why is that wording even allowed?

 

[jmcgladr]

I agree. How and why is that wording even allowed?

Freedom of speech?

 

[Oceans]

I am amazed that news anchors have not crossed Crump on continuing to use language like "executing" MB in broad daylight. Especially when we as Americans have had to witness true executions of journalist's over the last two weeks. It is not only unproven but inflammatory, freedom of speech only goes so far, for so long.

JMO's

Exactly! Especially as he is supposedly a lawyer and should know the difference! He should not use the word "murdered" either. As those words indicate guilt.

Instead, he should be more professional by using a neutral term like "killed" or "shot" which does not indicate guilt but just describes the incident.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

OW had responded to a sick child call? Since when does an officer and not an ambulance take that call?

An ambulance DID take that call. But sometimes they send LE along as well if there are complicated circumstances.

 

[popsicle]

I agree. How and why is that wording even allowed?

Compare that to when an actress/actor or model has made reference to what they do to being at war or being a soldier. hmm

 

[CHERIE.T]

Freedom of speech?

Smearing a cop is kind of chitty where I live.

 

[jmcgladr]

Smearing a cop is kind of chitty where I live.

Well, if the Westboro Baptist Church has freedom of speech, I think someone "smearing" a cop <modsnip> needs to also have freedom of speech.
It's either applicable to everyone or it's applicable to no one.

 

[katydid23]

He was reportedly chatting with 2 tree cutters.

And he reportedly talked to another friend about feeling 'bad vibes and hoping God would have his back...' and promising the finish the convo later on.

 

[LambChop]

We had to remove a couple of posts. Please stay on topic. This thread is the Michael Brown case. Do start up a discussion about other cases that have nothing to do with this one.

Thank you. :tos:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?159-The-Rules

 

[TheDuchess]

This is from a town near me. Some people just can't keep it to themselves. This kind of stuff doesn't help your fellow officers.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...-273937341.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CHBrand

"A Facebook page post apparently created by a northwest suburban Elgin police officer saying the Ferguson, Mo., police officer who shot and killed a young man last month &#8220;did society a favor&#8221; has left the officer on administrative leave pending an investigation."

While I am not really big on firing people for posting whatever they want on FB, he does represent the force and has been warned several times. Plus, there is a social media policy in place.

 

[tlcya]

Well, if the Westboro Baptist Church has freedom of speech, I think someone "smearing" a cop <modsnip> needs to also have freedom of speech.
It's either applicable to everyone or it's applicable to no one.

and yet, flip side of the coin, wasn't releasing the store video with strongarm robbery a smear?

I actually don't disagree with you, we can all say whatever we want as Americans and think it, but I do agree with other members that any number of journalists could and should have long since called Crump out on that inflammatory and inaccurate selection of words/soundbite. JMO

If the dead pastor whatshisface from Westboro was on their shows being interviewed they would certainly attempt to slow or challenge his rhetoric. To some, what Crump & Co. are doing amounts to the same thing. encourage hate and spout misinformation.

[edited to add two words inadvertently left out, sentence didn't make sense]

 

[jmcgladr]

Exactly! Especially as he is supposedly a lawyer and should know the difference! He should not use the word "murdered" either. As those words indicate guilt.

Instead, he should be more professional by using a neutral term like "killed" or "shot" which does not indicate guilt but just describes the incident.

JMO

Is that really the case, though? Plenty of people are accused of murder and are found not guilty. IMO, the use of murder only indicates guilt if the person is actually convicted of murder.

 

[sonjay]

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

COOPER: Areva, you say the records are completely irrelevant. Do you believe that and also if it turns out that Officer Wilson somehow knew about Michael Brown or knew of any potential cases he had as a juvenile?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: You know, I think that's the question that's puzzling and bothering so many people, Anderson, is how could Officer Wilson had known anything about Michael Brown or his record at the time he stopped him that would have justified the excessive force that was used in this case.

BBM. This Areva Martin person, whoever he or she is, is allowed to make statements that presume the use of excessive force. Before the GJ finishes their job, before any trial is held, and before any jury verdict is returned. This is just as bad as Sharpton, Jackson, et al, talking about OW "murdering" & "executing" MB. It really chaps my butt when people go on national TV and make statements like this and are not called on it.

The fact is that IF MB was charging OW.... if things went down as Josie described, and the overheard-guy on the Black Canseco recording.... there's no way it was excessive force. The facts of what happened need to be determined before anyone can conclude that any excessive force was or wasn't used.