MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #16

[CHERIE.T]

Hmm like lumping all police officers in with a few bad ones... imagine that.

:gthanks:

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I don't believe his audience was blind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:cheers:

 

[reedus23]

I can't hear or begin to imply what the landscaper was saying on the cellphone. Maybe OW was the one showing MB how to surrender with the arms out----we don't know?

But even if MB did attempt to surrender AFTER allegedly punching an officer in the face & attempting to gain control of an officer's (loaded) gun-----it's way too late per that state's law.
An officer can not assume the "surrender" is real (hands up or not) especially if the suspect is still moving towards the officer and has just assaulted him.
That's how officers end up dead.

This and the whole truth needs to be explained to the citizens of that community by the AG as soon as possible. Otherwise things take on a life of their own.

So please AG......yeah, it's a tough job you have but you need to address it & without reference to race at all. And then you better tell the crowd what expectations you have regarding the anticipated reactions. You better be clear about what is & what is not allowed following the results of the investigation.

That would be the right thing to do. That would be the honorable thing to do.

Let's hope our AG does that.

The AG can't do what you're saying because, at least in my opinion, the BBM is not the state of the law in Missouri. The statutes have been posted ad nauseum. In order to be justified, the cop must REASONABLY believe that deadly force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to effect the arrest AND AND AND believe that 1 of 2 other things in this case are present. Either MB committed a felony or MB was an immediate threat. Under your own example, namely MB attempting to surrender after the earlier altercation, that surrendering means that no matter what happened beforehand deadly force was no longer necessary to effect the arrest.

So, respectfully, I would disagree and I would hope that the AG does NOT inform people that police can shoot you regardless of whether it is immediately necessary or not.

 

[Muffet]

All we need to know to show the crazy behind the robbery deniers is, as usual, the admission of the lawyer. :lol:

In this case, Darian Johnson's own lawyer tells us that DJ admitted to the PD and FBI that the cigarellos weren't paid for.

FREEMAN BOSLEY JR., DORIAN JOHNSON'S ATTORNEY:.. But we need to make clear several days ago, we met with the FBI, the Justice Department, representatives of the prosecutor's office and we laid all of this out them. We met with for over three hours. My client, Dorian Johnson, he started from the beginning from when they work up that morning told them that we went to -- that they went to the store, laid out again the situation involving Big Mike taking the cigarillos. This is not a theft, it's more of a shoplifting situation but my client is relieved because he already knew that they had done this.

LEMON: Well, theft and shoplifting, it's the same thing, isn't it?

BOSLEY: Well, no, robbery there's a difference.

LEMON: Right. Right.

BOSLEY: Yeah, and they were saying it was a strong armed robbery, all right. And we're concerned about that label and we're concerned about the fact that the chief continue to use that label. It's more of a shoplifting type of situation. He's saying robbery because they want to make people think that a lot of violence occurred here.
​

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/15/acd.02.html

So to the lawyer himself, the only quibble was whether it was a robbery or shoplifting. :facepalm:



Sent via Tapatalk

 

[CHERIE.T]

Announcement: If you are advancing toward a LEO who has his gun pointed on you who said to freeze, it doesn't matter if your arms are up in the air, down at your sides, on your head, or performing a performance art routine....you WILL get shot!!!

It's just plain common sense imoo.
I honestly don't understand why people don't 'get it'.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

The AG can't do what you're saying because, at least in my opinion, the BBM is not the state of the law in Missouri. The statutes have been posted ad nauseum. In order to be justified, the cop must REASONABLY believe that deadly force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to effect the arrest AND AND AND believe that 1 of 2 other things in this case are present. Either MB committed a felony or MB was an immediate threat. Under your own example, namely MB attempting to surrender after the earlier altercation, that surrendering means that no matter what happened beforehand deadly force was no longer necessary to effect the arrest.

So, respectfully, I would disagree and I would hope that the AG does NOT inform people that police can shoot you regardless of whether it is immediately necessary or not.

Where we differ is that this was one continuous altercation that took a very, very short period of time. It is impossible to break it into smaller segments. It is one.
And it's ok for each of us to interpret the laws differently.

IMHO, punching an officer, attempting to gain control of his weapon is a fatal move by any criminal.

 

[Oceans]

I wonder if the store video had audio that wasn't released? I wonder if the store had a video camera behind the register whose tape we haven't seen? What did MB hoist himself up and reach under the counter to get, lottery tickets?

I thought the same. The store clerk gave his statement to LE/FBI. It would be interesting to learn more about it, what MB said to him when he grabbed him and pushed him into the shelves. JMO.

 

[reedus23]

He stated a fact and you are taking it out of context and impugning his professionalism. He stated he was a black man when speaking with community leaders worried about getting a fair investigation, because of past incidents and the overwhelming majority of white officers on the Ferguson and St. Louis Co. police departments. Are you arguing he is not? Are you arguing he injected sex into the discussion, because he stated he was a man? Now he is a misogyinst according to your criteria?

The AG works for all of us, the community of Ferguson and the LE community. Both MB and OW deserve to have a fair investigation on the shooting. If you have evidence that his actions as AG have been racist or biased, then please share. If not leave the politics and charges of reverse racism out of the discussion, since the moderators seem to think this thread has become too political.

MOO

If one doesn't like an action being taken, one has to nitpick to find flaws with that action. This is just one of those cases. Everyone getting up in arms will rally to his cause for making that same exact statement if his investigation finds no wrong doing. He will be praised for stating he is a black man and even as a black man, he found no wrongdoing in this instance. Plain and simple, simply stating he is a black man doesn't indicate he supports one side or the other in his investigation and certainly doesn't show support for one side or the other like the County PD publicly expressing support for one they are supposedly investigating and doing so unabashedly.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

He stated a fact and you are taking it out of context and impugning his professionalism. He stated he was a black man when speaking with community leaders worried about getting a fair investigation, because of past incidents and the overwhelming majority of white officers on the Ferguson and St. Louis Co. police departments. Are you arguing he is not? Are you arguing he injected sex into the discussion, because he stated he was a man? Now he is a misogyinst according to your criteria?

The AG works for all of us, the community of Ferguson and the LE community. Both MB and OW deserve to have a fair investigation on the shooting. If you have evidence that his actions as AG have been racist or biased, then please share. If not leave the politics and charges of reverse racism out of the discussion, since the moderators seem to think this thread has become too political.

MOO

About me taking AG's statement out of context, do you have a link to the transcript or a video that you can provide to support that?

 

[sorrell skye]

I disagree that AG Holder's comment about being a black man was a racist comment. IMO, his comment is being taken out of context.

The adjective "racist", by definition, is: having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with him referring to himself by his ethnicity, as long as his ethnicity-identity doesn't interfere with his sworn oath to uphold the duties of his office. Until & unless he demonstrates that he's incapable of upholding his sworn oath, I think calling for his resignation is an extreme overreaction.

He was born in the Bronx, NY in 1951. The Civil Rights Movement was in full swing during his formative years. As a black man, he's experienced discrimination and racial profiling during his lifetime. Should he pretend that discrimination and racial profiling don't exist? Should he pretend that he's not black, because he's the US Attorney General?

In context, I interpreted his comment "I am the Attorney General of the United States. But I am also a black man" to mean that he empathizes with the very real issue of discrimination and racial profiling that still occurs in cities & towns across this nation, and I think he was also saying that we've come a long way as a nation, but there's still work to do.

His comment in context:

Excerpts of Attorney General Eric Holder’s Remarks at a Community College

Florissant Valley Community College ~ Wednesday, August 20, 2014

“The eyes of the nation and the world are watching Ferguson right now. The world is watching because the issues raised by the shooting of Michael Brown predate this incident. This is something that has a history to it and the history simmers beneath the surface in more communities than just Ferguson.

“We have seen a great deal of progress over the years. But we also see problems and these problems stem from mistrust and mutual suspicion.

“I just had the opportunity to sit down with some wonderful young people and to hear them talk about the mistrust they have at a young age. These are young people and already they are concerned about potential interactions they might have with the police.

“I understand that mistrust. I am the Attorney General of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over…“Let me search your car”…Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.

“I think about my time in Georgetown – a nice neighborhood of Washington – and I am running to a picture movie at about 8 o’clock at night. I am running with my cousin. Police car comes driving up, flashes his lights, yells “Where you going? Hold it!” I say “Woah, I’m going to a movie.” Now my cousin started mouthing off. I’m like, “This is not where we want to go. Keep quiet.” I’m angry and upset. We negotiate the whole thing and we walk to our movie. At the time that he stopped me, I was a federal prosecutor. I wasn’t a kid. I was a federal prosecutor. I worked at the United States Department of Justice. So I’ve confronted this myself.”

“We are starting here a good dialogue. But the reality is the dialogue is not enough. We need concrete action to change things in this country. That’s what I have been trying to do. That’s what the President has been trying to do. We have a very active Civil Rights Division. I am proud of what these men and women have done. As they write about the legacy of the Obama administration, a lot of it is going to be about what the Civil Rights Division has done.

“So this interaction must occur. This dialogue is important. But it can’t simply be that we have a conversation that begins based on what happens on August 9, and ends sometime in December, and nothing happens. As I was just telling these young people, change is possible. The same kid who got stopped on the New Jersey freeway is now the Attorney General of the United States. This country is capable of change. But change doesn’t happen by itself.

“So let’s start here. Let’s do the work today.”

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2014/ag-speech-140820.html

I'm not afraid of a black man in power who calls himself a black man. IMO, folks who get upset about it and say "But what if a white man said the same thing???" - My answer: ethnically speaking, white folks (such as myself) have occupied & do occupy the position of the historical & current majority. Ethnically and historically speaking, it would be unnecessary to say "I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I'm also a white man" because it would be meaningless in terms of any racial adversity one would have overcome on the road to success.

When true ethnic equality is finally achieved, and when ethnic diversity in the workplace is truly actualized, I believe that no one will feel threatened by a black man in power who calls himself a black man (or anyone of color - man or woman, for that matter).

 

[mdana]

You are right, none of us "know" if DJ is purposely lying or if so, why. But given DJ's past incident(s) of deception ( I think making false statements?, correct me if that's wrong) and the fact(s) that the autopsies/physical evidence contradict/may contradict his version(s), his credibility and reliability is in question. It's also possible DJ ran like the wind once MB/OW started to fight in car and therefore has no clue what happened. But he would look like a "coward" if he told people that, right? This may be like the story of the boy who cried wolf, but who knows.

You are absolutely correct that eye-witness accounts have reliability issues in any case regardless of an individual's motive. I think this was a stressful event for bystanders, so they may not see/remember things clearly just because of the circumstances. But I think people would be hard-pressed to ignore one or more witness(es) may have some other motive. all imo and speculation.

I believe I was addressing your point, but will expand if it was unclear. I pointed out the most problematic witness for illustrative purposes. My contention, that posters may have a problem with a specific witness or parts of a witness' account, but there are six accounts and they all seem to state that MB moved away from OW until the last flurry of shots, when he moved towards OW or stopped fleeing. The question is how was MB approaching OW when MB turned back. I don't think you can discredit all of their accounts on the probability of that event occurring, which is what some posters seem to be attempting.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Good articles, but dang it, this part is a big pet peeve of mine. It's not the truth and it keeps getting published!

https://news.vice.com/article/things-in-ferguson-are-going-to-change-for-real



MB was covered in less than 20 minutes :gaah:

Yep, and like I posted the other day----the lies are repeated over and over again.
BUT repeating lies doesn't make them true. :saber:

 

[reedus23]

Where we differ is that this was one continuous altercation that took a very, very short period of time. It is impossible to break it into smaller segments. It is one.
And it's ok for each of us to interpret the laws differently.

IMHO, punching an officer, attempting to gain control of his weapon is a fatal move by any criminal.

I'm just saying, your example states he surrendered. IF he surrendered, you can't use deadly force whether one describes it as on continuous set of events or breaks it up into segments.

 

[Apollo]

If one doesn't like an action being taken, one has to nitpick to find flaws with that action. This is just one of those cases. Everyone getting up in arms will rally to his cause for making that same exact statement if his investigation finds no wrong doing. He will be praised for stating he is a black man and even as a black man, he found no wrongdoing in this instance. Plain and simple, simply stating he is a black man doesn't indicate he supports one side or the other in his investigation and certainly doesn't show support for one side or the other like the County PD publicly expressing support for one they are supposedly investigating and doing so unabashedly.

If someone stated they were a white man, would that indicate supporting one side or the other? It has to work both ways---and it doesn't.

 

[Lovejac]

Then the Chief of Police in Ferguson should have been able to get up and say "I'm white and even though whites are the minority in Ferguson, I'm going to make sure OW is treated fairly" They would be screaming for his resignation. Oh wait, they already are without that kind of speech being given.

Excellent post, Apollo

 

[mdana]

Ok & the store clerk signed the police report.
The point is that it is highly doubtful that it would be done if there was no incident there. And the videos we've seen backs that MB stole cigarillos & strong armed the store staff.

Would you be so kind as to provide the link to the police report? I have not seen it, but I have seen it mentioned previously and would be interested to read to get a better handle on what types of charges MB would have faced if had been apprehended.

 

[reedus23]

So in the last 2 days, it seems like the only 2 new pieces of information that came out are:

1. There is a claim, legitimate or not, that OW may or may not have failed to respect one's right to refuse to consent to a search of his vehicle. (Tried to couch it in as questionable terms as possible because obviously have no idea the truth of the matter).

2. Sound like there are a couple of more eye witnesses that seem to corroborate in substance what others have said. Seems they also state MB put his hands up. Also seem to state MB was moving toward the officer. But also seem to rebut any idea that that movement forward was bum rushing or bull rushing DW.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Sure, if you watched the 'news' then thats what you would see. I was watching the 'news' and hearing how 'peaceful' the protestors were. but had livestream going at same time, and saw something quite different. The msm news is not always a very accurate source of information.

It was not just a FEW bad apples.bbm.

bbm
No kidding...it wasn't just one or two or twelve.
There was much damage done in Ferguson during those first few nights.
Breaking and entering, stealing, looting, arson.
What about the many protesters who screamed at cops--
back up? f &^* that? as they the PROTESTERS walked towards cops?

 

[mdana]

About me taking AG's statement out of context, do you have a link to the transcript or a video that you can provide to support that?

No, that is on you. If you make an allegation, it is up to you to prove it. Not anyone else.

You stated he was a racist for making a factual statement with nothing else to support your contention.

MOO

 

[reedus23]

If someone stated they were a white man, would that indicate supporting one side or the other? It has to work both ways---and it doesn't.

If white people had been oppressed for centuries and profiled, I think that that statement could indicate an understanding or appreciation of what life is like as a minority while not supporting one side of the other. To suggest that that statement means that he has already taken sides in his investigation and made a determination is illogical IMHO. I think what blurs his comments for some is that there is an overlap between the social injustices that may or may not have occurred in Ferguson in a more general sense and the issues of justice involved in this particular incident.