MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #19

[Lovejac]

As the twitter page states, an open investigation is a different scenario...



http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/faqs.htm#Q4a

Specifically



http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C600-699/6100000100.HTM

Thank you so much for clearing up that silly, little misinformation :loveyou:

 

[Truthy]

It has EVERYTHING to do with the investigation. The incident report would have to be filled out by OW, who is facing potential murder charges. He can not be forced to fill out that report at this time, given the situation he is facing.

Where does it make exceptions in the statute I quoted? It does not appear to make exceptions for ANY reason. None.
Please quote the statute.


MOO

 

[Frydaddy]

In your opinion. Just in case some new comes to the thread, just wanted it to be clear it is your opinion any witnesses have been discredited. I would presume that none of the prosecuting attorneys, none of the grand jurors nor any of OW's lawyer(s) have simply written off the witness testimony. They will all (including OW) have their credibility weighed in light of all of the other evidence.

I think they have all been largely discredited by most logical thinkers who aren't invested in a particular outcome favorable to the Brown family, though that too is my opinion for anyone new to the thread. I agree, like myself, none of the groups you mentioned have simply written off the witness testimony of the three I mentioned, I am sure they gave them the benefit of the doubt up until the point they all impeach themselves rather swiftly. This video alone destroys Crenshaw's credibility. And then there is the question about Tiffany's car in Piaget's video and photos of the crime scene.

http://www.ksdk.com/videos/news/local/2014/08/13/14007133/

 

[Truthy]

It has EVERYTHING to do with the investigation. The incident report would have to be filled out by OW, who is facing potential murder charges. He can not be forced to fill out that report at this time, given the situation he is facing.

There are no exceptions quoted in the law. And what the law specifically does is distinguish the initial report- which was subject to dozens of FOI requests and IS covered by the Sunshine law- and later information gathered for the purpose of investigating after that, which can be released later. The law says these are two different things- and the incident report should be made public. The statute is very very clear about this. No exceptions are noted, "fair or not". Sorry- it is just not there.

MOO

 

[Muffet]

Regarding Reedus's and Truthy's posts last thread, how many witnesses do you think corroborate Wilson's account? And how many witnesses has the family attorney said they have?

This information has been posted multiple times with quotes and links. Per reports, more than a dozen witnesses support Wilson's account. Per the attorney, they have six. And as sonjay and others have pointed out, within those six Crump/Parks refer to, many actually confirm that Michael was advancing on the officer. Frankly, the two construction workers referencing a 25 ft advance while Darren retreated firing, is some of the most compelling released so far supporting that Darren did indeed consider Michael a threat.

[SFS]

As for the contention that this case should go before a jury to sort witness testimony, that's why there is a grand jury evaluating everything.

The prosecutor opted not to press charges and presented the case to the grand jury because of conflicting testimony from witnesses, his office said.
http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-grand-jury-weighs-charges-ferguson-shooting-231928795.html

ITA. The Crump et al mantra that "we have enough witnesses to arrest him" is just crazy for so many reasons. It got old a long time ago. :/


Sent via Tapatalk for S4

 

[Frydaddy]

http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/faqs.htm#Q4a

Under what circumstances can a police agency deny access to police reports that might otherwise be open?

Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records that may otherwise be subject to disclosure under two circumstances. First, if the agency has an articulable concern over the safety of a victim, witness, or other person if the record is revealed. Second, disclosure is not necessary if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized. However, the agency may need court approval for withholding this information.

 

[nomoresorrow]

This might sound wrong and go over like a lead balloon, but as much as I want to see people empowered and involved in their local, state, and national politics, I have a (pipe?) dream that we could put more emphasis on educating potential voter objectively about all the options, history, views, processes, and consequences instead of just saying "Vote. Period"

So I guess if I had a booth set up to sign up to vote, it would include handouts giving them what they should have learned and retained in school. I wouldn't stop them from voting without reading first, but I'd request that they show a grasp of it before I felt comfortable personally signing them up.

Sent via Tapatalk for S4

That discriminatory practice was banned in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Guess someone else needs to take some of their own history lessons before they're qualified to assess other's aptitude. JMO!!

 

[Truthy]

Thank you so much for clearing up that silly, little misinformation :loveyou:

Thank you- from this link it is clear the incident is NOT an investigative report.

"(5) "Investigative report", a record, other than an arrest or incident report, prepared by personnel of a law enforcement agency, inquiring into a crime or suspected crime, either in response to an incident report or in response to evidence developed by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties."

Detailed incident reports ARE covered by the sunshine laws, not investigative reports. Two different things, let's stop spreading misinformation!

MOO

 

[katydid23]

Where does it make exceptions in the statute I quoted? It does not appear to make exceptions for ANY reason. None.
Please quote the statute.


MOO

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 610
Governmental Bodies and Records
Section 610.100
Definitions--arrest and incident records shall be available to public--closed records, when--record redacted, when--access to incident reports, record redacted, when--action for disclosure of investigative report authorized, costs--application to open incident and arrest reports, violations, civil penalty--identity of victim of sexual offense.

Under what circumstances can a police agency deny access to police reports that might otherwise be open?
Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records that may otherwise be subject to disclosure under two circumstances. First, if the agency has an articulable concern over the safety of a victim, witness, or other person if the record is revealed. Second, disclosure is not necessary if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized. However, the agency may need court approval for withholding this information.

How detailed must an incident report be in describing the "immediate facts and circumstances" of the crime or incident?
An incident report provides the general public with only the most basic information about each incident to which the law enforcement agency is called to respond. In some cases, it may be sufficient to describe the incident as a "vehicle accident" or "domestic assault," but in other situations more detail may be appropriate.

 

[Lovejac]

Jessica Lussenhop ‏@Lussenpop 2m
Mandy Murphey, anchor for Fox2/KTVI confirms that she did pointedly ask about existence of the shoplifting video of #michaelbrown...


Jessica Lussenhop ‏@Lussenpop 1m
...days before Chief Jackson released it on Aug. 15. Did so verbally, then submitted a Sunshine Request, she says.

Jessica Lussenhop ‏@Lussenpop 49s
She says she asked #Ferguson Mayor Knowles about it. From her email : "I asked him the question and he gave me no information about it."

<sarcasm alert>

I bet this information will be all over MSM, SM etc. because everyone wants to clear up that lie about no one asking for the video and it was only released because Chief Jackson wanted to put MB in a bad light

 

[katydid23]

Thank you- from this link it is clear the incident is NOT an investigative report.

"(5) "Investigative report", a record, other than an arrest or incident report, prepared by personnel of a law enforcement agency, inquiring into a crime or suspected crime, either in response to an incident report or in response to evidence developed by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties."

Detailed incident reports ARE covered by the sunshine laws, not investigative reports. Two different things, let's stop spreading misinformation!

MOO

However you seemed to have skipped over the important portions. Even incident reports may be redacted IF the release would place someone in danger. I think it is reasonable to assume OW would be in danger if it was released at this time.

might otherwise be open?
Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records that may otherwise be subject to disclosure under two circumstances. First, if the agency has an articulable concern over the safety of a victim, witness, or other person if the record is revealed. Second, disclosure is not necessary if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized. However, the agency may need court approval for withholding this information.


ETA: Sunshine laws do not supersede these sections of the statutes. If the release of any report is potentially hazardous to a person or an investigation, it does not have to be released to the public.

 

[Truthy]

http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/faqs.htm#Q4a

Under what circumstances can a police agency deny access to police reports that might otherwise be open?

Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records that may otherwise be subject to disclosure under two circumstances. First, if the agency has an articulable concern over the safety of a victim, witness, or other person if the record is revealed. Second, disclosure is not necessary if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized. However, the agency may need court approval for withholding this information.

The statute I posted makes a distinction between he incident report and all other subsequent reports. Your link does not appear to.

Did the FPD seek to get court approval? Or just ignore the sunshine laws. Seems like the latter.

 

[Truthy]

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 610
Governmental Bodies and Records
Section 610.100
Definitions--arrest and incident records shall be available to public--closed records, when--record redacted, when--access to incident reports, record redacted, when--action for disclosure of investigative report authorized, costs--application to open incident and arrest reports, violations, civil penalty--identity of victim of sexual offense.

Under what circumstances can a police agency deny access to police reports that might otherwise be open?
Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records that may otherwise be subject to disclosure under two circumstances. First, if the agency has an articulable concern over the safety of a victim, witness, or other person if the record is revealed. Second, disclosure is not necessary if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized. However, the agency may need court approval for withholding this information.




How detailed must an incident report be in describing the "immediate facts and circumstances" of the crime or incident?
An incident report provides the general public with only the most basic information about each incident to which the law enforcement agency is called to respond. In some cases, it may be sufficient to describe the incident as a "vehicle accident" or "domestic assault," but in other situations more detail may be appropriate.

"other situations more detail may be appropriate." Seems like it would be one of those situations.
When did the FPD get their court order?

Nuff said, IMHO.

 

[Muffet]

Someone on the last thread was asking about a possible "Mike Brown law" after seeing a t-shirt (I think?) I found this.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/response-your-petition-use-body-worn-cameras

Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera.

That's interesting. I have a feeling it would have put a cramp on the Crumps, though.

Bouncing off this, I've been meaning to ask... do you (anyone?) remember what case it was where the dash cam video seemed to show a clear case of an unjustified shoot, but the angle from the cop's collar-cam showed that it was actually justified?

I'd like to dig that up. It seems to be very relevant to this case. Perspective is critical to perception.

Sent via Tapatalk for S4

 

[Truthy]

However you seemed to have skipped over the important portions. Even incident reports may be redacted IF the release would place someone in danger. I think it is reasonable to assume OW would be in danger if it was released at this time.

might otherwise be open?
Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records that may otherwise be subject to disclosure under two circumstances. First, if the agency has an articulable concern over the safety of a victim, witness, or other person if the record is revealed. Second, disclosure is not necessary if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized. However, the agency may need court approval for withholding this information.


ETA: Sunshine laws do not supersede these sections of the statutes. If the release of any report is potentially hazardous to a person or an investigation, it does not have to be released to the public.

The statute itself makes a distinction between the incident report- and all other records. You are quoting the part about OTHER records.


"2. Each law enforcement agency of this state, of any county, and of any municipality shall maintain records of all incidents reported to the agency, investigations and arrests made by such law enforcement agency. All incident reports and arrest reports shall be open records. Notwithstanding any other provision of law other than the provisions of subsections 4, 5 and 6 of this section or section 320.083, investigative reports of all law enforcement agencies are closed records until the investigation becomes inactive. If any person is arrested and not charged with an offense against the law within thirty days of the person's arrest, the arrest report shall thereafter be a closed record except that the disposition portion of the record may be accessed and except as provided in section 610.120."

So did they go to court to ask for an exception- or just decide to not follow the applicable laws?

 

[Frydaddy]

The statute I posted makes a distinction between he incident report and all other subsequent reports. Your link does not appear to.

Did the FPD seek to get court approval? Or just ignore the sunshine laws. Seems like the latter.

"Police reports" that could "jeopardize an investigation" seems to cover every snip of paper, both pro and con, for any investigation. Imagine the comments of some if the reports were released, then Wilson is acquitted based on a technicality related to the release of them. Sometimes, LE might actually be doing their due diligence.

 

[Truthy]

"Police reports" that could "jeopardize an investigation" seems to cover every snip of paper, both pro and con, for any investigation. Imagine the comments of some if the reports were released, then Wilson is acquitted based on a technicality related to the release of them. Sometimes, LE might actually be doing their due diligence.

As per statute, the incident report is different than investigative reports.

Mo.Rev.Stat.§ 610.100.2.
The Arrest Record Law, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100 et seq., was amended in 1995 to distinguish between arrest, incident and investigation reports of law enforcement agencies.

2. Each law enforcement agency of this state, of any county, and of any municipality shall maintain records of all incidents reported to the agency, investigations and arrests made by such law enforcement agency. All incident reports and arrest reports shall be open records. Notwithstanding any other provision of law other than the provisions of subsections 4, 5 and 6 of this section or section 320.083, investigative reports of all law enforcement agencies are closed records until the investigation becomes inactive. If any person is arrested and not charged with an offense against the law within thirty days of the person's arrest, the arrest report shall thereafter be a closed record except that the disposition portion of the record may be accessed and except as provided in section 610.120.

 

[hambirg]

Incident reports and arrest reports are both types of the same thing (called an arrest report only if an arrest in name, otherwise it is an incident) they are both initial records taken promptly after an arrest or incident, recording details - "facts and circumstances" of the incident according to the state law I cited.

Without any details, what they released is NOT an incident report. It has nothing to do with the investigation- this is information they owe the public, according to their sunshine laws. It is supposed to be recorded promptly after the incident, and we have no idea if one was taken. SO we are left to rely on gossip instead of the info we should have.

'"Incident reports" consist of immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the initial report of a crime or incident, including any logs of reported crimes, accidents and complaints maintained by the law enforcement agency.' - see link above.

ALL MOO, but Mo state law is quoted above as making a clear distinction between these and any info related to any *subsequent* investigation.

You're confused. . .

How detailed must an incident report be in describing the "immediate facts and circumstances" of the crime or incident?
An incident report provides the general public with only the most basic information about each incident to which the law enforcement agency is called to respond. In some cases, it may be sufficient to describe the incident as a "vehicle accident" or "domestic assault," but in other situations more detail may be appropriate.

http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/faqs.htm#Q4a

What you are describing is an investigative report, and they do not release that until after the investigation.

 

[Muffet]

Jessica Lussenhop &#8207;@Lussenpop 2m
Mandy Murphey, anchor for Fox2/KTVI confirms that she did pointedly ask about existence of the shoplifting video of #michaelbrown...


Jessica Lussenhop &#8207;@Lussenpop 1m
...days before Chief Jackson released it on Aug. 15. Did so verbally, then submitted a Sunshine Request, she says.

Jessica Lussenhop &#8207;@Lussenpop 49s
She says she asked #Ferguson Mayor Knowles about it. From her email : "I asked him the question and he gave me no information about it."

Since there has been so much proof that the Huffington Post was wrong when they falsely, loudly accused the chief of lying, has the Huffington post issued an apology or even a retraction?

Have they the decency to do so with even half as much fanfare as they used to trash him?

I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

Sent via Tapatalk for S4

 

[hambirg]

That's interesting. I have a feeling it would have put a cramp on the Crumps, though.

Bouncing off this, I've been meaning to ask... do you (anyone?) remember what case it was where the dash cam video seemed to show a clear case of an unjustified shoot, but the angle from the cop's collar-cam showed that it was actually justified?

I'd like to dig that up. It seems to be very relevant to this case. Perspective is critical to perception.

Sent via Tapatalk for S4

Is this the one you are talking about?
***WARNING GRAPHIC***
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4kyiHSY2w

The perp appears to be surrendering, but. . . .

ETA. . .if you watch, be sure to read the statement below it. It's only 9 seconds total which is pretty close to what we have in this case. It's really quick! Did you catch it the first time? LEO's have to make split second decisions and witnesses may not see what they think they do. It's just a good illustration of that.