MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #2

[Isabelle]

I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, still catching up from last thread and this one. It's the police report from the strong arm robbery

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/15/ferguson-police-report.pdf

Pg 5 of report describes Dorian as wearing flip flops, it seems

 

[lawstudent]

I really wish the media would stop portraying every possible victim as an angel and guaranteeing they will be torn down one way or another. Newsflash: no one is an angel. Some are much worse than others, but it's bad enough when the family goes there, and then the media just keeps running with it. Then, when inevitably some sort of "flaw" arises, people use it to say "aha! Not a victim" as though victim equates with flawless altruist. Murder victims can be amazing people, horrible people, career criminals, or in between as most of us are. Yes, learning more about the victim is relevant at times to determining the circumstances surrounding an alleged crime. But this ridiculous pattern of everyone is an angel and then no wait they are not a truly innocent victim is really getting tired. The legal system has never required victims be innocent, only that they be victims of a crime. Obviously whether or not this shooting was justified will include an analysis of Michael Brown's prior actions, but if he was indeed shot in the back, that obviously still raises questions even if he was suspected of a crime he in fact committed. Everyone needs to wait for the facts, and I think most people are at this point. It's just the ones who don't wait are the loudest and make the poorest choices.

 

[Tawny]

I really wish the media would stop portraying every possible victim as an angel and guaranteeing they will be torn down one way or another. Newsflash: no one is an angel. Some are much worse than others, but it's bad enough when the family goes there, and then the media just keeps running with it. Then, when inevitably some sort of "flaw" arises, people use it to say "aha! Not a victim" as though victim equates with flawless altruist. Murder victims can be amazing people, horrible people, career criminals, or in between as most of us are. Yes, learning more about the victim is relevant at times to determining the circumstances surrounding an alleged crime. But this ridiculous pattern of everyone is an angel and then no wait they are not a truly innocent victim is really getting tired. The legal system has never required victims be innocent, only that they be victims of a crime. Obviously whether or not this shooting was justified will include an analysis of Michael Brown's prior actions, but if he was indeed shot in the back, that obviously still raises questions even if he was suspected of a crime he in fact committed. Everyone needs to wait for the facts, and I think most people are at this point. It's just the ones who don't wait are the loudest and make the poorest choices.

Very well said.

 

[Frydaddy]

Honestly, IMHO, I don't even think the robbery is relevant at this point. Regardless of the crime committed, you don't murder a surrendering person, even if they are a suspect.

It has been my opinion all along that IF the officer shot Brown in the street while surrendering, even after an altercation or shots during the altercation in or around the car, that the officer is likely in deep trouble and rightly so. However, most of the testimony of D. Johnson has become sketchy at best. How does a police officer sitting in a rolling cruiser grab a 6'4" 292lb man around the neck? The innocent trip to their "destination" now seems less innocent if Brown and Johnson are the suspects from the robbery. Again, we need to see the autopsy results and evidence from the car to know exactly what happened. From day one, there were as few as two shots heard to as many as ten. We don't know where the remaining witnesses were located relative to the incident. There is just way too much information unknown to form any conclusions about arms up, surrendering, etc.

Make no mistake, I am not blaming Brown, not saying he deserved to die, not defending the cop, or his department. Just cautioning people to look at how different the story looks today versus the one we knew Saturday night.

 

[Bernina]

It's just the shadow cast by the shoes from the light coming from outside in the pic at the convenience store.

Was looking at wrong shadow.......disregard.

 

[Trident]

This is simply not true. Aggression met with aggression only ramps things up. A well trained officer knows how to de-escalate a threat so that people are not hurt and criminals are still apprehended.

And the blatant disrespect and unnecessary intimidation are used on everyone, criminal or not. And don't even get me started on the back-slapping, self-congratulatory behavior many cops exhibit after a take down in which they got rough with someone. Do we want a trustworthy police force that is mature and calm under pressure? Or do we want an armed force of arrogant jerks who behave like a crowd of rowdy bros?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my crime-ridden little piece of hell, they have armored thingees. IF there is ever a riot, I would welcome LE armed force. We cannot even go into town after dark; it's like the walking dead. I do NOT consider LE in my town arrogant jerks acting like bros - far from it. I also don't consider LE from Ferguson that way either.

My opinion only

 

[zwiebel]

I've followed this case from a very short time after it happened and there's been the most peculiar handling of media/public information releases (from officials) I have ever seen in my life. I think that's caused a huge amount of extra trouble.

I can't help but think that there is someone, somewhere, (or maybe a few?) who has/have been promoted way out of their league, and this is the result.

I weep for what's been happening in Missouri. And have 100 per cent confidence it will get better. Please let it be soon.

 

[Hatfield]

Pg 5 of report describes Dorian as wearing flip flops, it seems

This task of identifying whether the 2 pictures of the shoes are the same is a perfect example of how easy it is to get things confused.

When I first looked, I was certain it was tennis shoes in the street and flip flops in the store. It was only until I more carefully looked at his white socks that I realized. Hey, it could definitely be the same guy in both photos. The pic in the street could easily be white socks with strap on flip flop sandle type shoes that are just like the 1 in the store photo.

So this perfect example shows how things at first glimpse may not be what really happened. I want to see the LE statement of what happened. I also want to see sworn statements of any witnesses.
And I want to see any videos if they exist of the incident. Like from the patrol car.

The problem I foresee coming is even if I see sworn statements, I will probably end up having to choose which ones to believe. And I am surely not just going to think that just because LE swears on something, that it is true.

So I am afraid a jury of 12 may have to come to a concensus on this. If charges are even filed against the LE officer.

 

[liljim]

will be interesting to hear what the justification for not releasing the fact that michael was stopped for being a suspect in a felony robbery and assault until today was?

they must have known that information immediately, if not prior to the stop because he should have called it in. maybe he did, so then they would have had that information right at the outset of the investigation.

i wonder if a lot of this outrage, rioting, looting could have been avoided if they had released it right away.

maybe they have a good reason idk but it is deinitely unusual, when a police shooting happens you usually hear that same day/night something like "officers responding to a robbery found the suspects and X happened..." "officers stopped two men who were suspected of being involved in..."

but what we heard here was only that the origin of the incident was that they were walking in the middle of the street... until today.

 

[liljim]

also not to be forgotten in this is the difference in the level of public safety provided by the two vastly different responses from LE when comparing wednesday night to last night.

one to grow on i guess...

 

[lawstudent]

I've followed this case from a very short time after it happened and there's been the most peculiar handling of media/public information releases (from officials) I have ever seen in my life. I think that's caused a huge amount of extra trouble.

I can't help but think that there is someone, somewhere, (or maybe a few?) who has/have been promoted way out of their league, and this is the result.

I weep for what's been happening in Missouri. And have 100 per cent confidence it will get better. Please let it be soon.

Exactly. I know the police may have legitimate reasons to withhold information, but it just looked bad. If they don't give any information about the alleged robbery and leak things out in such small pieces, it causes suspicion. I know it's a tense situation, but it simply was not handled well. Whenever a police officer shoots someone in the back, a full explanation is needed ASAP. The police may not have all the information right away either, but it just wasn't handled very well, and the media is irresponsible in every story it reports on.

 

[Hatfield]

will be interesting to hear what the justification for not releasing the fact that michael was stopped for being a suspect in a felony robbery and assault until today was?

they must have known that information immediately, if not prior to the stop because he should have called it in. maybe he did, so then they would have had that information right at the outset of the investigation.

i wonder if a lot of this outrage, rioting, looting could have been avoided if they had released it right away.

maybe they have a good reason idk but it is deinitely unusual, when a police shooting happens you usually hear that same day/night something like "officers responding to a robbery found the suspects and X happened..." "officers stopped two men who were suspected of being involved in..."

but what we heard here was only that the origin of the incident was that they were walking in the middle of the street... until today.

Right. And this is why I suspect there is something LE is hiding or trying to coverup.

It makes no sense. It sure makes me think LE was trying to coverup that maybe the officer just went into a rage and shot the guy.

If that is not true, then LE badly mishandled the news media because it sure makes me think that way.

 

[epiphany]

On 08/10, LE had a copy of the surveillance video on disc in their possession, BUT their computer could not read the disc:

See P 9/19

On 08/11, LE officer writes that he/she had reviewed a copy of the surveillance video and ID's Brown & Johnson:

See P 8/19

See P 7/19: for date supplement is written and video viewed by LE

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/15/ferguson-police-report.pdf

 

[JLSChook]

Pg 5 of report describes Dorian as wearing flip flops, it seems

Thanks, I fixed my post.

 

[Sonya610]

Here's the video:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/heres-the-surveillance-video-allegedly-showing-michael-browns-robbery/

Seems they didn't show the other camera which caught him slamming around the small clerk.

Has anyone seen that part of the video? Or would that be too inflammatory and hurt the communities feelings so that is being with held?

 

[Linda7NJ]

will be interesting to hear what the justification for not releasing the fact that michael was stopped for being a suspect in a felony robbery and assault until today was?

they must have known that information immediately, if not prior to the stop because he should have called it in. maybe he did, so then they would have had that information right at the outset of the investigation.

i wonder if a lot of this outrage, rioting, looting could have been avoided if they had released it right away.

maybe they have a good reason idk but it is deinitely unusual, when a police shooting happens you usually hear that same day/night something like "officers responding to a robbery found the suspects and X happened..." "officers stopped two men who were suspected of being involved in..."

but what we heard here was only that the origin of the incident was that they were walking in the middle of the street... until today.

All I know is ...law enforcement typically don't comment on "on going investigations" why should they be forced to release information piecemeal fashion in this case??? Why can't they complete their full
Investigation before making a comprehensive statement?

 

[Trident]

will be interesting to hear what the justification for not releasing the fact that michael was stopped for being a suspect in a felony robbery and assault until today was?

they must have known that information immediately, if not prior to the stop because he should have called it in. maybe he did, so then they would have had that information right at the outset of the investigation.

i wonder if a lot of this outrage, rioting, looting could have been avoided if they had released it right away.

maybe they have a good reason idk but it is deinitely unusual, when a police shooting happens you usually hear that same day/night something like "officers responding to a robbery found the suspects and X happened..." "officers stopped two men who were suspected of being involved in..."

but what we heard here was only that the origin of the incident was that they were walking in the middle of the street... until today.

I DID read that several days ago, ,maybe the same day. I wonder what the justification for DISAPPEARING that information is, who did it, and why.

 

[Frydaddy]

will be interesting to hear what the justification for not releasing the fact that michael was stopped for being a suspect in a felony robbery and assault until today was?

they must have known that information immediately, if not prior to the stop because he should have called it in. maybe he did, so then they would have had that information right at the outset of the investigation.

i wonder if a lot of this outrage, rioting, looting could have been avoided if they had released it right away.

maybe they have a good reason idk but it is deinitely unusual, when a police shooting happens you usually hear that same day/night something like "officers responding to a robbery found the suspects and X happened..." "officers stopped two men who were suspected of being involved in..."

but what we heard here was only that the origin of the incident was that they were walking in the middle of the street... until today.

Possible motives for not disclosing information could be anywhere from closing ranks to protect the cop to trying to preserve the integrity of the evidence should the office face a trial for whatever charges a grand jury may indict the officer on later. Imagine if FPD had announced Brown as a suspect in that robbery in the midst of an emotional powderkeg and got that wrong on top of the shooting...probably have blown things up tenfold. You also don't want to give the public the perception that because Brown was a suspect at the time of the incident that the police were justifying the cops actions - as emotionally charged people are not usually real concerned about logic in the heat of the moment.

 

[popsicle]

Chief is having a PC at 3 fyi

 

[lawstudent]

All I know is ...law enforcement typically don't comment on "on going investigations" why should they be forced to release information piecemeal fashion in this case??? Why can't they complete their full
Investigation before making a comprehensive statement?

They usually disclose information about the reasons for an initial stop/report. It's not that uncommon for police to comment on ongoing investigations, when it benefits them. Even just looking at the recent Robin Williams press conference - they keep saying they are investigating, and then gave all those details. When police don't talk, it's usually because they have a reason. Sometimes it's a good one, sometimes it isn't. Either way, people will wonder.