Ferguson?

[Steelerfan]

"Remember, Darren Wilson and Mike Brown are the same size. You wouldn’t have guessed that based on the transcript..."

And with all the cherubic pictures of Brown shown by the mainstream media, you'd think he was just an innocent, baby-faced kid. How long did that video of him robbing the store last? One day? Thank goodness for alternative media.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Wow....NY Times posts Officer Wilsons address. That is absolutely irresponsible on their part....imagine if you had a house on that street right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/26/reckless-move-ny-times-publishes-darren-wilsons-address/

 

[Steeltime]

"Remember, Darren Wilson and Mike Brown are the same size. You wouldn’t have guessed that based on the transcript..."

Wilson is 6'4", 210 lbs.

Brown was 6'5", 289 lbs.

Wilson is a big dude. Brown is huge. An 80 lb. weight differential, where the guy who is heavier is just a big guy and not heavier because he is fat, is significant.

 

[Lmob0621]

Wilson is 6'4", 210 lbs.

Brown was 6'5", 289 lbs.

Wilson is a big dude. Brown is huge. An 80 lb. weight differential, where the guy who is heavier is just a big guy and not heavier because he is fat, is significant.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Steeltime again.

I was just giong to post the same thing.

 

[Superman]

Wow....NY Times posts Officer Wilsons address. That is absolutely irresponsible on their part....imagine if you had a house on that street right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/26/reckless-move-ny-times-publishes-darren-wilsons-address/

already been done
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...-ferguson-cops-photo-and-address-2895320.html

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

NFL player Benjamin Watson is one of countless Americans still struggling to understand Michael Brown's shooting death at the hands of a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer
17 hrs ·
At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:

I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.

I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.

I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope

 

[Supersteeler]

Some very insightful commentary by Mr. Watson there.

 

[Steeltime]

Some very insightful commentary by Mr. Watson there.

Agreed.

I don't agree with everything he noted, but he presented an intelligent, thoughtful outline of his analysis. I think that citizens unhappy with the grand jury decision have every right to gather peacefully outside the courthouse, or the police station, or city hall and voice their protest in this fashion.

But the thugs involved in burning and looting deserve their day before the grand jury. Wonder how they would feel then about the grand jury examining evidence and reaching a measured decision before issuing an indictment.

 

[Confluence]

three cheers for Ben Watson!

 

[DBS1970]

What's the reasoning behind suspending an officer without pay and criminal prosecution because he was in a gun fight with a bank robber?

Body cameras only see from the front of a police officer. It can't see behind him and is a very limited field of vision. I have no problem issuing police officers these tools. However, it isn't the be all end all of every issue.

You can't end all internal reviews. It makes no sense. The police are on a budget and can't hire outside agencies to review every single minor offense against a cop. You are basically just asking for cops to stay in the precinct building and never leave.

You also want to get rid of internal affairs but want a state law enforcement agency from a far away county to investigate. So you want a specific state agency in every county? Remember no internal affairs in any county so these are "state" police of some sort in every single county. Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? No state has a policing agency in all their counties. Hell most only have a main headquarters in the capitol and satellite stations in a handful of counties. The expense of this would be unreal. Mississippi has 82 counties. You want 82 different state run agencies? Good luck with that.

Okay to explain in order from my original post.

1) Body camera. yes they only see to the front but that's what it needs to see. It records what the officer sees and it records audio. Did you know that departments that put body cameras on their officers saw complaints filed against their officers plummet and use of force reports by the officers dropped by half? If Officer Wilson was wearing a body camera that day in August we wouldknow exactly what happened.

2) Review of civil complaints against officers should not be done by the agency the cop works for because in many cases these complaints are swept under the rug. The excuse given is that well "Patrolman Kepharsky is a very active officer and they always get complaints." Often as not the officer is a good cop but there are a substantial number who are rude, unprofessional and apathetic about the way they do their jobs. So you let a civilian advisory board review these complaints and make recommendations as to disciplinary action from retraining up to termination of constant bad actors.
3) The internal affairs issue. I'm not talking about setting up separate agencies in each county. Im talking about departments not investigating their own officers and employees for crimes. That would mean the city police could not investigate one of its own officers for theft, but could be called to investigate an officer from another municipality or county police agency in another county. For instance I live in Tampa, in Hillsborough County FL, TPD could not investigate criminal charges against a TPD officer or a Temple Terrace PD officer because they are both in Hillsborough county, but could investigate officers from ST Pete or Clearwater PD because they are across the bridge on the other side of the bay in Pinellas County. In the case of investigating its own personnel or personnel from agencies in county that they work with closely there is an inherent conflict of interest. In the example I give they would be a completely disinterested third party and the Good ole Boy Network would be less of a factor. In some instances the criminal activity would warrant state police involvement. But it would eliminate cover ups and conflict of interest from departments "Investigatins" crimes committed by its own officers.

4) Terminate any officer forced to pay or settle a lawsuit. Burden of proof being different in civil court means that many times the only way to hold a bad cop accountable is through civil litigation. In many cases this is after an agency has cleared its own officer of criminal wrong doing or given a slap on the wrist. This is simply another way of weeding out bad cops.

5) All use of deadly force reviewed by a court of law. Bring the process out in the open. The scenario I have seen that explains this best is cop in CA where the department put body cams on patrolmen shoots a guy who comes at him with a knife. Body cam footage reviewed and shows that yeah the guy was trying to stab the officer and its a legit shoot. (Yes it really happened.) Female Officer in Batton Rouge LA turns off body cam and shoots handcuffed suspect in the back of a patrol car. Obviously not a legit shoot. (Yes this also really happened) In both cases reviewed in open court and In the one case the officer is cleared and reinstated in the other case officer is immediately bound over for trial. The reason I say immediate suspension with out pay is because as it stands now a cop that kills a person on the job justified or not gets a paid vacation. There should be less incentive for police to use deadly force not more. If they are cleared for the shooting being justified they can always get back pay after they are reinstated to the police force.

I hope that clarifies my position and explains the reasoning behind it to you.

 

[Vader]

1. Body cameras are fine with me. However they don't cover everything. When an officer is pressed against the car, ducked down behind a car door, and laying on the ground are just a few issues along with camera malfunction. Again I'm all for it but just like dash cams they aren't the eye in the sky most people think they are.

2. Who makes up this board? Are they familiar with procedures and protocols of police officers? If they are then how? Are they ex-cops? Are they paid? Who can afford that if they are paid? If not then who is going to want to do it? Sorry but a board made up of people that know nothing about police work is just waiting for horrible decisions. One that is made up of ex-cops and administration officials does exactly the opposite of what you want to do which is to put this in civilian hands.

3. If you get rid of internal affairs then there aren't any people to investigate this from any county. Also I'd love to hear from someone on here that has experience with these matters. I'm not a cop so I'm going off what I know from college when I took criminal justice. I know in NY, for example, that you never have beat cops investigating beat cops. You have IAB (internal affairs Bureau) that is ran by a totally different division. They aren't stationed with local police. Everywhere is different so I can't speak to how every county, city, borough, and state have their IA setup.

4. I have no idea about this. I don't know the law on this and can't think of any cases I've seen about this off the top of my head.

5. Courts of law are slow and should never be used for this purpose. It would be a miscarriage of justice to have a cop in a good shooting suspended without pay and taken off the force. You seem to think a court is just going to look at a case and issue a decree ASAP. It doesn't work that way and there would be appeals. It has nothing to do with incentives because the bad cop didn't shoot the unarmed person because they are going to get vacation pay. Doing it your way means cops will do everything to keep from shooting anyone. Which means more of them will die from thugs on the streets. It's a horrible method.

Also I'd like to see the story to the cop that shot the knife welding guy in CA. You said an open court heard the case. I want to see what type of court that was.

 

[Steeltime]

Regarding #4 and firing police officers whose conduct resulted in payment of a civil judgment:

Like car accidents? Or other simple negligence cases? What about negligent violations of policy? How about a first-time negligent policy violation after 12 years of clean service? Fire the guy nonetheless?

This is why laws tend to run 30 pages, single-spaced, and still result in tremendous loopholes, exceptions, exemptions, etc.

Finally, most police officers work under a collective bargaining agreement that sets forth the employee's right to have a hearing and a required showing on the part of the police department to justify termination. Your proposed "fire him if he had a civil judgment entered against him" rule would violate the cop's CBA protection, and would undoubtedly raise a myriad of other likely violations.

For example, what if the cop had a medical condition that caused or contributed to a policy violation and resulting civil judgment? Fire the cop for that outcome, and risk violating ADA and possibly FMLA, as well as state laws governing disability discrimination.

These things are difficult. I understand that an easy, 5-step policy sounds marginally appealing at first blush, but until you actually get involved in interpreting, enforcing, and applying laws, you cannot understand how close a lot of these decisions are. Your broad-brush approach is like using a bazooka to kill a fly on the wall. Yeah, I guess that would work, but the solution is worse than the problem.

 

[Rod Farva]

Vader's pretty well covered most of my concerns with or objections to your proposals, so I'll be brief.

Okay to explain in order from my original post.

1) Body camera. yes they only see to the front but that's what it needs to see. It records what the officer sees and it records audio. Did you know that departments that put body cameras on their officers saw complaints filed against their officers plummet and use of force reports by the officers dropped by half? If Officer Wilson was wearing a body camera that day in August we wouldknow exactly what happened.

No problem whatsoever and in fact most cops like them because they do tend to calm potentially volatile situations.

2) Review of civil complaints against officers should not be done by the agency the cop works for because in many cases these complaints are swept under the rug. The excuse given is that well "Patrolman Kepharsky is a very active officer and they always get complaints." Often as not the officer is a good cop but there are a substantial number who are rude, unprofessional and apathetic about the way they do their jobs. And cameras would capture this......so those types would potentially soon weed themselves out.

So you let a civilian advisory board review these complaints and make recommendations as to disciplinary action from retraining up to termination of constant bad actors.

Bad idea for reasons already mentioned....it really is nearly impossible for someone who has never done the job to be able to fully immerse themselves in a cop's world, imo.

3) The internal affairs issue. I'm not talking about setting up separate agencies in each county. Im talking about departments not investigating their own officers and employees for crimes. That would mean the city police could not investigate one of its own officers for theft, but could be called to investigate an officer from another municipality or county police agency in another county. For instance I live in Tampa, in Hillsborough County FL, TPD could not investigate criminal charges against a TPD officer or a Temple Terrace PD officer because they are both in Hillsborough county, but could investigate officers from ST Pete or Clearwater PD because they are across the bridge on the other side of the bay in Pinellas County. In the case of investigating its own personnel or personnel from agencies in county that they work with closely there is an inherent conflict of interest. In the example I give they would be a completely disinterested third party and the Good ole Boy Network would be less of a factor. In some instances the criminal activity would warrant state police involvement. But it would eliminate cover ups and conflict of interest from departments "Investigatins" crimes committed by its own officers.

I guess there's some merit to that idea. It would probably be logistically difficult and expensive though. Keep in mind most IAD divisions are often (and usually inaccurately) referred to as the rat squad for a reason. They are often made up of a couple of certain types of personalities though......either altruistic cops who genuinely wish to see justice done or rank climbers who see it as a fast track to the upper echelon and will step on their mother's to do it....the point being that, especially in larger departments, the "good ole boy" network to which you refer (if it exists at all) is usually limited to the beat cops.

4) Terminate any officer forced to pay or settle a lawsuit. Burden of proof being different in civil court means that many times the only way to hold a bad cop accountable is through civil litigation. In many cases this is after an agency has cleared its own officer of criminal wrong doing or given a slap on the wrist. This is simply another way of weeding out bad cops.

I'm not an attorney but I'm under the impression that the burden of proof in a civil suit is so much less stringent because a person can't be deprived of their freedom as a result of a civil action....not certain on that just a guess. Robbing someone of their ability to feed their family in anything less than a criminal court would be similarly egregious I feel.

5) All use of deadly force reviewed by a court of law. Bring the process out in the open. The scenario I have seen that explains this best is cop in CA where the department put body cams on patrolmen shoots a guy who comes at him with a knife. Body cam footage reviewed and shows that yeah the guy was trying to stab the officer and its a legit shoot. (Yes it really happened.) Female Officer in Batton Rouge LA turns off body cam and shoots handcuffed suspect in the back of a patrol car. Obviously not a legit shoot. (Yes this also really happened) In both cases reviewed in open court and In the one case the officer is cleared and reinstated in the other case officer is immediately bound over for trial. The reason I say immediate suspension with out pay is because as it stands now a cop that kills a person on the job justified or not gets a paid vacation. There should be less incentive for police to use deadly force not more. If they are cleared for the shooting being justified they can always get back pay after they are reinstated to the police force.

I hope that clarifies my position and explains the reasoning behind it to you.

As for this last and as said that would be a HUGE disincentive for an officer to act as quickly and decisively as one must in order to save their own or others' lives. Besides that when a good officer, and lets be real, that is the majority, takes someone's life I'm pretty sure they aren't in any frame of mind to consider themselves as being on any vacation. So you're suggesting that in addition to handling the tremendous emotional and probably physical burden of their action they should also be subjected to financial ruin? I don't think that's a good idea.

So much for being brief, huh? JMO's.......

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

I gots yer peaceful protestin right here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ictures-extent-damage-buildings-Ferguson.html

 

[IndySteel]

"................

 

[Steeltime]

The Ferguson police department should be investigating the city's public school teachers:

Uhhh, is he suggesting that the DA is a water-diversion and storage device, and that we should ogle him?

 

[Spike]

All quiet in Fergadishu tonight

all the big screen tee-vees must have been looted

 

[CharlesDavenport]

So his ******* idiot mother is out there saying this stupid **** -

“I don’t believe a word of it. I know my son far too well, he would never do anything like that,” McSpadden said. “He would never provoke anyone to do anything to him and he wouldn’t do anything to anybody. I don’t believe a word of it.”

from - http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/11...her-my-son-doesnt-have-a-history-of-violence/

She didn't get the memo about this?


Oh by the way, she may be facing felony armed robbery charges, so she may actually believe his behavior is fine. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...elony-armed-robbery-charges-article-1.2001373

There are no "black leaders" calling bullshit on all of this crap?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I own a business now but if owned a business in Fergadishu (I like that) that got looted and burned I'd take the insurance money and reopen somewhere else. **** it, let 'em fend for themselves.

 

[Confluence]

I guess I don't understand the relevance of nighttime rioting and property destruction to either the tragedy of Michael Brown's death or any protestations about it.

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

All quiet in Fergadishu tonight

all the big screen tee-vees must have been looted

It is turkey time, anyways the score is even now http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...supply-carjacked-run-protesters-Ferguson.html Footage shows elderly man attacked with his own oxygen supply and carjacked by protesters in Ferguson as a third night of protests take place nationwide

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-run-protesters-Ferguson.html#ixzz3KENpSlVE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Steeltime]

I own a business now but if owned a business in Fergadishu (I like that) that got looted and burned I'd take the insurance money and reopen somewhere else. **** it, let 'em fend for themselves.

Yep. The business owners unfortunately have to battle to get a decent price for inventory.

Usually, retail outlets that are burned to the ground lose their books and recordkeeping systems (typically, something like Excel on an office computer), and have little evidence of the cost and value of inventory. The insurance company will offer "x" for the re-build, but that money is paid to the property owner, not the business owner. (Most businesses lease their place of business.)

That means basically no money to the business owner, apart from inventory and future profit loss that the business owner can prove, where the business evidence is destroyed in the fire.

I say this having worked for ******* insurance companies paying (or more accurately not paying) such claims and winding up in litigation, and later working on behalf of the business owners trying to get their claims paid.

P.S. Tax records don't help because ... well, you know.

 

[Steelerfan]

I want to know why the step-father isn't behind bars for inciting a riot after his "burn this ***** down" comment. The idiot should be spending Thanksgiving in jail.

 

[Booted]

Bad, Bad Micheal Brown

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Animals beating up an old man with his own oxygen tank (yes, he's white) - http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/ferguson-mob-beats-carjacks-elderly-man-on-oxygen/

In the video, eyewitnesses can be heard telling the news crew the man was beaten with his oxygen tank, which was then used to smash the window of his car. The attackers fled the scene in the man’s vehicle and ran over the victim in the process.

“They made a mistake by giving us no justice,” one of the bystanders can be heard saying.

If I'm black, I am getting really upset about this ****. This isn't setting back race relations, it's charting a new course, and it ain't good. Who looks at this ****, hears the idiot "spokespeople", "leaders", and media still defending this **** in general, and doesn't just shake their head and dismiss the whole lot of them as worthless or worse?