Ferguson

[papasmurfbell]

I'm sure in the not so distant future cops will have to wear some sort of body camera. i think they already do in parts of CA. Its the social media ear, municipalities cant put a lid on things the way they use to. I tend to be sympathetic to police, I have a cousin that retired from Bal City. The shit she had to put up with was amazing.

There are several jurisdictions that use it. I think it that vid should be required for trial. No longer is the cop get the benefit of the doubt at trial. One cop somewhere has had his lapel cam "malfunction" multiple times for disputed interactions.

[dc.]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/rand-paul-ferguson_n_5678900.html

Rand is going after the black vote hard.

You know that's a thought that so bothers me. Where are our "constitution defenders" on these issues of police brutality and peaceful assembly?? Something tells me Alito and Scalia wouldn't have much sympathy for these protestors but would sympathize with the "need for order" by the police.

 

I think it was Salon that had an article today about a "right to carry" march in Houston specifically going into minority neighborhoods (in part because the restaurants they used to match on are kicking them out). These people are carrying rifles and shotguns into hostile areas against community wishes... And being given permits. While Ferguson citizens are marching to ask about a dead kid and being assaulted. And again something tells me these right to carry marchers aren't exactly feeling the need to go defend their fellow protestors in Missouri.

[papasmurfbell]

The mainstream republicans are for militarizing the cops. The libertarian wing is right on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqqp_LAVklA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQaejUTs5iY

What do the cops have to hide?

[dc.]

The mainstream republicans are for militarizing the cops. The libertarian wing is right on this.

 

 

What do the cops have to hide?

True libertarians are right on lots of things but even Rand is only a pseudo libertarian ( drones are bad - but he likes the image of drones gunning down burglars?)

 

Most of the claimed libertarians of today - many who identify with the tea party - are really just small government supporters, but certainly not libertarian on social issues or even consistent in their belief of what small government and constitutional rights even means.

[papasmurfbell]

I agree on that assessment on Rand. He was all for drone use when looking for the Boston Bombers. His father is more legit on these matters but Rand is better than most. I would be most aligned with libertarians but probably only to about 40%. I pick and choose where I stand on issues on a case by case basis. I move all across the spectrum depending on the issue.

 

Check this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU_Z7kD5i7g

[Robjr83]

I'm a registered republican but consider myself libertarian on many views. The conservative right wing of the party has polarized our viewpoint. I think gays should be able to marry, why should i care what to two consenting adults do. I think marijuana should be legal (no different than alcohol IMO).

 

The problem with not militarizing the police is what you get with the LA bank robbers 20 years ago. If you can buy AR15's then the cops should be able to carry AR15s. As our polulation grows ( I think we're at 300 mil) these flare ups will happen. Police seem to be in a precarious spot.

[dc.]

I'm a registered republican but consider myself libertarian on many views. The conservative right wing of the party has polarized our viewpoint. I think gays should be able to marry, why should i care what to two consenting adults do. I think marijuana should be legal (no different than alcohol IMO).

 

The problem with not militarizing the police is what you get with the LA bank robbers 20 years ago. If you can buy AR15's then the cops should be able to carry AR15s. As our polulation grows ( I think we're at 300 mil) these flare ups will happen. Police seem to be in a precarious spot.

 

I don't mean attack the GOP or even "conservatives" as a group - I try to avoid it. I'm not in any camp myself, really - like Papa said, I pick issue by issue. I certainly don't judge anyone just for being on one side or the other. My comment before was more about the establishment and public faces of these groups.

 

As for militarization - is it necessary? Perhaps. But to what extent? Isn't a single state or regionally based unit more than enough? Does every small town need this? And even in response to the LA example, which was extreme, I think we have to consider costs vs benefits. The LA example is one of VERY few I can think of that would fall into needing this kind of presence. I am not convinced that those situations would become commonplace or even remotely more frequent if we didn't have this kind of response.

 

In some ways I even take this - and others do as well - to issues of terrorism. Our response to 9/11 has been beyond extreme. One could argue that our safety since 9/11 is because of the changes to our society and "security measures." But there isn't much evidence to back that up. All the while, 9/11 killed about 3,000 Americans and about double that were killed by police in the decade that followed not to mention 10x as many killed by guns each year.

 

That's not a call for gun control measures. It's just a call for perspective. Where are we putting our resources and energy? What do we fear? We fear the shocking and extreme and unexpected and spontaneous, even though such things are incredibly unlikely to actually harm us. It's no different than the reason people fear planes but not cars. Makes no sense based on the information we have about where you're likely to get hurt.

 

We prepare for the worst but we ignore the everyday; the 'everyday' has become boring because we're used to it.

[papasmurfbell]

I'm a registered republican but consider myself libertarian on many views. The conservative right wing of the party has polarized our viewpoint. I think gays should be able to marry, why should i care what to two consenting adults do. I think marijuana should be legal (no different than alcohol IMO).

 

The problem with not militarizing the police is what you get with the LA bank robbers 20 years ago. If you can buy AR15's then the cops should be able to carry AR15s. As our polulation grows ( I think we're at 300 mil) these flare ups will happen. Police seem to be in a precarious spot.

Sure in limited situation the police need AR's or something like them (but remember they are now illegal in MD and the police still have theirs). Why is it that the SWAT team is needed to execute a simple search warrant for a guy selling some dope? They didn't need that in the past. It is we have a hammer so where are the nails. Look at the MRAP ferguson is using. Their police chief said when asked about it that someone tried to light a molitov cocktail and there are bombs now. Where are these bombs. Had a bomb been used by the residents there it would have been plastered all over the news. The police are putting themselves in a precarious spot by their actions. Beat a dog long enough and it will attack you eventually. At some point with cops beating innocent people, raiding the wrong door, and generally treating people like crap you will have no defenders left out there. On that day a group of them will be out and the mob will take over and you may get a few of them but when massed in the hundreds the people will get to those cops. Those cops will be beaten to death and there is not a damn thing that the police state can do about it. The people are ruled by their consent.

 

 

 

I don't mean attack the GOP or even "conservatives" as a group - I try to avoid it. I'm not in any camp myself, really - like Papa said, I pick issue by issue. I certainly don't judge anyone just for being on one side or the other. My comment before was more about the establishment and public faces of these groups.

 

As for militarization - is it necessary? Perhaps. But to what extent? Isn't a single state or regionally based unit more than enough? Does every small town need this? And even in response to the LA example, which was extreme, I think we have to consider costs vs benefits. The LA example is one of VERY few I can think of that would fall into needing this kind of presence. I am not convinced that those situations would become commonplace or even remotely more frequent if we didn't have this kind of response.

 

In some ways I even take this - and others do as well - to issues of terrorism. Our response to 9/11 has been beyond extreme. One could argue that our safety since 9/11 is because of the changes to our society and "security measures." But there isn't much evidence to back that up. All the while, 9/11 killed about 3,000 Americans and about double that were killed by police in the decade that followed not to mention 10x as many killed by guns each year.

 

That's not a call for gun control measures. It's just a call for perspective. Where are we putting our resources and energy? What do we fear? We fear the shocking and extreme and unexpected and spontaneous, even though such things are incredibly unlikely to actually harm us. It's no different than the reason people fear planes but not cars. Makes no sense based on the information we have about where you're likely to get hurt.

 

We prepare for the worst but we ignore the everyday; the 'everyday' has become boring because we're used to it.

Looking at 9/11 and what has come from it. We have done more to change our living condiotions than bin Lauden ever could. We are always told that they hate us because of our freedoms. The freedoms we gave away I guess. So why would they hate us now?

 

We are about 7 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. I just ass soon deal with the terrist than the cops now.

[Robjr83]

Small towns may get these vehicles from the govt on grants so why wouldn't they turn a gift away. I hear the US has soo many surplus vehicles they're giving them away dirt cheap. Not just the LA bank robbers but lets say the Newton school shooting. Smaller towns are using that fear to justify beefy up they're law enforcement.

[dc.]

Latest news is release of officer's name and also confirmation that Brown was suspected (based on appearance) of robbery in nearby convenience store. That was the cause of the original stop.

 

Reports differ on how stop went - officer says Brown came to his car and began altercation; Brown's friend with him says officer called them over and pulled Brown toward car to start altercation.

 

Either way the robbery is bad news. It will give those who want to defend the police their reason. Maybe the shooting was justified - though everything after the stop seems suspect - but the aftermath of the shooting has been anything but justified. Sick watching the police chief on Hannity the other night defending himself and even questioning the state trooper's roles. Dear dumbass, the troopers managed a night with no tear gas and no arrests! Tada!

[Robjr83]

Why is it that the SWAT team is needed to execute a simple search warrant for a guy selling some dope?

 

​Because you don't know what that guy has in his home... Mac10's, AR15's who knows.. remember criminals don't care about gun laws.

[papasmurfbell]

Latest news is release of officer's name and also confirmation that Brown was suspected (based on appearance) of robbery in nearby convenience store. That was the cause of the original stop.

 

Reports differ on how stop went - officer says Brown came to his car and began altercation; Brown's friend with him says officer called them over and pulled Brown toward car to start altercation.

 

Either way the robbery is bad news. It will give those who want to defend the police their reason. Maybe the shooting was justified - though everything after the stop seems suspect - but the aftermath of the shooting has been anything but justified. Sick watching the police chief on Hannity the other night defending himself and even questioning the state trooper's roles. Dear dumbass, the troopers managed a night with no tear gas and no arrests! Tada!

I am calling total bs on that. The first thing they said was Brown and his friend (who the cops have yet to interview even when he has been offered up for the investigation) were told to get off teh street. Now after 6 days he is a suspect in a robbery. Also it took 5 days for the chief of police to say that the cop was all beat up and needed the hospital when they could have said that day 1 and again taken the firend into custody.

[papasmurfbell]

Why is it that the SWAT team is needed to execute a simple search warrant for a guy selling some dope?

 

​Because you don't know what that guy has in his home... Mac10's, AR15's who knows.. remember criminals don't care about gun laws.

The rareity of that is mind boggling. They didnt need that kind of weaponry 15 yrs ago. People had AR's then. Also the countless times when SWAT has shown up to the wrong door and killed a WW2 vet who thought a home invasion was happening is countless. I propose peopel make nail boards for their doors. It will slow down the initial entry.

[papasmurfbell]

BTW the NYPD has threatened action against the people for doing this. I guess they have lost their rush from dealing with Occupy.

[Robjr83]

Yeah I'm sure booby trapping your own home wont backfire..pun intended

[dc.]

Why is it that the SWAT team is needed to execute a simple search warrant for a guy selling some dope?

 

​Because you don't know what that guy has in his home... Mac10's, AR15's who knows.. remember criminals don't care about gun laws.

 

And yet 10x more than a cop getting shot executing a search warrant we hear about innocent people - in some recent cases even children - getting attacked or gased or killed when cops enter homes violently only to learn the suspect isn't there.

 

If we're talking about a legit "dealer" with known history of violence, then maybe those steps are necessary. But in many cases we're talking about guys accused of selling weed on a corner. Go watch those "SWAT" reality shows that were popular in the last few years - they spend an hour getting revved up, armored up, etc... storm in, knock down doors... and and and... nothing happens except slamming some guy's head into the ground. And then they wander around smiling to the camera about a 'successful operation.'

 

I just don't buy that every warrant is a pass to knock down a door a flashbang a house. But some cops see it that way. What ever happened to knocking ON a door?

 

 

By the way - don't hear much about local kids with assault rifles. Handguns? Sure. But there is a mythology to crime and criminals that I just don't buy. We know that the overwhelming crime is in located areas and, especially in places like Baltimore, related to drug/gang issues more than just attacks on citizens (though those certainly happen). But this mythology that all criminals have AR15s and hand grenades... that they get their weapons through crazy international arms dealers to avoid our laws (no, they actually just steal handguns from locals)... that they are all coming to break down our doors and steal our TVs and rape our children... I just don't buy it. The stats overwhelming refute all of those ideas.

[oldcrow]

there's no due diligence to serve a search warrant anymore

just fucking bumrush

 

collateral damage

[dc.]

I am calling total bs on that. The first thing they said was Brown and his friend (who the cops have yet to interview even when he has been offered up for the investigation) were told to get off teh street. Now after 6 days he is a suspect in a robbery. Also it took 5 days for the chief of police to say that the cop was all beat up and needed the hospital when they could have said that day 1 and again taken the firend into custody.

 

The docs (images and video to confirm) look legit. Surveillance of a guy that looks like Brown (and his friend) wearing what he was wearing.

 

I had heard this mentioned the day of the shooting (or not long after), though never any confirmation. Further, it doesn't justify anything but STOPPING Brown.

 

What's really sad/telling about this police force though is simply this - when they finally agree to release the docs on the shooting and the officer, the first ten pages of the packet are about the robbery.

 

BTW - this story from Daily Beast is just beyond words. Arrest the wrong guy. Beat him in the police station. Charge him with "property damage" for bleeding on police. And worst of all, police admit at the time, there is no way to track which police have had complaints against them - no central system for that because reports are put with arrest reports, not with personnel files. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

[dc.]

Yeah I'm sure booby trapping your own home wont backfire..pun intended

 

That's exactly the point. If the house isn't boobytrapped, why the door ram and bomb gear>

[Robjr83]

[Robjr83]

 

That's exactly the point. If the house isn't boobytrapped, why the door ram and bomb gear>

 

How do you know its not boobytrapped.... Papa's turning his house into mini fortress

[papasmurfbell]

 

And yet 10x more than a cop getting shot executing a search warrant we hear about innocent people - in some recent cases even children - getting attacked or gased or killed when cops enter homes violently only to learn the suspect isn't there.

 

If we're talking about a legit "dealer" with known history of violence, then maybe those steps are necessary. But in many cases we're talking about guys accused of selling weed on a corner. Go watch those "SWAT" reality shows that were popular in the last few years - they spend an hour getting revved up, armored up, etc... storm in, knock down doors... and and and... nothing happens except slamming some guy's head into the ground. And then they wander around smiling to the camera about a 'successful operation.'

 

I just don't buy that every warrant is a pass to knock down a door a flashbang a house. But some cops see it that way. What ever happened to knocking ON a door?

 

 

By the way - don't hear much about local kids with assault rifles. Handguns? Sure. But there is a mythology to crime and criminals that I just don't buy. We know that the overwhelming crime is in located areas and, especially in places like Baltimore, related to drug/gang issues more than just attacks on citizens (though those certainly happen). But this mythology that all criminals have AR15s and hand grenades... that they get their weapons through crazy international arms dealers to avoid our laws (no, they actually just steal handguns from locals)... that they are all coming to break down our doors and steal our TVs and rape our children... I just don't buy it. The stats overwhelming refute all of those ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agUZBghQchg

Yeah I am sure this individual was packing heat.

Most street crime with guns is with medium caliber hand guns.

 

 

there's no due diligence to serve a search warrant anymore

just fucking bumrush

 

collateral damage

Yep

 

 

 

How do you know its not boobytrapped.... Papa's turning his house into mini fortress

I accept castle doctrine at face value. Your boots do not stop nails and when the first two go down at the door the incursion will stop for a period of time.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p5Mv2jHFNM

Just plain funny.

[papasmurfbell]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/captain-mike-brown-case-marches-protestors/

 

What did happen was an amazing show of what happens when police remove their helmets and treat people with dignity, and it was beautiful.

“When I see a young lady cry because of fear of this uniform, that’s a problem. We’ve got to solve that.”

Johnson said

.

 

 

This is the correct move.

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

The officers got the wrong man, but charged him anyway—with getting his blood on their uniforms. How the Ferguson PD ran the town where Michael Brown was gunned down.

Police in Ferguson, Missouri, once charged a man with destruction of property for bleeding on their uniforms while four of them allegedly beat him.

“On and/or about the 20th day of Sept. 20, 2009 at or near 222 S. Florissant within the corporate limits of Ferguson, Missouri, the above named defendant did then and there unlawfully commit the offense of ‘property damage’ to wit did transfer blood to the uniform,” reads the charge sheet.

The address is the headquarters of the Ferguson Police Department, where a 52-year-old welder named Henry Davis was taken in the predawn hours on that date. He had been arrested for an outstanding warrant that proved to actually be for another man of the same surname, but a different middle name and Social Security number.

“I said, ‘I told you guys it wasn’t me,’” Davis later testified.

He recalled the booking officer saying, “We have a problem.”

The booking officer had no other reason to hold Davis, who ended up in Ferguson only because he missed the exit for St. Charles and then pulled off the highway because the rain was so heavy he could not see to drive. The cop who had pulled up behind him must have run his license plate and assumed he was that other Henry Davis. Davis said the cop approached his vehicle, grabbed his cellphone from his hand, cuffed him and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car, without a word of explanation.

But the booking officer was not ready just to let Davis go, and proceeded to escort him to a one-man cell that already had a man in it asleep on the lone bunk. Davis says that he asked the officer if he could at least have one of the sleeping mats that were stacked nearby.

”He said I wasn’t getting one,” Davis said.

Davis balked at being a second man in a one-man cell.

“Because it’s 3 in the morning,” he later testified. “Who going to sleep on a cement floor?”

The booking officer summoned a number of fellow cops. One opened the cell door while another suddenly charged, propelling Davis inside and slamming him against the back wall.

“I told the police officers there that I didn’t do nothing, ‘Why is you guys doing this to me?’” Davis testified. “They said, ‘OK, just lay on the ground and put your hands behind your back.’”

Davis said he complied and that a female officer straddled and then handcuffed him. Two other officers crowded into the cell.

“They started hitting me,” he testified. “I was getting hit and I just covered up.”

The other two stepped out and the female officer allegedly lifted Davis’ head as the cop who had initially pushed him into the cell reappeared.

“He ran in and kicked me in the head,” Davis recalled. “I almost passed out at that point… Paramedics came… They said it was too much blood, I had to go to the hospital.”

A patrol car took the bleeding Davis to a nearby emergency room. He refused treatment, demanding somebody first take his picture.

“I wanted a witness and proof of what they done to me,” Davis said.

He was driven back to the jail, where he was held for several days before he posted $1,500 bond on four counts of “property damage.” Police Officer John Beaird had signed complaints swearing on pain of perjury that Davis had bled on his uniform and those of three fellow officers.

The remarkable turned inexplicable when Beaird was deposed in a civil case that Davis subsequently brought seeking redress and recompense.

“After Mr. Davis was detained, did you have any blood on you?” asked Davis’ lawyer, James Schottel.

“No, sir,” Beaird replied.

Schottel showed Beaird a copy of the “property damage” complaint.

“Is that your signature as complainant?” the lawyer asked.

“It is, sir,” the cop said.

“And what do you allege that Mr. Davis did unlawfully in this one?” the lawyer asked.

“Transferred blood to my uniform while Davis was resisting,” the cop said.

“And didn’t I ask you earlier in this deposition if Mr. Davis got blood on your uniform?”

“You did, sir.”

“And didn’t you respond no?”

“Correct. I did.”

Beaird seemed to be either admitting perjury or committing it. The depositions of other officers suggested that the “property damage” charges were not just bizarre, but trumped up.

“There was no blood on my uniform,” said Police Officer Christopher Pillarick.

And then there was Officer Michael White, the one accused of kicking Davis in the head, an allegation he denies, as his fellow officers deny striking Davis. White had reported suffering a bloody nose in the mayhem.

“Did you see Mr. Davis bleeding at all?” the lawyer, Schottel, asked.

“I did not,” White replied.

“Did Mr. Davis get any blood on you while you were in the cell?” Schottel asked.

“No,” White said.

The contradictions between the complaint and the depositions apparently are what prompted the prosecutor to drop the “property damage” allegation. The prosecutor also dropped a felony charge of assault on an officer that had been lodged more than a year after the incident and shortly after Davis filed his civil suit.

Davis suggested in his testimony that if the police really thought he had assaulted an officer he would have been charged back when he was jailed.

“They would have filed those charges right then and there, because that’s a major felony,” he noted.

Indisputable evidence of what transpired in the cell might have been provided by a surveillance camera, but it turned out that the VHS video was recorded at 32 times normal speed.

“It was like a blur,” Schottel told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “You couldn’t see anything.”

The blur proved to be from 12 hours after the incident anyway. The cops had saved the wrong footage after Schottel asked them to preserve it.

Schottel got another unpleasant surprise when he sought the use-of-force history of the officers involved. He learned that before a new chief took over in 2010 the department had a surprising protocol for non-fatal use-of-force reports.

“The officer himself could complete it and give it to the supervisor for his approval,” the prior chief, Thomas Moonier, testified in a deposition. “I would read it. It would be placed in my out basket, and my secretary would probably take it and put it with the case file.”

No copy was made for the officer’s personnel file.

“Everything involved in an incident would generally be with the police report,” Moonier said. “I don’t know what they maintain in personnel files.”

“Who was in charge of personnel files, of maintaining them?” Schottel asked.

“I have no idea,” Moonier said. “I believe City Hall, but I don’t know.”

Schottel focused on the date of the incident.

“On September 20th, 2009, was there any way to identify any officers that were subject of one or more citizens’ complaints?” he asked.

“Not to my knowledge,” Moonier said.

“Was there any way to identify any officers who had completed several use-of-force reports?”

“I don’t recall.”

But however lax the department’s system and however contradictory the officers’ testimony, a federal magistrate ruled that the apparent perjury about the “property damage” charges was too minor to constitute a violation of due process and that Davis’ injuries were de minimis—too minor to warrant a finding of excessive force. Never mind that a CAT scan taken after the incident confirmed that he had suffered a concussion.

Schottel has appealed and expects to argue the case in December. He will contend that perjury is perjury however minor the charge and note that both the NFL and Major League Baseball have learned to consider a concussion a serious injury.

Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown on the afternoon of Aug. 9.

“Your chances on appeal are going up,” a fellow lawyer told him.

At least one witness has said that Brown was shot in the back and then in the chest and head as he turned toward the officer with his hands raised.

“I said, ‘Well, that doesn’t surprise me,’” Schottel told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “I said I already know about Ferguson, nothing new can faze me about Ferguson.”

Schottel has also deposed the new chief, Thomas Jackson, who took over in 2010. Jackson testified that he has instituted a centralized system whereby all complaints lodged against cops by citizens or supervisors go through him and are assigned a number in an internal affairs log. Schottel views Jackson as “not a bad guy,” someone who has been trying to make positive change.

“He wants to do right, but it was such a mess,” Schottel said Wednesday.

Jackson has seemed less than progressive as he delayed identifying the officer involved in the shooting for fear it would place him and his family in danger. Jackson would only say the officer is white and has been on the job for six years. This means that for his first two and most formative years the officer might have been writing his own force reports and that none of them went into his file.

“It’s hard to get people to clean things up, especially if they’re used to doing things a certain way,” Schottel said.

On Friday, police finally identified the officer as Darren Wilson, who is said to have no disciplinary record, as such records are kept in Ferguson. We already know that he started out at a time when it was accepted for a Ferguson cop to charge somebody with property damage for bleeding on his uniform and later saying there was no blood on him at all.

The Ferguson police are not legit.

[dc.]

 

How do you know its not boobytrapped.... Papa's turning his house into mini fortress

Under this logic, the police can justify militarization in any circumstance under "how do we know they aren't bad?" SWAT teams for car stops? They COULD be armed!

 

The US system largely works under the other assumption - hence the need for reasonable suspicion and probable cause, not just generic fear. I like it that way. The police should have to have a very clear and specific justification for any violent act. Even serving a warrant. Because collateral damage is not an acceptable norm.