Ferguson, Missouri

garion333 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This can't be real, can it? This has to be a parody account or something, right?

https://twitter.com/stlcountypd/status/501628755836559360/photo/1

I like the comment: The police forgot to tape the bandana.

Yeah. I was more shocked that...

A) They're showing evidence (is that a good idea?)
B) Of course it's Colt 45

Once again, this can't be real, can it?

Maq wrote:

I recommend following @drfigtree for a good take on the history of the use of tear gas.

She's also the significant other of goodjer DanB, and makes a mean chili.

Morbidly curious as to what English-made chili tastes like.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Maq wrote:

I recommend following @drfigtree for a good take on the history of the use of tear gas.

She's also the significant other of goodjer DanB, and makes a mean chili.

Morbidly curious as to what English-made chili tastes like. :P

Repressed emotions

Tanglebones wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Maq wrote:

I recommend following @drfigtree for a good take on the history of the use of tear gas.

She's also the significant other of goodjer DanB, and makes a mean chili.

Morbidly curious as to what English-made chili tastes like. :P

Repressed emotions

And beans.

All three of his blog posts are outstanding. I was actually going to post a portion of Part II last night in response to Jayhawer's post about a grand jury convening soon.

Furthermore, if a shooting is ruled “justified” by prosecutors, as most are, it in no way reflects a judgment that the use of lethal force constituted good police work. Legally, justification for a police shooting can result if an officer made a reasonable judgment to use lethal force in the belief that the officer, his fellow officers or citizens , his colleagues or citizens were in imminent danger.

If that reasonable judgment was wrong? If the suspect was not in fact armed, but appeared to be? If the officer’s own actions introduced more risk to the situation, or contributed to an escalation of the conflict? If the officer failed to follow certain procedures, or to undertake an action that might have minimized the risk? None of that is directly relevant to the state’s attorney’s decision to legally justify a shooting.

Says a veteran prosecutor involved in such reviews: “I’ve told the department on several occasions that while a shooting was legally justified, it should not be referred to as a ‘good shooting,’ that there was nothing at all good about it.”

As to the internal review by the department itself, rarely, if ever, does this result in departmental charges against an officer whose actions have already been sanctioned by the state’s attorney, but for a wholly different reason: Veteran investigators in the department privately acknowledge that the risk and costs of exposing the department to civil liability by finding even modest fault with officers in use-of-force cases make the internal review problematic.

That's going to be another blow to the community when the powers that be say the shooting was legally justified.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Maq wrote:

I recommend following @drfigtree for a good take on the history of the use of tear gas.

She's also the significant other of goodjer DanB, and makes a mean chili.

Morbidly curious as to what English-made chili tastes like. :P

Well she reckons Dan doesn't put enough vegetables into it when he makes it, but she's American.

Paleocon wrote:

Looks like the full video shows that the kid probably paid for the cigars.

Very poor journalism. Here is the actual police report. Check out page 6 of the PDF.

Again, people making stuff up/exaggerating only hurts the real case here.

Nomad wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Looks like the full video shows that the kid probably paid for the cigars.

Very poor journalism. Here is the actual police report. Check out page 6 of the PDF.

Again, people making stuff up/exaggerating only hurts the real case here.

This is why you don't play the game of people who want to justify the killing. None of this matters.

So who is doing the investigating at this point? Is this now a state case or a federal one?

Nomad wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Looks like the full video shows that the kid probably paid for the cigars.

Very poor journalism. Here is the actual police report. Check out page 6 of the PDF.

Again, people making stuff up/exaggerating only hurts the real case here.

I don't really think you can use the police report as gospel truth in this case...

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Looks like the full video shows that the kid probably paid for the cigars.

Very poor journalism. Here is the actual police report. Check out page 6 of the PDF.

Again, people making stuff up/exaggerating only hurts the real case here.

I don't really think you can use the police report as gospel truth in this case...

Then again, you don't see any kind of monetary transaction in the video. I don't think you can point to it as evidence that there was no theft.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Looks like the full video shows that the kid probably paid for the cigars.

Very poor journalism. Here is the actual police report. Check out page 6 of the PDF.

Again, people making stuff up/exaggerating only hurts the real case here.

I don't really think you can use the police report as gospel truth in this case...

No joke. I mean because 1) The police at this point have shown multiple times they're willing to lie and cover up things, and 2) The store owner said he didn't report a robbery.

But please keep letting us know how we're all just spinning out of control here with nothing to actually add to the conversation.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Looks like the full video shows that the kid probably paid for the cigars.

Very poor journalism. Here is the actual police report. Check out page 6 of the PDF.

Again, people making stuff up/exaggerating only hurts the real case here.

I don't really think you can use the police report as gospel truth in this case...

Then again, you don't see any kind of monetary transaction in the video. I don't think you can point to it as evidence that there was no theft.

Agreed. I'm not advocating for the video, just suggesting that the police report should be taken with a grain of salt.

DSGamer wrote:

This is why you don't play the game of people who want to justify the killing. None of this matters.

Exactly this. It's irrelevant.

We don't execute people for petty theft. We don't execute people for jaywalking. We don't execute people for shoving someone. We don't execute people for sassing a cop. And we sure as hell don't execute anyone without charging them with a crime, arresting them, and giving them a trial.

The only thing that should matter when it comes to a cop shooting a civilian is this: did he or she have reason to believe that the person in question posted a lethal threat (to themselves or to a bystander)?

I haven't seen any reason to believe this was the case here.

This whole thing would have gone smoother if Wilson just immediately explained that Brown was acting uppity.

Maq wrote:

This whole thing would have gone smoother if Wilson just immediately explained that Brown was acting uppity.

(Sadly, that's probably true.)

I've seen some people refer to this now as Fergudishu.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvarppPIQAAubjb.jpg:large)

Yeah, how dare they encourage the residents to avail themselves of the electoral system to make their voice heard peacefully! And in an election year, too!

God forbid we allow the possibility of democratic change.

The endless insistence that people are "making" this about race or "playing the race card" infuriates me. It's amazing that such a wildly ignorant statement can be seen as completely appropriate by some people.

Meanwhile, I have had nothing but post after post since Friday about how it's so unfair to judge cops. They have a stressful job! Think about their families and wives! I asked a friend of mine who moved to St. Louis (and posted several such things) what this had to do with Mike Brown being shot. The answer was just more platitudes about how the cops are being treated unfairly.

It's seriously depressing.

Chaz wrote:

Yeah, how dare they encourage the residents to avail themselves of the electoral system to make their voice heard peacefully! And in an election year, too!

Go on the streets to protest and you're a "thug". Register to vote and it's "disgusting"...

DSGamer wrote:
Chaz wrote:

Yeah, how dare they encourage the residents to avail themselves of the electoral system to make their voice heard peacefully! And in an election year, too!

Go on the streets to protest and you're a "thug". Register to vote and it's "disgusting"...

Let's be fair, I'm pretty sure the GOP official was saying that trying to use what's going on in Ferguson to try and benefit their ethnic/political/socio-economic group for some kind of gain is what's disgusting. The GOP would never, ever use those kinds of tactics. They're fine, upstanding individuals.

DSGamer wrote:

Go on the streets to protest and you're a "thug". Register to vote and it's "disgusting"...

Just wait for this all to sort itself out! Don't get involved.

And if you don't get involved, people will bemoan how uninvolved people in "those communities" are, which is the "real" reason they're disenfranchised.

It's just too soon after a tragedy to start politicizing {insert tragic event here}.

Obviously, registering to vote is politicizing. Those people should wait a reasonable amount of time before doing something as rash and obviously politically-slanted as register to vote. Anytime after mid-November should allow an adequate amount of time to cool off.

Edwin wrote:

I've seen some people refer to this now as Fergudishu.

If we call it Ferghazi will we get another shot at impeaching the President?

Yonder wrote:
Edwin wrote:

I've seen some people refer to this now as Fergudishu.

If we call it Ferghazi will we get another shot at impeaching the President?

I lol'ed.

When in Missouristan, do as Missouristanis.