Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

One of the witness accounts I read described that the officer fired multiple bullets, and then walked up and shot him once in the head while standing over him, as he lay on the ground.

Which witness was this?

Anyway, just for reference, in Finland officers are fired to take "disabling shots" unless they are under immediate threat (meaning a suspect is actively firing upon them, not simply holding a weapon). They have a 92% accuracy rate for limb shots, and police are trained specifically in taking them. They are also trained not to shoot unless it's a situation where killing the suspect is justified, but even in such a situation it is assumed the officers will attempt to operate in such a way so as to minimize the chance of people being killed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuK-2CalhSc&app=desktop

Since I know inevitably something like this will come up, and then people will pop in to say "OH NO YOU CAN'T JUST AIM FOR LEGS"

[GavJ]

You CAN aim for legs. The only reason I brought it up earlier was that here they are trained not to do that. Thus, any discharge of a firearm implies a decision on the part of the police officer of using deadly force, within a jurisdiction where training is lethal force only.

[GlyphGryph]

It looks like the police have won.

The exhausted protestors have thinned. The News Media has mostly gone. The state has made it clear by assigning this case to the County DA that nothing will come of the criminal trial.

The atmosphere is dejected as all fuck.

The police strategy has worked. They have beat/shot/gassed the population of Ferguson into submission.

It's basically over.

[SalmonGod]

Had a lot of trouble finding it, and was beginning to doubt myself...

But it was Phillip Walker, according to this article.

Investigators have refused to publicly disclose the race of the officer, who is now on administrative leave. But Phillip Walker said he was on the porch of an apartment complex overlooking the scene when he heard a shot and saw a white officer with Brown on the street.

Brown “was giving up in the sense of raising his arms and being subdued,” Walker told the Associated Press. The officer “had his gun raised and started shooting the individual in the chest multiple times.” The officer then “stood over him and shot him” after the victim fell wounded.

So my memory was a little bit off.  It doesn't say the officer walked over and shot him in the head.  But it does say the officer stood over him and shot him while he lay on the ground.  I probably imagined it as a shot to the head, since that's the most natural way for me to imagine a point blank firearm coup-de-grace, and that mental image was what stuck with me.

Searching now, I see those exact two quoted paragraphs repeated frequently on a bunch of news sites around that same time, but not since.  Do you know if that witness has somehow since been discredited?... because I notice he's not one of the three you listed as supposedly being the only witnesses.

It looks like the police have won.

The exhausted protestors have thinned. The News Media has mostly gone. The state has made it clear by assigning this case to the County DA that nothing will come of the criminal trial.

The atmosphere is dejected as all fuck.

The police strategy has worked. They have beat/shot/gassed the population of Ferguson into submission.

It's basically over.

And without sustained protest, the media will immediately forget about it, followed soon after by everyone else.  The news will drop some minor footnotes about the court case later on, but they won't grab any widespread attention.

So, yeah... if they've succeeded in clearing the streets, it's basically over, in a very depressing way...

You CAN aim for legs. The only reason I brought it up earlier was that here they are trained not to do that. Thus, any discharge of a firearm implies a decision on the part of the police officer of using deadly force, within a jurisdiction where training is lethal force only.

What I've read is that anytime an officer decides to shoot, they're trained to unload their clip at center mass.  And on top of that, there have been a couple leaked department manuals describing how to delay help to anyone seriously wounded by police force for as long as possible in hopes that they'll die, because it's less troublesome for them that way.

[GavJ]

Not sure about that, Gryph. If it gets killed at the grand jury or internal affairs, all hell will break loose in the near future again. 

Whereas if it goes to trial, the types of evidence don't seem all that particularly subtle. I'm not sure how much the DA could fudge it without being absurdly obvious. If there's any chance of conviction at all, they could still be up the creek right now in no good available decisions being possible.

[SalmonGod]

Not sure about that, Gryph. If it gets killed at the grand jury or internal affairs, all hell will break loose in the near future again. 

Whereas if it goes to trial, the types of evidence don't seem all that particularly subtle. I'm not sure how much the DA could fudge it without being absurdly obvious. If there's any chance of conviction at all, they could still be up the creek right now in no good available decisions being possible.

You put too much faith in America's political memory.  This has played out dozens of times before.  They delay the trial as much as possible, giving people time to forget.  Then the media coverage of the trial stays very low key, not because conspiracy, but because there are always more sensational things going on than court proceedings.  So only the people who really care about that specific case notice anything at that point, which isn't enough to matter.

[EnigmaticHat]

Also the big news networks in America have a habit of going along with the government in general terms.  Not because they have to, but because they want access to press conferences and such.

[GavJ]

Not sure about that, Gryph. If it gets killed at the grand jury or internal affairs, all hell will break loose in the near future again. 

Whereas if it goes to trial, the types of evidence don't seem all that particularly subtle. I'm not sure how much the DA could fudge it without being absurdly obvious. If there's any chance of conviction at all, they could still be up the creek right now in no good available decisions being possible.

You put too much faith in America's political memory.  This has played out dozens of times before.  They delay the trial as much as possible, giving people time to forget.  Then the media coverage of the trial stays very low key, not because conspiracy, but because there are always more sensational things going on than court proceedings.  So only the people who really care about that specific case notice anything at that point, which isn't enough to matter.

So? I'm talking about actual justice... not desiring media spectacle...

Grand jury can't be dragged out very long, beyond memory. It would be soon enough if they attempt that that they will get riots again. 

So likely a trial. And if it goes to trial, yeah sure they can drag it out, but I don't see how a DA can meaningfully sabotage things as straightforward as witness stories, medical report, and autopsy, without endangering his job in a comically obvious and risky fashion. These are not subtle arguments that have to be woven or stories pieced together from dozens of scraps of evidence here, that he can just intentionally do a poor job of. It's an event witnessed by several people in broad daylight.

So fine, they drag it out just to be safer from media, what do I care? it doesn't mean lack of justice necessarily.




There are also several other peripheral legacies. E.g.:
* Ongoing voter registration drives in the area recently, which should hopefully be successful and aid lasting changes regionally.
* Adding to the dog heap of general national awareness of graphic, obvious police brutality. Videos of white male journalists getting arrested and rabidly death threated by insane cops will have a lasting cumulative impact, even if a dozen more bruised up/murdered poor black people don't. I have several ridiculously crazy conservative facebook friends from like, way back in high school that have still expressed outrage at Ferguson, primarily due to media treatment, even while they buy police stories on all the original details.

[GlyphGryph]

So likely a trial. And if it goes to trial, yeah sure they can drag it out, but I don't see how a DA can meaningfully sabotage things as straightforward as witness stories, medical report, and autopsy, without endangering his job in a comically obvious and risky fashion. These are not subtle arguments that have to be woven or stories pieced together from dozens of scraps of evidence here, that he can just intentionally do a poor job of. It's an event witnessed by several people in broad daylight.

The DA is the prosecutor. He doesn't need to sabotage anything. He can simply decide not to call any of the witnesses, and not submit any evidence. He'll probably submit some, to make it look like he's trying, but he will definitely stop short of anything that might give him a chance to win the case.

[GavJ]

He can simply decide not to call any of the witnesses, and not submit any evidence.

Uh that's called sabotaging, and you risk not only losing your job but potentially going to jail for a long time for shit like that, in subsequent slamdunk cases filed against you.

Why would he do that? Satisfying a vague sense of racism?

Not putting your heart and soul into it? Sure. But like i said, this isn't a subtle, jury-massaging case with delicate piecing together of faint hints of evidence.  It's basically just witnesses in broad daylight, the end. There's little a DA can do without opening himself up hugely. Simply not calling primary witnesses being an example of easily career ending and possibly criminal mistakes that are super damn obvious. For little reward.


Also, district attorneys in MO are elected.

[SalmonGod]

Lack of attention gives them more freedom to radically manipulate legal definitions and throw out evidence on bullshit premises, especially with the help of their chosen prosecutor, without risking meaningful backlash.  I'm sure he'll get convicted, but the charges and sentencing will be far, far less than they would be under intense public scrutiny.

[GlyphGryph]

Why would he do that? [...] Also, district attorneys in MO are elected.

As you often do, you've answered your own question.

Why wouldn't he sabotage? You do realize that this is the court that threw out literal documented cases of sabotage and perjury by police officers just last year, right?

The only reason he wouldn't sabotage is that there was enough media attention that it would make him look bad.

If he does sabotage, he gets to keep his job and get re-elected, and maybe even get elected to a better position.

Why wouldn't he?

[GavJ]

What are you talking about?

Let's say he sabotages, and pulls it off perfectly. Result? A public image of a guy who simply performed extremely poorly at his job of prosecuting cases.

Explain how being a bad prosecutor results in stronger re-election chances for district attorney.  Neutral? No effect due to no media? Fine, you can argue that. Better doesn't make sense at all.




So the only thing he has to gain is satisfying person racism or winning a favor. These things can have value, and might be enough for him to try, but only weighed against a small enough risk. It's a decision in tension, not a positive feedback loop.

[GlyphGryph]

Result? A public image of a guy who simply performed extremely poorly at his job of prosecuting cases.

What are you talking about? His image if he sabotages the case is that of a hero who manages to beat both the feds and the national liberal media and keep down those uppity blacks, while protecting the people who did nothing wrong except make the world a bit better by putting a thug who had just committed a strong-arm robbery and was nothing but a violent criminal into the ground.

His image if he pushes the case and the officer gets prosecuted is that of a traitor to his constituency who bowed to federal pressure and the demands of a bunch of violent looters.

Explain how being a bad prosecutor results in stronger re-election chances for district attorney.

Because in the eyes of his constituency, losing this case makes him a GOOD prosecutor, and winning it makes him a bad one. Winning it means he's soft on crime and will punish police officers for doing their jobs, losing it, intentionally, visibly, means he'll protect our boys in blue in their mission to rid the streets of the criminal element.

Also, from a purely non-democratic standpoint, he's a prosecuting attorney. His career rests on being cozy with and working with the cops, and if the chief doesn't want his boys to be found guilty, why would he jeopardize his power by opposing them?

Remember, this guy has had this job forever. Previous incidents include:
In 2001, two undercover officers fired 21 shots, killing two unarmed victims. McCulloch elected not to prosecute the shooters, and drew controversy when he said of the victims: "These guys were bums."
(After which he was re-elected with ease)

This is exactly the sort of behaviour the people in Saint Louis County want.

[smjjames]

Also, you're looking at the sort of people who elect people like Sarah Palin.