Michael Brown was 18 years old, black and unarmed when a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri shot him to death after a scuffle in the street. The incident has provoked ongoing mass protests, vandalism, and national calls for an independent investigation and higher standards of police accountability.

The police, citing death threats, have refused to release the name of the police officer who shot Brown. The hacker collective Anonymous has promised to discover and make public the officer's identity anyway. I suspect they will succeed (if they haven't already).

General questions for those who have followed this story:

Do you think the shooting was reasonable under the circumstances?
How do you feel about the police?
Do you trust the police? Why or why not?
Who do the police answer to? Who ought the police answer to?
Are police held too accountable, properly accountable or not accountable enough for their actions?

Tags: Brown, Michael, Police

Views: 2165

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, gee, GM, when you're on the ropes, you sure do know how to flop around.

saying it's false and saying it doesn't look official bear no resemblance to each other as descriptors.

I didn't say it's false and I didn't say it doesn't look official and I didn't even deny it came from the police department. I said, I repeat for the second time I think, that it doesn't look like a policeman's report, of which there should be two signed copies. Without signatures, WTF is it?

Please don't wriggle around any more by fabricating things I didn't say. I said what I said. You can refute it by producing the two signed (which means sworn to) reports. I have no idea how close that document is to the officers' individual write ups.

A verbal deposition to a higher up would still have to be sworn to and signed to be meaningful.

Well, gee, GM, when you're on the ropes, you sure do know how to flop around.

You're describing yourself here Unseen. I don't know if you're lying or incompetent but it's ridiculous either way.

Unseen: I didn't say [the police report] is false and I didn't say it doesn't look official...

Right. Except where the transcript shows you did: "I'm saying it does not look like an official police report...".

Oops.

...and I didn't even deny it came from the police department.

Right.

When you said "it does not look like an official police report" you weren't expressing doubts about its origin, authenticity or propriety. That was you 'not denying' that it came from the police department.

I said, I repeat for the second time I think, that it doesn't look like a policeman's report, of which there should be two signed copies. Without signatures, WTF is it?

I repeat for perhaps the fourth time: produce evidence of the claimed incongruity or quit whining about it.

Please don't wriggle around any more by fabricating things I didn't say.

That's an entertaining request considering you've just been caught red-handed attacking me falsely as a liar.

I said what I said. You can refute it by producing the two signed (which means sworn to) reports. I have no idea how close that document is to the officers' individual write ups. A verbal deposition to a higher up would still have to be sworn to and signed to be meaningful.

This is a burden of proof fallacy.

It's not up to me to refute your claim that a cited and sourced police report isn't meaningful or proper. It's up to you to provide evidence for your claim that the police report isn't meaningful or proper.

I'm not on the ropes. You're lying on the mat with your brains beaten out so badly that you're hallucinating a victory.

GM - I said that but the report can be official and it can come from the department and not be what the officers said. Until we see the sworn statements of the officers, we don't know what THEY say happened. This appears to be something put out by the PR section.

When you said "it does not look like an official police report" you weren't expressing doubts about its origin, authenticity or propriety. That was you 'not denying' that it came from the police department.

No, because it can be both official in origin and be a report of some sort without being THE official report. What it isn't is the reports written by the officers, and without those how can you or I judge the accuracy of this third person account?

Let me put it in a way that's immune to any burden of proof fallacy: it is a third person account written by...well, you can't even tell me, can you? That is just obvious. It is not the sworn separate accounts of the two officers which we could check for conguities and inconsistencies. That is equally obvious. Your sourced citation doesn't change that.

"I had asked: Does anyone think the police lied, exaggerated or left out important details about what happened? If so, why would they do that?"

Going off the public statement made by Chief Sam Dotson (which is on video).  Was he lying? Wouldn't we need to know what information he had?  Wouldn't we need to know if that information was accurate?  Had he seen the video of the shooting?

Here's another thought, if you (anyone) were the Chief would you bend what you said publicly at that moment a little to and try to keep the peace in your community and not have it explode into a riot?  Does anyone think that was not on his mind?  Does anyone blame a Chief of Police viewing a developing case from a Police Point-Of-View?

Why rush to judgement?  I live in Missouri, I've been to St. Louis, there are places there that you don't go after dark no matter what color you skin is.

..................................................................................................................

To the visual evidence from the video:

The police had their guns out shortly after exiting their vehicle.

The suspect was ordered to drop the weapon for at least 10 seconds before the first shot was fired.

He advanced upon the police with a lethal weapon, the first shot was at a distance definitely beyond 4 feet but within 21 feet I would guess 8 to 14 feet (but it is hard to tell).

The time elapsed from the first shot to the last was about 2 to 3 seconds.

I count 9 shots.

The suspect ends up on the ground within what looks to be 5 to 6 feet from the car door.

Now once the investigation is finished and the official report is issued by the authorities, then we can argue about whether or not the police lied about material facts.

..................................................................................................................... 

Yes, I think it was a justified homicide, I don't think cops need to take one in the neck just to placate the social complainers.

Are there bad cops? Yep.

Should we do something about it? Yep.

Social complainers? 

What's the difference between a legitimate protest and a social complainer?

The goal.

I don't want bad cops either but I also don't want to see dead good cops.

Interesting Wikipedia article about how and why officers are trained to defend against knife attack.

Link no work.

It was suppposed to go to the Wikipedia article on the Tueller Drill.

Your little drill article presupposes that an attacker is actually serious about using the knife. There was no indication that this man was serious. He was just clowning them, and acting a fool. No reason what so ever to shoot him dead before doing something less fatal to calm his ass down.

Yeah, he was just joshin' 'em by walking toward a pointed gun with a knife.

That shit pisses me off! Fucking pigs! Fuck that. Those guns did NOT need to be drawn. All they needed to do was grow some balls and take that mother fucker down. It's not hard. Fuckers.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 6 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service