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: 2163

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

All either one of us can do is speculate and bring suspicions to bear. I haven't decided one way or the other. I'm not proclaiming their innocence or their guilt. I think I'm doing what a good citizen should do.

The important thing is that you agree the police report and the statements made by the Chief of Police are inaccurate regarding details shown in the video of the shooting.

Your prevarication on other questions-- like whether or not it matters to shooting victims if police inaccuracy is deliberate, or why a series of non-deliberate, unconscious memory failures always favor the police-- is telling.

I think your cause to refuse speculation in this case (but not others) is that you can't produce a reasonable explanation for the incongruity without acknowledging it favors an unpleasant truth.

People's minds filter events, block out details, and especially in extreme high adrenaline situations. That's according to Wikipedia, which adds that sometimes stress hormones can enhance memory. So that may be neither here nor there. These effects, the Wikipedia article makes clear, are unconscious.

I don't see where Wikipedia says these unconscious "effects" on memory-- filtered events, blocked details--   invariably favor the account of the observer.

You continue to base your comments on a document that...

My comments are based mostly on the video recording of the shooting and statements made by the St. Louis Chief of Metropolitan Police, and not so much on the police report about the shooting.

I'm sure your omission of those important details was an unconscious mistake.

...doesn't appear to be the testimony of the officers.

Unseen, forget the idea of dating Gregg. You should propose marriage on the spot.

It appears to be written by a third person, who perhaps...

You're against speculation, remember?

...has the department's PR position in mind.

Right. And we all know the primary concern of PR is dissemination of the whole and unvarnished truth, not ensuring the police department looks good.

If the department were to allow the two officers to get together and write the report together, that would be an extremely bad and suspicious procedure, and I would doubt it's the normal procedure.

Exactly. That's how we know the police report can't possibly be the real deal. The police are too honest ever do anything that shifty. They must have done it unconsciously.

"In our legal system, a jury decides what is justice. But police-- who get to report the incident on their own terms, decide which cases get referred to prosecutors, and always have the benefit of the doubt-- rarely end up in front of jury."

Now you're getting it the system operates the way it does.  It's not perfect, so fix it instead bitching about the current results of an imperfect system.

Fix it, fix it, fix it.

Cameras with constant streaming data for all Police Officers while on duty would be a good start.

Now you're getting it the system operates the way it does.  It's not perfect, so fix it instead bitching about the current results of an imperfect system. Fix it, fix it, fix it.

That's it exactly. The system operates the way it does. Quit bitching.

Because everyone knows that's the best way to fix a problem. Don't examine and clearly identify it first. Proceed directly to fixing, fixing, fixing it.

Profound wisdom.

Cameras with constant streaming data for all Police Officers while on duty would be a good start.

You bet. Once the police have cameras, we'll have video footage that prevents them from distorting the truth about shootings. It's flawless. Look how well that worked in the Powell case we're currently discussing.

"You bet. Once the police have cameras, we'll have video footage that prevents them from distorting the truth about shootings. It's flawless. Look how well that worked in the Powell case we're currently discussing."

See we can agree. :D

Step 2: Remove the local agencies from investigating themselves, no more missing security tapes.

In America we live in a country that for the last 100+years has been systematically moving the wealth from the producers toward a small percentage at the top which has created a load of social problems.

In America we live in a country that for the last 100+years has been systematically moving the wealth from the producers toward a small percentage at the top which has created a load of social problems

I believe this is true. From the cancelled pensions to the insidious hidden fees attached to every single transaction we have to make to live. They are fine-printing us to death. They wear us down. A battery disposal fee, an intangible tax (WTF does that mean), an insurance fee for not submitting to a health exam, a toll road, a renewal fee, if goes on and on. Just work till you die, drink your light beer, watch your football and STFU.

Notably, the video in the Powell case hasn't settled whether the shooting was justified or not. But at least we can see what happened.

@GM:

I noticed the second half of your post didn't make it to the site, but it did make it to my e-mail,  LOL love your style of ad-hominem, funny, funny, funny. :)

I noticed the second half of your post didn't make it to the site, but it did make it to my e-mail,  LOL love your style of ad-hominem, funny, funny, funny. :)

You're accusing me of making personal attacks rather than address your argument?

Quote me. Explain. If you don't support the point you haven't made one.

:) It was the part about Unseen and I dating...I'm not posting it because I don't know if it was removed by the Mods...I have no interest in challenging their authority...it showed up in my e-mail and I found it funny.

:) It was the part about Unseen and I dating...

Since when is suggesting that two people go on a date considered to be a personal insult?

Or do you mean it's an insult because of the same-sex aspect, i. e. that an implication of homosexuality is a personal attack?

I'm not posting it because I don't know if it was removed by the Mods...I have no interest in challenging their authority...it showed up in my e-mail and I found it funny.

It was meant to be funny and derisive, not because you and Unseen are the same sex, but of your matching unsupported claims that the police report published in New York Magazine is false.

GM, you are distorting my position to your advantage. I am NOT making an outright claim that the NY Mag document is false, I'm saying it does not look like an official police report and it certainly does not represent the individual write-ups of each officer, which could be compared for inconsisencies. I would think that you, of all people, would want to see those, but apparently not.

GM, you are distorting my position to your advantage. I am NOT making an outright claim that the NY Mag document is false, I'm saying it does not look like an official police report...

Right. Because saying it's false and saying it doesn't look official bear no resemblance to each other as descriptors. You can see the advantage that gives me.

...and it certainly does not represent the individual write-ups of each officer...

Yes, I've noticed.

...which could be compared for inconsisencies.

I'm sure the police had no idea that would be the case when they prepared the report. You know, since the highest ranking police official in Saint Louis has no access to video evidence and wouldn't bother watching it even when he does.

I would think that you, of all people, would want to see those, but apparently not.

I don't know that two separate reports ever existed and (absent evidence to the contrary) neither do you. For all we know the two officers gave verbal interviews to a superior who typed the report from scribbled notes or audio recordings. Or the original reports were "lost". Or they got destroyed as 'drafts' in favor of a carefully sanitized version written by higher ups for release to the press. I don't know.

What I do know by any reasonable standard is that's the "full" official police report and I have no cause to think that it's not, however inadequate it might be.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 3 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