Today, supposedly, a grand jury convenes in Missouri to examine the facts surrounding the death of Michael Brown at the hands of FPD officer Darren Wilson, to determine if an indictable crime has been committed. One talking head on TV even said that hearsay would be permitted there, which if true is nothing less than a travesty.
The grand jury review itself, it would seem, is coming awfully early. The general public does not realize how long it takes to complete a homicide investigation. The toxicology screen on the deceased, which can be a critical factor, may or may not have been completed yet, but to the best of my knowledge such results have not yet been released to the public.
Members of the grand jury will be under tremendous social and political pressure to indict. The state’s own governor has, incredibly, called for “vigorous prosecution.” Damn shame he didn’t have the integrity to call for “vigorous investigation” instead. One should not be convicted before trial in the Governor’s Mansion instead of in a courtroom.
The smell of mob rule is growing stronger, and more fetid.
Also today, Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to be on the ground in Ferguson for investigative purposes. Many pundits expect him to visit with the family of the deceased; certainly, there’s nothing wrong with that.
But I sincerely hope that the AG, our nation’s chief law enforcement officer, will visit the family of the injured officer as well.
@ Sian:
If you will re-read what I said, I used the term “appearantly”, after seeing the drawing from the autopsy.
Either you are misinterpering me, or you too, are leaping to your own conclusions?
After having his skull broken, I too, agree his shooting was great, considering the circumstances.
Paul
Find out what happened really, the facts and deal with those accordingly.
Find out what happened really, the facts and deal with those accordingly.
Find out what happened really, the facts and deal with those accordingly.
Find out what happened really, the facts and deal with those accordingly.
Find out what happened really, the facts and deal with those accordingly.
Many have commented on how the PD’s dashboard cameras had not yet been installed. I have not seen anyone point out that, because the incident took place in broad daylight (early afternoon) in the middle of the street, Officer Wilson would have known that anything he did could have been recorded by 20 civilians with cell phone cameras. Apparently no one actually did video the incident (as of this writing, no one has come forward with a video), but Officer Wilson wouldn’t have known that. This makes the suggestion that he acted as blatantly illegal as has been alleged, in front of witnesses (with or without cameras) simply incredible.
Many have commented on how the PD’s dashboard cameras had not yet been installed. I have not seen anyone point out that, because the incident took place in broad daylight (early afternoon) in the middle of the street, Officer Wilson would have known that anything he did could have been recorded by 20 civilians with cell phone cameras. Apparently no one actually did video the incident (as of this writing, no one has come forward with a video), but Officer Wilson wouldn’t have known that. This makes the suggestion that he acted as blatantly illegal as has been alleged, in front of witnesses (with or without cameras) simply incredible.
Many have commented on how the PD’s dashboard cameras had not yet been installed. I have not seen anyone point out that, because the incident took place in broad daylight (early afternoon) in the middle of the street, Officer Wilson would have known that anything he did could have been recorded by 20 civilians with cell phone cameras. Apparently no one actually did video the incident (as of this writing, no one has come forward with a video), but Officer Wilson wouldn’t have known that. This makes the suggestion that he acted as blatantly illegal as has been alleged, in front of witnesses (with or without cameras) simply incredible.
Many have commented on how the PD’s dashboard cameras had not yet been installed. I have not seen anyone point out that, because the incident took place in broad daylight (early afternoon) in the middle of the street, Officer Wilson would have known that anything he did could have been recorded by 20 civilians with cell phone cameras. Apparently no one actually did video the incident (as of this writing, no one has come forward with a video), but Officer Wilson wouldn’t have known that. This makes the suggestion that he acted as blatantly illegal as has been alleged, in front of witnesses (with or without cameras) simply incredible.
Many have commented on how the PD’s dashboard cameras had not yet been installed. I have not seen anyone point out that, because the incident took place in broad daylight (early afternoon) in the middle of the street, Officer Wilson would have known that anything he did could have been recorded by 20 civilians with cell phone cameras. Apparently no one actually did video the incident (as of this writing, no one has come forward with a video), but Officer Wilson wouldn’t have known that. This makes the suggestion that he acted as blatantly illegal as has been alleged, in front of witnesses (with or without cameras) simply incredible.
Might a public statement by the officer (showing his serious injuries) give some food for thought to those who would convict in mind without all the evidence?
Might a public statement by the officer (showing his serious injuries) give some food for thought to those who would convict in mind without all the evidence?
As long as we have any politicians anywhere in “our” government like “Black Panther” Holder and “Jethro Bodine” obama picking and choosing which laws to obey and which to ignore we are going to continue to have serious race relations problems. The obama Administration and Gov. Nixon have given the criminals a free pass to do it again, whenever an excuse arises. Police should be turning in their badges and taking jobs that won’t result in their personal destruction by the government.
Vigorous enforcement of the law in Missouri would have ended the riots when they began. Criminal troublemakers can’t be TV heroes sitting in the cage downtown. Nip it in the bud before the “news” media can bring it to full bloom.
Do we need Congress to write and pass a Bill protecting police officers from Government persecution???? Maybe so.
As long as we have any politicians anywhere in “our” government like “Black Panther” Holder and “Jethro Bodine” obama picking and choosing which laws to obey and which to ignore we are going to continue to have serious race relations problems. The obama Administration and Gov. Nixon have given the criminals a free pass to do it again, whenever an excuse arises. Police should be turning in their badges and taking jobs that won’t result in their personal destruction by the government.
Vigorous enforcement of the law in Missouri would have ended the riots when they began. Criminal troublemakers can’t be TV heroes sitting in the cage downtown. Nip it in the bud before the “news” media can bring it to full bloom.
Do we need Congress to write and pass a Bill protecting police officers from Government persecution???? Maybe so.
As long as we have any politicians anywhere in “our” government like “Black Panther” Holder and “Jethro Bodine” obama picking and choosing which laws to obey and which to ignore we are going to continue to have serious race relations problems. The obama Administration and Gov. Nixon have given the criminals a free pass to do it again, whenever an excuse arises. Police should be turning in their badges and taking jobs that won’t result in their personal destruction by the government.
Vigorous enforcement of the law in Missouri would have ended the riots when they began. Criminal troublemakers can’t be TV heroes sitting in the cage downtown. Nip it in the bud before the “news” media can bring it to full bloom.
Do we need Congress to write and pass a Bill protecting police officers from Government persecution???? Maybe so.
Some have questioned the absence of dash cams and the presence of MRAPS.
Departments must purchase dash cams with their own funds. Not being racist, but just guessing, Ferguson going from majority white to majority black demographics with a rapid growth of government apartment projects, I would suspect serious budget short-falls caused by a diminished tax base.
MRAPS on the other hand are free from Uncle Sam by filling out a one page form.
Much has been said (mostly negative) of the use of MRAPS, folks calling them “tanks” or “assault vehicles”. They are nothing more than armored personnel vehicles. I guess if they were used to run over people they could be called assault vehicles.
Police agencies desire for these “freebies” came about in the aftermath of the infamous “Hollywood Shootout ” when L.A. Police had to commandeer an armored truck to rescue several wounded officers who were trapped under fire.
Should they be deployed cavalierly? No. Should officers ride on top with AR’s aimed at protesters? No. For routine patrol? No. Should agencies be barred from having them. No.
I think it’s better than letting them rot in a depot and better for police to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them. Besides, when these smaller department start having breakdowns and have to pay for repairs/maintenance, they will slowly disappear anyway.
Some have questioned the absence of dash cams and the presence of MRAPS.
Departments must purchase dash cams with their own funds. Not being racist, but just guessing, Ferguson going from majority white to majority black demographics with a rapid growth of government apartment projects, I would suspect serious budget short-falls caused by a diminished tax base.
MRAPS on the other hand are free from Uncle Sam by filling out a one page form.
Much has been said (mostly negative) of the use of MRAPS, folks calling them “tanks” or “assault vehicles”. They are nothing more than armored personnel vehicles. I guess if they were used to run over people they could be called assault vehicles.
Police agencies desire for these “freebies” came about in the aftermath of the infamous “Hollywood Shootout ” when L.A. Police had to commandeer an armored truck to rescue several wounded officers who were trapped under fire.
Should they be deployed cavalierly? No. Should officers ride on top with AR’s aimed at protesters? No. For routine patrol? No. Should agencies be barred from having them. No.
I think it’s better than letting them rot in a depot and better for police to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them. Besides, when these smaller department start having breakdowns and have to pay for repairs/maintenance, they will slowly disappear anyway.
IN addition to the dashcams, LEO’s should be equipped with cameras on their person to record their interactions with the general public; not only for public safety, but for the safety of the officers themselves. And who knows when these “silent witnesses” will help to prove whether or not an LEO’s actions are appropriate given the actions of the people the LEO interacts with during the course of his duties.
IN addition to the dashcams, LEO’s should be equipped with cameras on their person to record their interactions with the general public; not only for public safety, but for the safety of the officers themselves. And who knows when these “silent witnesses” will help to prove whether or not an LEO’s actions are appropriate given the actions of the people the LEO interacts with during the course of his duties.
Those complaining of the “over-the-top” riot gear worn by cops in Ferguson, Mo. can rejoice. It appears the politically correct have heard your anguish.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/18/total-anarchy-mass-confusion-among-police-officials-missouri
Those complaining of the “over-the-top” riot gear worn by cops in Ferguson, Mo. can rejoice. It appears the politically correct have heard your anguish.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/18/total-anarchy-mass-confusion-among-police-officials-missouri
Those complaining of the “over-the-top” riot gear worn by cops in Ferguson, Mo. can rejoice. It appears the politically correct have heard your anguish.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/18/total-anarchy-mass-confusion-among-police-officials-missouri
Those complaining of the “over-the-top” riot gear worn by cops in Ferguson, Mo. can rejoice. It appears the politically correct have heard your anguish.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/18/total-anarchy-mass-confusion-among-police-officials-missouri
There’s everything wrong with Holder getting involved. He’s the Federal AG. This is not a federal investigation. By getting personally involved his signals that Federal government’s interest in what is, at most, a state matter.
Then again, we know what his game is. It’s been played before. Damn shame this regime can’t keep its grubby hands out of where it doesn’t belong.
There’s everything wrong with Holder getting involved. He’s the Federal AG. This is not a federal investigation. By getting personally involved his signals that Federal government’s interest in what is, at most, a state matter.
Then again, we know what his game is. It’s been played before. Damn shame this regime can’t keep its grubby hands out of where it doesn’t belong.
At WT,
I have mixed feelings re-body cameras for police. In theory they should keep officers on their best behavior. In practice they will only show one very limited side of events. Look at many of the live streams from the protests. Depending on which one you see, the police were either justified in responding to assaults with improvised weapons, fire bombs, and limited shooting or horribly over reacted without provocation. I am concerned that the call for body cams is less a product of reasoned testing and more an outgrowth of the reality television mindset where we have a scripted god’s eye view of events. Real life is rarely so conclusive.
There is the additional question of privacy. If every officer u encounter is recording everything all the time there are some very real concerns about how that footage will be employed re-the 4th amendment. It is extremely easy to take an isolated image and construct an incriminating narrative—especially without the benefit of context. Cameras are always on, always judging regardless of reasonable cause. Officer Wilson might have benefitted from a body camera but society as a whole may not be so lucky.
As with Zimmerman and Martin, the public is projecting their own bias onto events. I find these events darkly humorous re-Holder. When he was sworn in he called for an honest discussion of race in America. Well Ferguson is that discussion and I’m guessing it isn’t nearly as attractive as he would like. Current news is that there are now 0 credible witnesses supporting Brown as victim—including Brown’s partner who has pulled a 180. This may go to trial but if so I doubt it will be the travesty that the Zimmerman trial was. Forensic evidence, witnesses, and circumstantial evidence all point to Wilson shooting in justified self defense. There are a lot of people who are going to be unhappy with the result, but based on what little we know so far I don’t see how Wilson can be convicted.
At WT,
I have mixed feelings re-body cameras for police. In theory they should keep officers on their best behavior. In practice they will only show one very limited side of events. Look at many of the live streams from the protests. Depending on which one you see, the police were either justified in responding to assaults with improvised weapons, fire bombs, and limited shooting or horribly over reacted without provocation. I am concerned that the call for body cams is less a product of reasoned testing and more an outgrowth of the reality television mindset where we have a scripted god’s eye view of events. Real life is rarely so conclusive.
There is the additional question of privacy. If every officer u encounter is recording everything all the time there are some very real concerns about how that footage will be employed re-the 4th amendment. It is extremely easy to take an isolated image and construct an incriminating narrative—especially without the benefit of context. Cameras are always on, always judging regardless of reasonable cause. Officer Wilson might have benefitted from a body camera but society as a whole may not be so lucky.
As with Zimmerman and Martin, the public is projecting their own bias onto events. I find these events darkly humorous re-Holder. When he was sworn in he called for an honest discussion of race in America. Well Ferguson is that discussion and I’m guessing it isn’t nearly as attractive as he would like. Current news is that there are now 0 credible witnesses supporting Brown as victim—including Brown’s partner who has pulled a 180. This may go to trial but if so I doubt it will be the travesty that the Zimmerman trial was. Forensic evidence, witnesses, and circumstantial evidence all point to Wilson shooting in justified self defense. There are a lot of people who are going to be unhappy with the result, but based on what little we know so far I don’t see how Wilson can be convicted.
I would not expect Eric HOLDER to ever show any unbiased behavior. He has not in the past, why would he start now.
I would not expect Eric HOLDER to ever show any unbiased behavior. He has not in the past, why would he start now.
I would not expect Eric HOLDER to ever show any unbiased behavior. He has not in the past, why would he start now.
Mr. Ayoob:
This Ferguson business is an excellent case for avoiding ‘a rush to judgment’ and ‘understanding both sides’.
At the beginning there was a prepared narrative from one side with only a slight and half incoherent response from the other. The only way to sort the ‘believability’ quotient was to await the arrival of solid non-witness information.
The first step there was the store video.
The very strong second step was some of the autopsy information.
I started at a genuine 50/50 on this case.
I’d now lean about 75/25 in favor of the cop.
Love to have the ballistics report and a confirmation that there was a hole somewhere in the squad car.
Also I would like the officer’s statement.
To me this is the real test of listening to both sides. Not the case you cited last November –
https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/11/11/understanding-both-sides-2/
Mr. Ayoob:
This Ferguson business is an excellent case for avoiding ‘a rush to judgment’ and ‘understanding both sides’.
At the beginning there was a prepared narrative from one side with only a slight and half incoherent response from the other. The only way to sort the ‘believability’ quotient was to await the arrival of solid non-witness information.
The first step there was the store video.
The very strong second step was some of the autopsy information.
I started at a genuine 50/50 on this case.
I’d now lean about 75/25 in favor of the cop.
Love to have the ballistics report and a confirmation that there was a hole somewhere in the squad car.
Also I would like the officer’s statement.
To me this is the real test of listening to both sides. Not the case you cited last November –
https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/11/11/understanding-both-sides-2/
Obama Orders Police Militarization Review
By August 23, 2014
Ferguson policeman (courtesy firstlook.org)
“President Barack Obama has ordered a review of programs allowing for state and local enforcement to buy military equipment,” cnn.com reports, somehow forgetting to use the words “at no cost.” A “senior administration official” made the announcement today, in the wake of the President’s post-Ferguson promise for a bi-partisan look at the current military -> police transfer of armament. The White House will lead the review, under the auspices of the Domestic Policy Council. That’s the quango established by Executive Order in 1993, chaired by the Prez, comprised of . . .
Vice President; Secretary of Health and Human Services; Attorney General; Secretary of Labor; Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Secretary of the Interior; Secretary of Education; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Secretary of Agriculture; Secretary of Transportation; Secretary of Commerce; Secretary of Energy; Secretary of the Treasury; Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of National Service; Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development; Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy; AIDS Policy Coordinator; and such other officials of Executive departments and agencies as the President may, from time to time designate.
And thousands of assistants and administrative staff. But wait! There’s more! Also in on the review: the National Security Council, which includes . . .
The Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.
Did I mention the Office of Management and Budget? Or the fact that the review will be held in coordination with Congress? Them too, apparently. Here’s what’s on the agenda:
– Whether such programs and funding are appropriate
– Whether state and local enforcement agencies have the necessary training and guidance after getting such equipment
– Whether the federal government is sufficiently auditing the use of equipment obtained through federal programs and funding
What are the odds that all involved will get to number one and just say no to MRAPs, fully-automatic rifles, flash bangs, etc. for the local po-po? A lot less than the odds that military suppliers will pick up their phones Monday morning and have a quiet word with friendly Beltway politicians.
Then again, Congress is threatening to act on its own to stop the transfer of military kit to police forces around the country. Last week, washingtonpost.com reported that . . .
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has called for reforms to the Defense Department program. [A week ago] Friday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) indicated that he would call for a review of the program. “Congress established this program out of real concern that local law enforcement agencies were literally outgunned by drug criminals,” he wrote in a statement. “We intended this equipment to keep police officers and their communities safe from heavily armed drug gangs and terrorist incidents.”
What a difference a police shooting makes.
On June 19, the House voted down on an amendment to a Department of Defense appropriations bill. Rep. Alan Grayson’s bill (D-Fla.) was designed to kill the Department of Defense’s 1033 program sending local cops “aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents (including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons.”
Guess how that vote broke down, bi-partisan-wise? No need. Check it out:
(courtesy washingtonpost.com)
We shall see what happens to this latest effort to stop the equipment transfer. But what of the cultural changes and strategic emphasis on SWAT teams, enabled by The War on Drugs, no-knock raid-friendly judges, asset confiscation laws and the large number of military personnel entering the police? Of that we’ve heard nothing. [
Obama Orders Police Militarization Review
By August 23, 2014
Ferguson policeman (courtesy firstlook.org)
“President Barack Obama has ordered a review of programs allowing for state and local enforcement to buy military equipment,” cnn.com reports, somehow forgetting to use the words “at no cost.” A “senior administration official” made the announcement today, in the wake of the President’s post-Ferguson promise for a bi-partisan look at the current military -> police transfer of armament. The White House will lead the review, under the auspices of the Domestic Policy Council. That’s the quango established by Executive Order in 1993, chaired by the Prez, comprised of . . .
Vice President; Secretary of Health and Human Services; Attorney General; Secretary of Labor; Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Secretary of the Interior; Secretary of Education; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Secretary of Agriculture; Secretary of Transportation; Secretary of Commerce; Secretary of Energy; Secretary of the Treasury; Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of National Service; Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development; Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy; AIDS Policy Coordinator; and such other officials of Executive departments and agencies as the President may, from time to time designate.
And thousands of assistants and administrative staff. But wait! There’s more! Also in on the review: the National Security Council, which includes . . .
The Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.
Did I mention the Office of Management and Budget? Or the fact that the review will be held in coordination with Congress? Them too, apparently. Here’s what’s on the agenda:
– Whether such programs and funding are appropriate
– Whether state and local enforcement agencies have the necessary training and guidance after getting such equipment
– Whether the federal government is sufficiently auditing the use of equipment obtained through federal programs and funding
What are the odds that all involved will get to number one and just say no to MRAPs, fully-automatic rifles, flash bangs, etc. for the local po-po? A lot less than the odds that military suppliers will pick up their phones Monday morning and have a quiet word with friendly Beltway politicians.
Then again, Congress is threatening to act on its own to stop the transfer of military kit to police forces around the country. Last week, washingtonpost.com reported that . . .
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has called for reforms to the Defense Department program. [A week ago] Friday, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) indicated that he would call for a review of the program. “Congress established this program out of real concern that local law enforcement agencies were literally outgunned by drug criminals,” he wrote in a statement. “We intended this equipment to keep police officers and their communities safe from heavily armed drug gangs and terrorist incidents.”
What a difference a police shooting makes.
On June 19, the House voted down on an amendment to a Department of Defense appropriations bill. Rep. Alan Grayson’s bill (D-Fla.) was designed to kill the Department of Defense’s 1033 program sending local cops “aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents (including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons.”
Guess how that vote broke down, bi-partisan-wise? No need. Check it out:
(courtesy washingtonpost.com)
We shall see what happens to this latest effort to stop the equipment transfer. But what of the cultural changes and strategic emphasis on SWAT teams, enabled by The War on Drugs, no-knock raid-friendly judges, asset confiscation laws and the large number of military personnel entering the police? Of that we’ve heard nothing. [
Here the part issue Old Crusader that big part issue keeping this mess alive.
ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael Brown’s death violates law.
A police report on the death of Michael Brown is missing key information and violates Missouri open records laws, an ACLU attorney told Yahoo News on Friday.
The two-page document, which the Ferguson Police Department released only after pressure from journalists and civil liberties advocates, is largely redacted or left blank. The most egregious omissions are the victim’s name and a description of the offense – the fatal shooting of Brown.
“They are breaking the law,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri.
The report, obtained by Yahoo News through the Missouri Sunshine Law, lists only the date, time and location. Fields for the type of incident, name of the complainant, and a summary of the circumstances are redacted.
“I’ve never seen an incident report that didn’t contain a description of the incident, at least on some basic level,” said Don Tittle, a veteran Texas civil and criminal attorney. “It makes you wonder if they don’t want to commit to a story.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237538105/Michael-Brown-Offense-Report
The report comes nearly two weeks after Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, in broad daylight in the middle of a residential street.
Here the part issue Old Crusader that big part issue keeping this mess alive.
ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael Brown’s death violates law.
A police report on the death of Michael Brown is missing key information and violates Missouri open records laws, an ACLU attorney told Yahoo News on Friday.
The two-page document, which the Ferguson Police Department released only after pressure from journalists and civil liberties advocates, is largely redacted or left blank. The most egregious omissions are the victim’s name and a description of the offense – the fatal shooting of Brown.
“They are breaking the law,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri.
The report, obtained by Yahoo News through the Missouri Sunshine Law, lists only the date, time and location. Fields for the type of incident, name of the complainant, and a summary of the circumstances are redacted.
“I’ve never seen an incident report that didn’t contain a description of the incident, at least on some basic level,” said Don Tittle, a veteran Texas civil and criminal attorney. “It makes you wonder if they don’t want to commit to a story.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237538105/Michael-Brown-Offense-Report
The report comes nearly two weeks after Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, in broad daylight in the middle of a residential street.
Patrick, does the failure of Rep. Grayson’s amendment mean that the local cops will not have to return the named items?
“(including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons.”
Those evil Republicans probably will vote to let Barney and Andy keep their launch codes too.
Patrick, does the failure of Rep. Grayson’s amendment mean that the local cops will not have to return the named items?
“(including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons.”
Those evil Republicans probably will vote to let Barney and Andy keep their launch codes too.
Gov. Nixon WAS trying to position himself as a possible running mate for Hillary (he had scheduled trips to Iowa prior to the shooting). Now that he made his foolish remarks condemning the officer in advance of a possible indictment, that would seem to be out the window for him, contrary to his intentions in making those remarks.
Latest media reports seem to be preparing the rabble for the possibility of the grand jury deciding to not indict.
And I have not heard one way or the other, but my reflex opinion would be that Eric Holder would not be troubled to visit the officer involved or his family. Holder’s loyalties run along racial lines, not professional responsibilities. As evidence one may look to his refusal to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers who clearly were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia (only one of his his many violations of the law).
Gov. Nixon WAS trying to position himself as a possible running mate for Hillary (he had scheduled trips to Iowa prior to the shooting). Now that he made his foolish remarks condemning the officer in advance of a possible indictment, that would seem to be out the window for him, contrary to his intentions in making those remarks.
Latest media reports seem to be preparing the rabble for the possibility of the grand jury deciding to not indict.
And I have not heard one way or the other, but my reflex opinion would be that Eric Holder would not be troubled to visit the officer involved or his family. Holder’s loyalties run along racial lines, not professional responsibilities. As evidence one may look to his refusal to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers who clearly were guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia (only one of his his many violations of the law).
Well Dennis does death of a Texas police chief . Mean police can not use ever means possible save there live when face with deadly threat from some one try cause them harm or kill them well doing there job . Which protech serving public from people who try harm it. So Dennis would send are US military defend us from terrorists who just be head behead american journalist James Fole with out tool they need fight them??? Dennis is evil Republicans caused James Fole get head cut off that falls on President Barack Obama shoulders who last time check was Republican.
Texas police chief shot to death during traffic stop
Sunday, August 24, 2014 9:09 EDT
The police chief of a small south Texas town was shot dead during a traffic stop on Saturday, a county sheriff said.
Michael Pimentel died of multiple gunshot wounds suffered in a confrontation with a motorist shortly before noon in Elmendorf, a rural community of about 1,500 people just southeast of San Antonio, said Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau.
“We don’t know exactly what ensued between the two individuals but it did result in the suspect firing a weapon that hit the chief several times,” Pamerleau said.
Pimentel was taken by air ambulance to a San Antonio hospital where he died a short time later, she said.
Joshua Manuel Lopez, 24, was taken into custody on charges of capital murder of a police officer, Pamerleau said. When Lopez was stopped, he was wanted on a misdemeanor warrant for graffiti, she said.
Pimentel was in his 60s and had served as chief for about a year and a half, Pamerleau said. He was head of a small department that included a sergeant, two officers and several volunteer reserve officers, she said.
“This tragedy today reinforces the fact that our law enforcement officers’ jobs are dangerous and you never know what they might encounter,” Pamerleau said. “Here was a quiet and peaceful community in south Texas that in an instant turned to tragedy.”
Well Dennis does death of a Texas police chief . Mean police can not use ever means possible save there live when face with deadly threat from some one try cause them harm or kill them well doing there job . Which protech serving public from people who try harm it. So Dennis would send are US military defend us from terrorists who just be head behead american journalist James Fole with out tool they need fight them??? Dennis is evil Republicans caused James Fole get head cut off that falls on President Barack Obama shoulders who last time check was Republican.
Texas police chief shot to death during traffic stop
Sunday, August 24, 2014 9:09 EDT
The police chief of a small south Texas town was shot dead during a traffic stop on Saturday, a county sheriff said.
Michael Pimentel died of multiple gunshot wounds suffered in a confrontation with a motorist shortly before noon in Elmendorf, a rural community of about 1,500 people just southeast of San Antonio, said Bexar County Sheriff Susan Pamerleau.
“We don’t know exactly what ensued between the two individuals but it did result in the suspect firing a weapon that hit the chief several times,” Pamerleau said.
Pimentel was taken by air ambulance to a San Antonio hospital where he died a short time later, she said.
Joshua Manuel Lopez, 24, was taken into custody on charges of capital murder of a police officer, Pamerleau said. When Lopez was stopped, he was wanted on a misdemeanor warrant for graffiti, she said.
Pimentel was in his 60s and had served as chief for about a year and a half, Pamerleau said. He was head of a small department that included a sergeant, two officers and several volunteer reserve officers, she said.
“This tragedy today reinforces the fact that our law enforcement officers’ jobs are dangerous and you never know what they might encounter,” Pamerleau said. “Here was a quiet and peaceful community in south Texas that in an instant turned to tragedy.”
WaPo’s Dennis Wilson Article: Profile or Character Assassination?
August 24, 2014
Officer Darren Wilson commendation ceremony
The Washington Post has published a detailed article about Officer Dennis Wilson, the Ferguson PD patrolman who shot and killed teenager Michael Brown, setting off a national furore about race and police militarization. The piece is headlined Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities. This is how it starts . . .
The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.
That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.
Facts, yes. But the clear implication: guilt by association. Wilson was part of a racist police force so he’s a racist. Maybe. Probably?
To answer that question – which has no proven bearing on the Michael Brown shooting – you have to scroll down 34 paragraphs, past condemnation of Wilson’s silence on the incident. Past information on Wilson’s divorce, his mother’s felony conviction for forgery and stealing and a history of the Jennings Police Department’s [allegedly] racially motivated misdeeds. Until, finally . . .
Robert Orr, the former Jennings police chief who retired in 2010, said of Wilson: “He was a good officer with us. There was no disciplinary action.”
And then it’s back to more guilt by association. Wilson is an officer in Ferguson, and the Ferguson PD is . . .
an example of a police department staffed predominantly with white officers, many of whom live far away from, and often fail to establish trust with, the predominantly black communities they serve. Policing can become a tense, racially charged, fearful and potentially violent series of interactions. Distrust becomes institutionalized, as much a part of the local infrastructure as the sewers and power lines.
A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents — what the group calls a poor-people’s tax.
Are you buying this? It’s one thing to say a mostly white police department in a mostly black community can become oppressive. It’s another to say Ferguson’s PD is oppressive. And another to say that the police oppression is racist.
It’s also highly inflammatory. Kinda like repeating a version of events that makes it sound like Wilson murdered Brown without offering an alternative, credible version which indicates the shooting was self-defense. Here’s the paragraph in question:
According to Johnson [the teenager with Brown at the time of the shooting], Wilson reached out, grabbed Brown by the throat and then grabbed his shirt as Brown tried to move away. At that point, Johnson said, he saw Wilson pull out a gun and shoot Brown in the chest or arm. Johnson said the officer hit Brown with another round as he was running away and fatally gunned him down after he stopped and raised his hands in surrender.
Given that the article goes on to chronicle a pro-Wilson rally – “most of them white” – the authors could have easily detailed some of the information emerging from the case that supports Wilson’s innocence. Instead, they chose to assassinate Wilson’s character, impugn the motives of his supporters and fan the flames of racial tension. Am I wrong?
Before you answer that, check out the caption underneath the video of Wilson receiving a commendation from the Ferguson City Council: “Video shows Officer Darren Wilson receiving a commendation months before Michael Brown’s death. Residents say they saw a different image of the officer after the shooting.”
What does that mean? Is there any evidence that Wilson was a bad cop? Racist? That people in his community hated or feared him in particular? Or is this “different image” of Officer Wilson a projection of their own biased views? Or maybe the paper’s biased view?
WaPo’s Dennis Wilson Article: Profile or Character Assassination?
August 24, 2014
Officer Darren Wilson commendation ceremony
The Washington Post has published a detailed article about Officer Dennis Wilson, the Ferguson PD patrolman who shot and killed teenager Michael Brown, setting off a national furore about race and police militarization. The piece is headlined Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities. This is how it starts . . .
The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.
That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.
Facts, yes. But the clear implication: guilt by association. Wilson was part of a racist police force so he’s a racist. Maybe. Probably?
To answer that question – which has no proven bearing on the Michael Brown shooting – you have to scroll down 34 paragraphs, past condemnation of Wilson’s silence on the incident. Past information on Wilson’s divorce, his mother’s felony conviction for forgery and stealing and a history of the Jennings Police Department’s [allegedly] racially motivated misdeeds. Until, finally . . .
Robert Orr, the former Jennings police chief who retired in 2010, said of Wilson: “He was a good officer with us. There was no disciplinary action.”
And then it’s back to more guilt by association. Wilson is an officer in Ferguson, and the Ferguson PD is . . .
an example of a police department staffed predominantly with white officers, many of whom live far away from, and often fail to establish trust with, the predominantly black communities they serve. Policing can become a tense, racially charged, fearful and potentially violent series of interactions. Distrust becomes institutionalized, as much a part of the local infrastructure as the sewers and power lines.
A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents — what the group calls a poor-people’s tax.
Are you buying this? It’s one thing to say a mostly white police department in a mostly black community can become oppressive. It’s another to say Ferguson’s PD is oppressive. And another to say that the police oppression is racist.
It’s also highly inflammatory. Kinda like repeating a version of events that makes it sound like Wilson murdered Brown without offering an alternative, credible version which indicates the shooting was self-defense. Here’s the paragraph in question:
According to Johnson [the teenager with Brown at the time of the shooting], Wilson reached out, grabbed Brown by the throat and then grabbed his shirt as Brown tried to move away. At that point, Johnson said, he saw Wilson pull out a gun and shoot Brown in the chest or arm. Johnson said the officer hit Brown with another round as he was running away and fatally gunned him down after he stopped and raised his hands in surrender.
Given that the article goes on to chronicle a pro-Wilson rally – “most of them white” – the authors could have easily detailed some of the information emerging from the case that supports Wilson’s innocence. Instead, they chose to assassinate Wilson’s character, impugn the motives of his supporters and fan the flames of racial tension. Am I wrong?
Before you answer that, check out the caption underneath the video of Wilson receiving a commendation from the Ferguson City Council: “Video shows Officer Darren Wilson receiving a commendation months before Michael Brown’s death. Residents say they saw a different image of the officer after the shooting.”
What does that mean? Is there any evidence that Wilson was a bad cop? Racist? That people in his community hated or feared him in particular? Or is this “different image” of Officer Wilson a projection of their own biased views? Or maybe the paper’s biased view?
WaPo’s Dennis Wilson Article: Profile or Character Assassination?
August 24, 2014
Officer Darren Wilson commendation ceremony
The Washington Post has published a detailed article about Officer Dennis Wilson, the Ferguson PD patrolman who shot and killed teenager Michael Brown, setting off a national furore about race and police militarization. The piece is headlined Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities. This is how it starts . . .
The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.
That was three years ago. One of the officers who worked in that department, and lost his job along with everyone else, was a young man named Darren Wilson.
Facts, yes. But the clear implication: guilt by association. Wilson was part of a racist police force so he’s a racist. Maybe. Probably?
To answer that question – which has no proven bearing on the Michael Brown shooting – you have to scroll down 34 paragraphs, past condemnation of Wilson’s silence on the incident. Past information on Wilson’s divorce, his mother’s felony conviction for forgery and stealing and a history of the Jennings Police Department’s [allegedly] racially motivated misdeeds. Until, finally . . .
Robert Orr, the former Jennings police chief who retired in 2010, said of Wilson: “He was a good officer with us. There was no disciplinary action.”
And then it’s back to more guilt by association. Wilson is an officer in Ferguson, and the Ferguson PD is . . .
an example of a police department staffed predominantly with white officers, many of whom live far away from, and often fail to establish trust with, the predominantly black communities they serve. Policing can become a tense, racially charged, fearful and potentially violent series of interactions. Distrust becomes institutionalized, as much a part of the local infrastructure as the sewers and power lines.
A newly released report by a nonprofit group of lawyers identifies Ferguson as a city that gets much of its revenue from fines generated by police in mundane citations against residents — what the group calls a poor-people’s tax.
Are you buying this? It’s one thing to say a mostly white police department in a mostly black community can become oppressive. It’s another to say Ferguson’s PD is oppressive. And another to say that the police oppression is racist.
It’s also highly inflammatory. Kinda like repeating a version of events that makes it sound like Wilson murdered Brown without offering an alternative, credible version which indicates the shooting was self-defense. Here’s the paragraph in question:
According to Johnson [the teenager with Brown at the time of the shooting], Wilson reached out, grabbed Brown by the throat and then grabbed his shirt as Brown tried to move away. At that point, Johnson said, he saw Wilson pull out a gun and shoot Brown in the chest or arm. Johnson said the officer hit Brown with another round as he was running away and fatally gunned him down after he stopped and raised his hands in surrender.
Given that the article goes on to chronicle a pro-Wilson rally – “most of them white” – the authors could have easily detailed some of the information emerging from the case that supports Wilson’s innocence. Instead, they chose to assassinate Wilson’s character, impugn the motives of his supporters and fan the flames of racial tension. Am I wrong?
Before you answer that, check out the caption underneath the video of Wilson receiving a commendation from the Ferguson City Council: “Video shows Officer Darren Wilson receiving a commendation months before Michael Brown’s death. Residents say they saw a different image of the officer after the shooting.”
What does that mean? Is there any evidence that Wilson was a bad cop? Racist? That people in his community hated or feared him in particular? Or is this “different image” of Officer Wilson a projection of their own biased views? Or maybe the paper’s biased view?
Patrick, I must admit that I’m having a problem following your train of thought as written in your posts, and I believe you are misreading me.
If you have followed this blog for any length of time you would realize there is probably no one here who is more pro-local law enforcement than myself, having spent 34+ years as a municipal police officer. I have survived several near death experiences in deadly force encounters in the line of duty. I am convinced that my survival was the result, not of my training and skill, but because of a loving God who was watching over me.
If you had read my previous posts you would know that I have stated my first reaction was (and still is) to believe the witnesses backing the officer’s actions.
I know what it’s like to encounter folks that are totally uncooperative and combative. I know what it’s like to fight with men larger than me to the point of total exhaustion and thinking death would be blessing and coming to the realization that if I didn’t prevail I most probably would die.
I know what it’s like to to have the trigger pulled on me at 10 feet before I being able to draw my weapon, and survive.
I know what it’s like to be ambushed just because a gang banger thought killing a cop would make him a big man in the barrio.
I know what it’s like to be surrounded by an estimated 50 thousand angry protesters burning police motorcycles downtown when the closest thing we had to an armored vehicle were paddy wagons, and my riot gear consisted of a motorcycle helmet and a pine wooden night stick. Politicians refused to label it a riot, rather, it was called a “major disturbance”. (insurance consideration for business owners)
I know what it’s like to be shot at, physically attacked, have rocks, bottles and yes, molotov-cocktails thrown, at me.
I know what it’s like to have false complaints filed with internal affairs against me by people I arrested, hoping that the race issue would cause their charges to be dropped.
I know what its’s like to arrest an F.B.I. most wanted escapee, after a violent physical encounter to effect the arrest, and receive a commendation letter from the Director of the F.B.I. only to undergo a federal investigation by the same F.B.I. for a civil rights brutality complaint that ultimately found me justified in the force used.
I could go on and on, but I won’t bore you. Understand, I lived this stuff. I didn’t read about it in a novel or a newspaper or watch it on the tv. I’m no hero, just another retired big city cop who survived to enjoy retirement.
I spent my entire career working in the minority areas of the city, both black and hispanic, where most of these mentioned encounters took place, and I will tell anyone that the majority of the people living there are good, decent people.
Please read my posts before you lecture me. My observations come from my experiences, not from idle musings. If I misread your intent, please accept my apologies.
Patrick, I must admit that I’m having a problem following your train of thought as written in your posts, and I believe you are misreading me.
If you have followed this blog for any length of time you would realize there is probably no one here who is more pro-local law enforcement than myself, having spent 34+ years as a municipal police officer. I have survived several near death experiences in deadly force encounters in the line of duty. I am convinced that my survival was the result, not of my training and skill, but because of a loving God who was watching over me.
If you had read my previous posts you would know that I have stated my first reaction was (and still is) to believe the witnesses backing the officer’s actions.
I know what it’s like to encounter folks that are totally uncooperative and combative. I know what it’s like to fight with men larger than me to the point of total exhaustion and thinking death would be blessing and coming to the realization that if I didn’t prevail I most probably would die.
I know what it’s like to to have the trigger pulled on me at 10 feet before I being able to draw my weapon, and survive.
I know what it’s like to be ambushed just because a gang banger thought killing a cop would make him a big man in the barrio.
I know what it’s like to be surrounded by an estimated 50 thousand angry protesters burning police motorcycles downtown when the closest thing we had to an armored vehicle were paddy wagons, and my riot gear consisted of a motorcycle helmet and a pine wooden night stick. Politicians refused to label it a riot, rather, it was called a “major disturbance”. (insurance consideration for business owners)
I know what it’s like to be shot at, physically attacked, have rocks, bottles and yes, molotov-cocktails thrown, at me.
I know what it’s like to have false complaints filed with internal affairs against me by people I arrested, hoping that the race issue would cause their charges to be dropped.
I know what its’s like to arrest an F.B.I. most wanted escapee, after a violent physical encounter to effect the arrest, and receive a commendation letter from the Director of the F.B.I. only to undergo a federal investigation by the same F.B.I. for a civil rights brutality complaint that ultimately found me justified in the force used.
I could go on and on, but I won’t bore you. Understand, I lived this stuff. I didn’t read about it in a novel or a newspaper or watch it on the tv. I’m no hero, just another retired big city cop who survived to enjoy retirement.
I spent my entire career working in the minority areas of the city, both black and hispanic, where most of these mentioned encounters took place, and I will tell anyone that the majority of the people living there are good, decent people.
Please read my posts before you lecture me. My observations come from my experiences, not from idle musings. If I misread your intent, please accept my apologies.
P.S.- During my 34 year career, 43 of my comrades, fellow officers, were killed in the line of duty on my department. Several were close personal friends including a partner who lay in a coma for 8 years before succumbing to his injuries.
Never question where my sympathies lie in discussions such as this one.
P.S.- During my 34 year career, 43 of my comrades, fellow officers, were killed in the line of duty on my department. Several were close personal friends including a partner who lay in a coma for 8 years before succumbing to his injuries.
Never question where my sympathies lie in discussions such as this one.
Comments are closed.