Ferguson vs. Police
#11
I do totally agree that the police are totally overrating to what is going on and making it worst. If people want to trash their own neighborhood over something that happened. I say let them do it. So until someone calls in saying they need help let them be.

From what i can gather which isn't easy at this point it doesn't seem like the cop did anything wrong. From the autopsy vs what the guys friend said there are multi conflicts etc, mainly around what side he was shoot on front or back. If he was shoot in the front most likely the cop was defending himself. Most of what the guy's friend said was he shot him running away which doesn't seem to be true.
Reply
#12
My uneducated opinion is that the cop probably did his job correctly. I don't want to go into a big thing about it because I am getting kind of sick of hearing about it but the real issue to me is the police militarization and subsequent trampling of constitutional rights afterwards.
Reply
#13
to be perfectly honest, even the information regarding the police actions against the protesters is polluted with disinformation and unless someone was actually there, we probably won't ever know what sparked off the riots... and even then, could that information be trusted.

it's going to sound cold... but i care less about the kid and more about militarized police officers arresting journalist and targeting them with tear gas launhcing m203s.
Reply
#14
We've been covering some of the more troubling details of police militarization across the US, and specifically what's going on in Ferguson, Missouri over the past couple of weeks. However, we knew fairly little about the actual military equipment being used there. And we know that sometimes scary looking military equipment isn't necessarily so scary when put to use. So it's interesting to read a former Marine's analysis of the military equipment being used in Ferguson, which more or less confirms that it not only looks scary but absolutely is scary. Much of the discussion is about how all those "non-lethal" "riot control" weaponry is actually quite dangerous and potentially lethal. Here are a few examples:
Quote: There are scattered reports of stun grenade use in Ferguson. Also known as flashbangs or flash grenades, this weapon of choice for American SWAT teams (and Israeli soldiers) originated in the British special forces community more than four decades ago. Ostensibly less than lethal, stun grenades have been known to kill or severely injure numerous victims, and the device was recently in the news for burning a 19-month-old baby in Georgia, resulting in a coma, during one of the thousands of domestic police raids this year. They are designed to temporarily blind and deafen, thanks to a shrapnel-free casing that is only supposed to emit light and sound upon explosion. Nonetheless, the list of casualties is long, and the number of flammable mishaps is disconcerting. In [i]Rise of the Warrior Cop, Balko recounts a story of an FBI agent accidentally lighting himself and his vehicle on fire.

[....]

These "pepper balls" are lethal; the Boston Police Department banned them after a young woman was killed by one. It passed right through the eye and skull to the brain. She was guilty of being present in a rowdy crowd after a Red Sox v. Yankees game in which the former won. The ACLU condemned the use of such projectiles for the purposes of crowd management back in 1997, following an unfortunate incident in Eugene, Oregon. They even convinced Eugene officials to do the same. It's about time St. Louis County and the rest of the country followed suit.

[....]

Like the stun grenade, employing wooden pellets as a form of riot control was spearheaded by the British decades ago, mainly in Hong Kong. As the ACLU makes clear, considerable litigation has proceeded in the aftermath of such tactics, including suits brought by protesters in Oakland who bore the brunt of these measures around the beginning of the Iraq War. Longshoremen on their way to work also suffered and sued accordingly. As a result, the Oakland police department caved and beating residents with wooden projectiles as a means of crowd management was rendered illegal. [/i]
There's a lot more in the article as well. But here's the bit that really stood out for me. After posting a picture of militarized police moving down the street looking pretty scary, the former marine, Lyle Jeremy Rubin, explains how they're more well armed than the actual military in Afghanistan:
Quote: What we're seeing here is a gaggle of cops wearing more elite killing gear than your average squad leader leading a foot patrol through the most hostile sands or hills of Afghanistan. They are equipped with Kevlar helmets, assault-friendly gas masks, combat gloves and knee pads (all four of them), woodland Marine Pattern utility trousers, tactical body armor vests, about 120 to 180 rounds for each shooter, semiautomatic pistols attached to their thighs, disposable handcuff restraints hanging from their vests, close-quarter-battle receivers for their M4 carbine rifles and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights. In other words, they're itching for a fight. A big one. It's a well-known horror that the US military greets foreign peoples in this fashion as our politicians preach freedom, democracy and peace. It's an abomination that the police greet black communities in the States with the same trigger-happy posture. Especially on the occasion of an unarmed teen's death by cop.
He also discusses the general rule that people repeat in our comments all the time: "never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." And yet, of course, in pretty much every picture of the police here, we see them pointing weapons. And sometimes worse. Here's some video of a police officer in Ferguson not just pointing a weapon at some people livestreaming the protests, but telling the livestreamers that "I will fucking kill you." When the streamers ask him for his name, he says "Go fuck yourself."
And, again, remember that this is not in response to any terrorist threat, but to some protests after a fellow police officer killed an unarmed teenager. While that particular officer has since been suspended, it seems worth questioning this particular approach to policing.

Actually, isn't it about time we rethought the entire way that this country handles policing?

Originally Published: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:14:28 GMT
source
Reply
#15
Better equiped? So you are saying just because they have better protective gear (because they intend to not being able to use their attack weapons) is being better equip?

They have better protective gear because they are just dummy targets to take hits without dishing them out. The fact is they don't want to pay for good equipment for our military because it cost alot of money to do that.

As far as attacking weapons the military has much better weapons than just a rifle. btw for those who have never shot a weapon, 2 weapons that look the same aren't always the same.
Reply
#16
i think we can agree that the difference between a fragmenting grenade and a tear-gas filled grenade is irrelevant when the m79 that's firing it is pointed at your face.
Reply
#17
(Aug 26, 2014, 00:47 am)stormium Wrote: i think we can agree that the difference between a fragmenting grenade and a tear-gas filled grenade is irrelevant when the m79 that's firing it is pointed at your face.

Yea one will mean you don't wake up the next morning and the other means you are going to be in some discomfort for a while.
Reply
#18
(Aug 26, 2014, 09:18 am)ViperScale Wrote:
(Aug 26, 2014, 00:47 am)stormium Wrote: i think we can agree that the difference between a fragmenting grenade and a tear-gas filled grenade is irrelevant when the m79 that's firing it is pointed at your face.

Yea one will mean you don't wake up the next morning and the other means you are going to be in some discomfort for a while.

i should have been more clear.

i wasn't specifically referring to the type of ammunition used, but more towards the indignity of having anything like that pointed at you for an unlawful reason... although i doubt you would be waking up the next morning after taking any type of grenade to the face.
Reply
#19
In the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown, the Ferguson Police made several ill-advised moves. The biggest was the paramilitary force that greeted protests, looking for all the world like a unit flown in from Kabul, followed shortly thereafter by the detainment of several journalists. The decision to withhold the officer's name was also received poorly, but this was complicated by one baffling move -- the release of a store surveillance tape that appeared to show Brown stealing cigarillos from a local store shortly before he was shot dead.

This tape's release was purely self-motivated. Even the Dept. of Justice -- which had stepped in shortly after everything went to hell in Ferguson -- advised against it. The only conceivable reason for the release was a post-facto "justification" of Officer Darren Wilson's decision to shoot an unarmed man several times.

But the Ferguson PD tried to cover up this motivation. Matthew Key at TheBlot has dug into the events surrounding the release of the surveillance tape and found nothing but Ferguson PD lies.
Quote:The chief of police for the Ferguson Police Department misled members of the media and the public when he asserted that his hand was forced in releasing surveillance footage that purported to show 18-year-old resident Michael Brown engaged in a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store minutes before he was fatally shot by a police officer.
The tape -- released on the same day the PD belatedly revealed the name of the officer who shot Brown -- was supposedly released as the result of "multiple" FOIA requests from journalists and other citizens.
Quote:“We’ve had this tape for a while, and we had to diligently review the information that was in the tape, determine if there was any other reason to keep it,” Jackson said at the press event. “We got a lot of Freedom of Information requests for this tape, and at some point it was just determined we had to release it. We didn’t have good cause, any other reason not to release it under FOI.”
But another FOIA request exposed this claim for what it is. TheBlot used a FOIA request to obtain all FOIA requests sent to the Ferguson PD. And it couldn't find a single one that specifically requested that tape.
Quote:Last month, TheBlot Magazine requested a copy of all open records requests made by members of the public — including journalists and news organizations — that specifically sought the release of the convenience store surveillance video. The logs, which were itself obtained under Missouri’s open records law, show only one journalist — Joel Currier with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — broadly requested any and all multimedia evidence “leading up to” Brown’s death on Aug. 9.
With that lie uncovered, the Ferguson Police decided to double down. A statement issued to TheBlot claimed that multiple other FOIA requests were made orally, due to heavy traffic to the city's website and email server. Possibly believable, but was anyone logging these verbal requests? And could this be where the multiple requests for the surveillance video originated? The answers are "yes," "well, actually no," and "shut up."

The first response:
Quote:City of Ferguson attorney Stephanie Karr said that “many requests were made verbally due to the fact that the City’s website and email were down at several points during that week” and that “city personnel cataloged all requests and treated them in the same manner as it would any Sunshine Law request.
So, if they were logged, there'd be some record of a bunch of people asking for the release of the surveillance tape, right? Cue backpedal #1:
Quote:Karr responded to a request for comment Saturday afternoon by denying the City of Ferguson had a log of verbal records requests.

“You assume that the Custodian of Records, somehow, logged every single question, statement or request for information, verbal or otherwise, made to every single police officer, city employee, consultant, appointed official or elected official,” Karr told TheBlot by e-mail. “That assumption is, quite simply, wrong and unrealistic.”
Actually, TheBlot didn't "assume" anything. It simply took Karr's first statement at face value. Apparently, everything about the first statement was a lie. On top of that, the Ferguson PD may have violated the Sunshine Law by not logging requests it filled or denied. TheBlot has a request in for the logged verbal FOIA requests and in the meantime notes that the PD is still withholding both the incident report for the shooting (which may not even exist) as well as the incident report for the robbery.

Just a little more evidence pointing towards the unreliability of public officials, especially when caught in the middle of misconduct. Not only has the PD apparently lied about its reasons for releasing the tape, but it continues to withhold information about its involvement in the shooting of Michael Brown. Earlier, it claimed Officer Wilson suffered injuries -- possibly severe -- during his "interaction" with Brown. Those have proven false as well, with Wilson's own post-shooting text messages saying nothing about sustaining an injury as well as citizen video showing Wilson standing around the shooting scene for several minutes without seeking medical attention.

Odds are, no one directly requested this video. The release of the video coincided with the forced release of the officer's name in a blatant attempt to provide justification for his actions. While undoubtedly true that the city's website and email server have been hit pretty hard during the past few weeks, that's no excuse for city employees to fulfill or deny FOIA requests without documentation -- especially when its track record so far shows an urge to bury and obfuscate.

Originally Published: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:13:38 GMT
source
Reply
#20
Say what you want, but one thing has become abundantly clear since the whole Ferguson debacle began: the people running and policing that city aren't interested in your concerns. Throughout this entire process, the city and its police force have obfuscated the facts and people involved in the shooting of a civilian, they have cynically released information and videos when it suits them, and they've treated journalists covering the story with the kind of contempt they normally reserve for their own constituents. And now, utilizing a method previously beta-tested by both local and federal law enforcement agencies, they've decided the best way to respond to the ongoing outcry is to try to charge insane amounts for FOIA requests.
Quote:Officials in Ferguson, Missouri, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to turn over files under public records laws about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The city has demanded high fees to produce copies of records that, under Missouri law, it could give away free if it determined the material was in the public's interest to see. Instead, in some cases, the city has demanded high fees with little explanation or cost breakdown.

In one case, it billed The Associated Press $135 an hour — for nearly a day's work — merely to retrieve a handful of email accounts since the shooting. That fee compares with an entry-level, hourly salary of $13.90 in the city clerk's office, and it didn't include costs to review the emails or release them.
Allow that to sink in for a moment and marinade in your brain juices: information that could be given for free if it was of public interest is instead being billed at ridiculously high rates. Does anyone seriously want to argue that more transparency out of the Ferguson government isn't in the public's interest? Of course not. This is all about intimidating journalists and trying to put roadblocks in front of likely damning information. Ferguson has a public relations problem in the truest form and their strategy appears to be to freeze out journalists trying to provide information to the public. That won't win them any friends.

And don't think that this strategy is used rarely.
Quote:The Washington Post was told it would need to pay $200 at minimum for its requests, including city officials' emails since Aug. 9 discussing Brown's shooting, citizen complaints against Ferguson officers and Wilson's personnel file. The website Buzzfeed requested in part emails and memos among city officials about Ferguson's traffic-citation policies and changes to local elections, but was told it would cost unspecified thousands of dollars to fulfill.

Inquiries about Ferguson's public records requests were referred to the city's attorney, Stephanie Karr, who declined to respond to repeated interview requests from the AP since earlier this month. Through a spokesman late Monday, Karr said Missouri law can require fees but she didn't address why charges specific to the AP's request were nearly tenfold the lowest salary in the city clerk's office. Karr said searching emails for key words constitutes "extra computer programming" that can bring added costs.
Searching emails by keyword now equals "programming?" Brilliant! Although I suppose it's not as egregious as suggesting shooting unarmed civilians equals "policing."

Originally Published: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 02:39:00 GMT
source
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  US: Leaked documents outline DHS’s plans to police disinformation Resurgence 0 5,133 Nov 04, 2022, 11:56 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  Brazil: Indigenous community warns of massacre as police force them off land Resurgence 0 6,545 Jun 30, 2022, 02:17 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  Police linked to hacking campaign to frame Indian activists Resurgence 0 5,683 Jun 18, 2022, 00:08 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  US spent $21 billion on the ineffective, corrupt Afghan police force Resurgence 0 5,235 Jun 11, 2022, 23:55 pm
Last Post: Resurgence
  Dutch border police seize about 1,500 forged travel documents Resurgence 0 4,639 May 31, 2022, 01:23 am
Last Post: Resurgence



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)