Member since: Fri Jul 13, 2012, 11:38 AM
Number of posts: 653
Number of posts: 653
When I was a boy, she was prejudiced against blacks. It's how she was brought up, in poverty with a father who wheezed to death from being gassed in the first world war. She didn't know any better - classic ignorance. MLK, RFK, etc & the civil rights movement gave her kids the support and arguments to work on her and educate her.
In 2008, she was a gigantic fan of candidate Obama. Every day, she'd turn on her TV to see one of her favorite people in the world: Barack. Today, when she gets up, she'll turn on her TV and be back at it, getting snippets of how President Obama is doing. She adores him.
I know when you see things like Michael Brown, 150 years after the civil war and 50 years after MLK, it's disheartening and makes you wonder if things will ever change. But people can change, some do and some have. I've seen it. 60-70 years ago, I have my doubts you'd have ever seen the fuss and front page outcry over the police shooting someone like unarmed Michael Brown as we've seen recently. Not everybody has changed and not enough have changed but a bunch have.
Keep up the good work you do here. Slowly but surely, it is working and changing people.
Posted by cleduc | Tue Aug 26, 2014, 08:12 AM (0 replies)
Yes, they're different.
But, for example, some of the first media I read on Mike Brown was describing him as a gentle giant.
"Janet Reitman delivers a riveting account of how Jahar Tsarnaev became a monster"
So cherry picking media paragraphs doesn't work for me.
Has there been some coverage on Brown that suggests some racism is behind it? Definitely.
Have we seen that level of racism against Tsarnaev? Definitely not.
If that's the point, then I could agree with that.
Posted by cleduc | Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:21 PM (0 replies)
from the police reports
they reported a theft to the officer who responded to (apparently) a patron calling 911
Watch the video and convince me the retailer was just thanking Mike Brown (allegedly according to Dorian Johnson) for his business.
If Brown did pay for something, maybe he bought one pack of cigarillos and stole 10 more. Who knows yet? Dorion Johnson said Mike had his hands full of cigarillos when the trouble with Wilson started.
I don't think one has to be a rocket scientist to figure out there was an unusual problem at that store that looked like some sort of theft and the police reports show the store employees claimed theft of cigars.
Posted by cleduc | Fri Aug 22, 2014, 07:29 AM (0 replies)
from the Boise manual:
L 4707 PLACEMENT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE:
L 4706 REPORTS BY DEPARTMENT MEMBERS:
Posted by cleduc | Fri Aug 22, 2014, 06:51 AM (0 replies)
I haven't been able to access Ferguson/St Louis police links so I looked this up elsewhere
Below are clips from the duty manual of the San Jose Police
L 2638 DIRECT USE OF FIREARM:
L 2641 WHEN FIREARMS WILL NOT BE DISCHARGED:
L 2643 REPORTING USE OF FORCE (in firearms section of SJ Duty Manual):
Here's what the Boise Idaho Duty Manual says about reporting the incident:
Complete a supplemental report and include:
so it appears with other city police forces that filing a report is standard procedure
Having said that, in the interest of trying to inform and understand the circumstances (not defend the officer per se!!), I wondered about:
- what obligations the officer has to file such a report if he's placed on administrative leave/suspended with pay immediately
- what obligations the officer has if the crime scene is turned over to another police force as the Ferguson Police did, passing it to the St Louis County Police
- what would be the officer's Miranda rights - if I'm his lawyer, I'd be telling him to shut up and say nothing
What has been reported is that Wilson stayed at the crime scene for hours after the shooting before eventually going to the hospital. He made some sort of a statement to police that day. A few days later/next day?, they got another more lengthy statement from him.
If the Ferguson Police did not follow their own procedures, they could have a problem. But the fact that they turned over the crime scene to the St Louis County police so quickly probably covers them for a lot of that because many of their procedures for this crime scene would cease when that got done.
Posted by cleduc | Fri Aug 22, 2014, 06:20 AM (1 replies)
"As long as there is still the slightest possibility that Wilson acted in his own defense, Missouri law favors Wilson"
Maybe I'm getting hung up on semantics.
With DNA evidence, the possibility it is wrong is often quoted as something in the order of 1 in 13 billion. That's nearly as slight a possibility as you could find. But jurors often accept DNA as damning evidence - in spite of the fact that there is the "slightest possibility" it is wrong - because to them, 1 in 13 billion is so slight, it's not reasonable doubt - it's highly, highly unlikely.
In spite of whatever evidence is piled up against Wilson, the slant of that article suggests in Missouri, one racist on the jury can easily cling to Wilson's self defense claim having the "slightest possibility" it's true and it's game over. It should relate more to reasonable doubt - not unreasonable "slightest possibility".
I realize a racist on the jury could ignore all reason regardless. But "slightest possibility" gives them something easier to cling to.
It frightens me that the prosecution could put on a good case and fail because of "slightest possibility". From that, I'd fear Rodney King II: riots in Ferguson causing damage and potentially death.
This distresses me. I'm left to wonder if this is really justice.
Posted by cleduc | Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:20 PM (1 replies)
Dorian Johnson has said they were walking in the middle of the road. So it's hard to pin profiling on Wilson because Johnson basically testified that they were in violation of that ordinance. Even if they're wasn't a specific ordinance, I doubt folks would have a big problem with a police officer expressing concern for citizens walking in the middle of the road. And Wilson initially didn't try to bust Johnson or Brown for it. Wilson just asked them (ordered them rudely according to Johnson) to get off the road.
I don't see a sustainable civil rights argument for profiling at that point.
Wilson, according to some accounts including Johnson's started to drive off. And then he backed up.
Why did Wilson back up?
I doubt at that point it was because he suddenly realized they were black. I strongly suspect he realized their race long before he drove away - probably as he initially approached them.
Maybe they said something that ticked him off.
Maybe they didn't show any sign of doing what he asked and that ticked him off.
Maybe he noticed the cigars in Brown's hands as he drove off that Johnson said were there and put two and two together with the robbery report that had been broadcast in the police radio.
Maybe something else that others can imagine or Wilson says ...
But from that above list, once again, so far, I do not see a convincing civil rights issue like profiling.
Maybe others have some thoughts on this and I'm missing something.
(and please, I'm not defending Wilson per se. I just don't want to go down a legal rabbit hole or get hopes up with an approach that isn't going to bear fruit holding the officer accountable for killing an unarmed man)
Posted by cleduc | Thu Aug 21, 2014, 11:41 AM (1 replies)
It's hard to argue beyond reasonable doubt for profiling - that the officer went after Brown because of his color - when the police radio was broadcasting the robbery and a description that matched Brown.
Posted by cleduc | Thu Aug 21, 2014, 07:32 AM (1 replies)
the racists sure came out of the closet.
The chances of finding 12 people in the US where one isn't a racist seems slim to me based upon what I've been seeing. And it's probably much worse in Missouri.
This garbage is still going on after 100s of years. It's awful.
Posted by cleduc | Thu Aug 21, 2014, 07:27 AM (0 replies)
I originally saw this article on Daily Kos
But generally, we expect situations of justified violence and legal killing to be the rare exception, and most people would probably imagine that policemen and citizens raising claims of justifiable homicide must meet a substantive burden of proof. But in Missouri, these justifications barely require any evidence at all.
The author provides some links in their article to back up what they're claiming.
Not only is the Ferguson police force a disgrace. So it appears are the Missouri laws that protect it.
This whole situation is appalling. It seems the more I find out, the more appalling it gets.
In short, the prosecution have to prove Mike Brown did not bum rush the officer. They can produce witnesses to say that as we've already heard them. But the officer saying that isn't so may well be enough for reasonable doubt = he gets off.
If they go through with this as laid out above, I fear more people in Ferguson will die. Rodney King II. I don't think I'm over the top saying that. This could get uglier.
The author updated their article some:
Correction and update: A previous version of this article implied that Missouri's low burden for self-defense claims made it an outlier among U.S. states. Although historically, many states required defendants to actively prove a justification defense (and Ohio still does), in the last few decades most other states have moved away from Ohio’s approach and resemble Missouri’s. The legal situation is therefore perhaps even more troubling than originally implied. The language of the story has been updated to reflect this.
That's kind of good news in that his revision indicates Missouri's standards are similar to many other states. But it will still be tough to get a conviction.
Posted by cleduc | Thu Aug 21, 2014, 07:09 AM (33 replies)