Two Ferguson, MO Policemen Ambushed: Anyone Surprised?

Pilgrim · Mar 16, 2015

cheri1122 said:
Brown would also still be alive if the officer hadn't shot him when he was neither close enough to inflict damage, nor clearly attempting/intending to do so. The shooting occurred only after the physical altercation, when Brown was not close enough to attack, and not doing anything that threatened the officer. None of the eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence contradicts that definitively. In fact, much of the eyewitness testimony contradicts other eyewitness testimony - as usual.
Ignoring an officer's instructions isn't reason to shoot. A physical attack might be - if the shooting occurred during the attack, but this one didn't. Being a "large and dangerous thug" isn't sufficient reason either, even though you seem to think it is.

Have you even read the reports detailing the forensic evidence, autopsy results and grand jury testimony? Apparently not, because nothing you've said squares with the facts - it's just more liberal "hands up, don't shoot" malarkey. Neither the state of MO nor the Federal DOJ could muster cause to prosecute Officer Wilson.

davekc · Mar 16, 2015

Pilgrim said:
Have you even read the reports detailing the forensic evidence, autopsy results and grand jury testimony? Apparently not, because nothing you've said squares with the facts - it's just more liberal "hands up, don't shoot" malarkey. Neither the state of MO nor the Federal DOJ could muster cause to prosecute Officer Wilson.

Not so sure on the state, but the DOJ went in looking for anything. Bottom line, they didn't find enough to prosecute. Doesn't mean there isn't racial problems within the police department, but the results of them not arresting the officer speaks volumes.

cheri1122 · Mar 16, 2015

Pilgrim said:
Have you even read the reports detailing the forensic evidence, autopsy results and grand jury testimony? Apparently not, because nothing you've said squares with the facts - it's just more liberal "hands up, don't shoot" malarkey. Neither the state of MO nor the Federal DOJ could muster cause to prosecute Officer Wilson.

I have read some, not all, and not exhaustively. I discount "eyewitness" testimony, [unreliable, contradictory], so how about if you point out exactly which facts prove that the officer was in fear at the moment he shot?
Please tell me you don't believe that a decision not to prosecute can be solely attributed to lack of sufficient cause - we all know better.

RLENT · Mar 16, 2015

davekc said:
Not so sure on the state, but the DOJ went in looking for anything. Bottom line, they didn't find enough to prosecute. Doesn't mean there isn't racial problems within the police department, but the results of them not arresting the officer speaks volumes.

One thing it speaks volumes about is that the standard for (successful) prosecution of a civil rights violation is pretty high (some say impossibly high)

Familiarize yourself with that, and you'll understand better ...

And another thing - the fact that they didn't prosecute does speak volumes about some of the personalities involved ... primarily AG Holder and the Civil Rights Division of DOJ ...

RLENT · Mar 16, 2015

cheri1122 said:
Please tell me you don't believe that a decision not to prosecute can be solely attributed to lack of sufficient cause - we all know better.

It's often not about guilt or innocence ... but what one can prove ...

cheri1122 · Mar 17, 2015

A decision to prosecute [or not] can also be either political or pragmatic, neither of which says anything about guilt or lack of. The decision to not prosecute doesn't mean: ipso facto, not guilty, as some present it.

JohnWC · Mar 17, 2015

cheri1122 said:
A decision to prosecute [or not] can also be either political or pragmatic, neither of which says anything about guilt or lack of. The decision to not prosecute doesn't mean: ipso facto, not guilty, as some present it.

let's see cop had a dislocated eye done fought with him and he was charging the cop again hum

davekc · Mar 17, 2015

RLENT said:
One thing it speaks volumes about is that the standard for (successful) prosecution of a civil rights violation is pretty high (some say impossibly high)

Familiarize yourself with that, and you'll understand better ...

And another thing - the fact that they didn't prosecute does speak volumes about some of the personalities involved ... primarily AG Holder and the Civil Rights Division of DOJ ...

Umm, maybe. They made such a rush to get there just to find something and what they found was much different. They wanted to find anything, not just a civil rights violation. They did find departmental issues but nothing with this specific officer. It does come down to whether they can "prove" something, and in this case I think they would have if even he was a little close.
Just my opinion of course.

Turtle · Mar 17, 2015

davekc said:
Umm, maybe. They made such a rush to get there just to find something and what they found was much different. They wanted to find anything, not just a civil rights violation. They did find departmental issues but nothing with this specific officer. It does come down to whether they can "prove" something, and in this case I think they would have if even he was a little close.
Just my opinion of course.

Yeah, no, not really. The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is who did the investigation, so they weren't really looking for "anything." Even if they found "anything" they still only have the power to enforce federal statues, not state and local laws. They said right up front when they announced the investigation back in September that they would investigate civil rights violations, but to be prepared that proving such violations is very difficult. They investigated things like excessive force, profiling, and other civil rights related issues, not of just the Ferguson Police Department, but also the other departments in St Louis County.

What they found was appalling,and they're able to prove every bit of it, in no small part because the Ferguson PD's own documents admit it. What you call "departmental issues" everyone else calls a gross violation of Constitutional rights. Did you know they have city ordinances in Ferguson that makes it a crime to irritate a cop? You have a First Amendment right to say whatever you please, including saying nothing at all, except in Ferguson where if you are not polite to a cop, or if you fail to answer any question asked of you by a cop (including illegal questions) you will be cited for "Failure to Comply" or Failure to Obey" and if you turn and walk away, which is your right unless you are under arrest, you could be cited for "Manner of Walking." Seriously. It's what I call the "Yessah, Massah" law, or what the article linked below calls "Contempt of Cop." Basically, the Ferguson PD operates under the premise that you will do whatever they want you to do, and you'll like it.

I read the entire DOJ report, and did so expecting it to be just a load of Obama/Holder crap, because crap is what we get out of them most of the time. But that's not what's in there. It's a very matter-of-fact report, mostly from Ferguson PD's own documents. And when you read the report, whether you're white, black or whatever, it ought to pіss you off to no end.

This article here, from RedState, is very similar to the way I approached reading the article and in what I came away from it with. I highly recommend that you read the entire DOJ report (the link to the PDF is in the above article), because it'll really open your eyes, and not just about Ferguson (especially for those who think the Ferguson PD is really no worse than most other police departments). But if you can't of won't read the report, at least read the above article.

There is simply no way that anyone could read the entire report, or even the article, and then say with any credible sincerity that we should militarize the police departments in this country.

davekc · Mar 17, 2015

That I agree with. There is no question that the department has issues. Whether Wilson was guilty or innocent is a different issue than all the problems their department have.

muttly · Mar 17, 2015

davekc said:
Umm, maybe. They made such a rush to get there just to find something and what they found was much different. They wanted to find anything, not just a civil rights violation. They did find departmental issues but nothing with this specific officer. It does come down to whether they can "prove" something, and in this case I think they would have if even he was a little close.
Just my opinion of course.

Holder did make comments about Disparate Impact before the investigation began. So they (Holder and DOJ) did have a preconceived idea about what they wanted to find.

davekc · Mar 17, 2015

muttly said:
Holder did make comments about Disparate Impact before the investigation began. So they (Holder and DOJ) did have a preconceived idea about what they wanted to find.

There is no question about it. How often does the Attorney General rush to a crime scene?

Turtle · Mar 17, 2015

davekc said:
That I agree with. There is no question that the department has issues. Whether Wilson was guilty or innocent is a different issue than all the problems their department have.

The DOJ investigated as to whether Wilson violated any Civil Rights laws, but that was it. They weren't there to determine whether Wilson should have been charged with murder, since that's a state law, not a federal law. Even if their investigation had found that Wilson flat out murdered Brown in cold blood, they would have still have had to prove that the motive was solely or primarily because Brown was black (or some other civil rights basis, like creed, national origin).

Turtle · Mar 17, 2015

muttly said:
Holder did make comments about Disparate Impact before the investigation began. So they (Holder and DOJ) did have a preconceived idea about what they wanted to find.

davekc said:
There is no question about it. How often does the Attorney General rush to a crime scene?

Here's the link to the article again, with the full title: Many Conservatives are Blowing it on the Ferguson DOJ Report | RedState, just to reinforce the point that you two really need to read it, because you will, absolutely, recognize yourself in the first paragraph.

muttly · Mar 17, 2015

davekc said:
That I agree with. There is no question that the department has issues. Whether Wilson was guilty or innocent is a different issue than all the problems their department have.

The issues are common in a lot of municipalities. There is a dictate from leaders in their local governments to enforce existing ordinances more aggressively to offset the foreseeable shortfall in their budgets. Regarding Ferguson's Dept, yes there was an order to enforce laws more aggressively ( write more tickets by 10%) but statistically no more, on average, than other Depts.

muttly · Mar 17, 2015

Turtle said:
Here's the link to the article again, with the full title: Many Conservatives are Blowing it on the Ferguson DOJ Report | RedState, just to reinforce the point that you two really need to read it, because you will, absolutely, recognize yourself in the first paragraph.

Turtle, I'll read that article. I do remember though that you said you don't like to read opinion pieces after I posted a couple earlier in this thread. If you have a chance, go back and read them. It talks about disparate impact.

Turtle · Mar 17, 2015

muttly said:
Turtle, I'll read that article. I do remember though that you said you don't like to read opinion pieces after I posted a couple earlier in this thread. If you have a chance, go back and read them. It talks about disparate impact.

First, Holder mentioning Disparate Impact doesn't mean that they had a preconceived idea about what they wanted to find. That's political spin on your part. Him mentioning Disparate Impact actually meant they had a predetermined idea of which allegations they were going to investigate. There's a difference.

Second, I never said I don't like to read opinion pieces. I read opinion pieces all the time. In fact, the more varied opinions on a subject I can find the better. I just rarely read the ones you post, because they tend to be little more than you gather up an opinion that is the same as yours and then you post it to show that you're right, or something. If I've read your opinion, I don't need to re-read it again under someone else's byline. Once is plenty.

Third, reading the article is a good first step, but you would do yourself a great service by reading the entire DOJ report.

muttly · Mar 17, 2015

Turtle said:
First, Holder mentioning Disparate Impact doesn't mean that they had a preconceived idea about what they wanted to find. That's political spin on your part. Him mentioning Disparate Impact actually meant they had a predetermined idea of which allegations they were going to investigate. There's a difference.

Second, I never said I don't like to read opinion pieces. I read opinion pieces all the time. In fact, the more varied opinions on a subject I can find the better. I just rarely read the ones you post, because they tend to be little more than you gather up an opinion that is the same as yours and then you post it to show that you're right, or something. If I've read your opinion, I don't need to re-read it again under someone else's byline. Once is plenty.

Third, reading the article is a good first step, but you would do yourself a great service by reading the entire DOJ report.

I did read the DOJ report.( not the Darren Wilson part) I read the red state article . The articles I posted also provided information in more detail. One of them also provided a link about a study about the driving habits on the NJ turnpike that relates who were receiving tickets and why.