Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We "know" what we know abuot a particular situation based on what we read. Everything is "spin". The cops want to justify their behavior, so they let it be known that the victim was a "thug" and "deserved" what he got.
The family of the victim is on the other side....their child was a saint, never did anything wrong, and was shot down in cold blood.
It is all a matter of perspective. Throw into the mix that we have hundreds of "news" outlets all trying to write stuff which is dramatic and likely to capture viewer eyeballs, and the "truth" gets lost in the hyperbole.
I find that there is really no way to form an educated opinion about the victim or the shooter because we simply only know what we have been told--not what actually might have happened.
For example, with these latest two shootings in St Louis, we have a couple of men against an army of police. The men end up dead. How could this possibly happen? There is nothing in the police procedures (like mace, pepper spray or Taser) short of shooting the person to stop the aberrant behavior?
Then we get the "he was a good person just having a bad day" versus "the cop felt his life was in jeopardy to justify his use of deadly force." All spin meant to justify behaviors. Only the judge and jury can (likely) sort out the real story.
Old mantra: Don't believe anything you read and hear, and only half of what you think you see.
Location: The High Desert of the American Southwest
214 posts, read 230,699 times
Reputation: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
There are far to many cases in the US were police officers shoot or assault "innocent people." But the biggest problem is the character assassination of the victims.
Why is it that we allow police officers to justify harming an innocent or unarmed person, if the person is later considered a "bad person."
In these cases the victims are not currently involved (at the time of the shooting) in anything problematic. And the police officer has zero evidence of any alleged "bad" behavior when they pull the weapon. Are police officers psychic? Do the victims walk around with signs on their head saying "I might be the suspect in the robbery you haven't heard about or started investigating yet?"
For example, in the Michael Brown case, lots of people are trying to justify it because Brown is suspected of robbing a convenience store (which is not an offense punishable by death in any means). But the police officer involved knew nothing of the robbery or the description of the suspects. So why is this relevant to the his case of an officer involved shooting. That info is immaterial as it wasn't available to the officer at the time of the shooting.
As Americans we are entitled to sentencing by a jury orpf our peers, but we let police officers justify being judge and jury by allowing info that was not available to the officer to influence our opinions. That's not fair or just!
The vast majority of people harmed by police are not "innocent" but rather were in the act of committing a crime at the time of the altercation.
And I would not go so far as to say "...we allow police officers to justify harming an innocent person" since they are many times brought before a review board or Internal Affairs in the wake of using force. Often they are suspended during this procedure. Police in America are held accountable far more often than is law enforcement in other countries.
In the vast majority of "use of force" incidents in this country, police ARE using non-lethal methods, such as pepper spray, tazers, or batons. But, wonder of all wonders!--that stuff is boring insofar as the media are concerned, and thus deemed "not newsworthy" so as a result we hear about the Mike Brown-type incidents, which comprise maybe 1/2 of 1% of cop-perp interactions.
It is VERY relevant to the Mike Brown case that he was suspected of robbing a convenience store, as it is simply the truth and thus part of the story. For the media to omit that would be tantamount to a cover-up. What if you were, say, stopped and detained and maybe even tazed for trespassing in someone's private property, but in reality the reason you were there was to cross their yard in order to pluck a little kid from a creek he had fallen into? Would you feel that your reason for being in the yard was "relevant."
Your last paragraph his just plain wrong, on all levels. Cops are NOT judge and jury, but rather are held up to review standards far higher than ever before. Everything changed for police after Rodney King. Videos are everywhere; the public and the media are forever chomping at the bit to get hold of a juicy "wrongful force" story. Look up stats for the number of in house review boards or even the number of suspensions for cops in this country, and you will see that number has escalated over the years. This is because they are held to increasingly higher restrictions when using force.
Look: it is a shame that young Mike Brown was killed. Even though he had a criminal past, and was most likely indeed attempting to commit a robbery before his death, those--as you said--are not grounds for death. (well, not in this country, anyway. Maybe in China or Iran.) And the wounds inflicted upon Brown (four shots along one arm) also are congruent with those that would be received during an in-close physical struggle with the cop. But alas, we cannot be sure.
In all likelihood Brown was a criminal who committed yet another criminal act and then fought with a cop attempting to detain him. This is NOT a prejudicial statement, but rather the most likely scenario in view of all the facts. Had he been some kid with no police record, sitting on a park bench reading a book, THEN those facts would indeed indicate an innocent was needlessly and heinously killed.
But those who do crime put themselves in dicey situations where people with guns are on the other side. Again, Brown did not deserve to die, but to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by saying all cops are out-of-control armed thugs acting on their own with no rules or possible consequences for their actions is pure hyperbole.
Its also wrong, and not supported by facts.
Yes, when white men shoot up movie theaters and blow up marathon runners. Rather than calling them thugs...we try to figure out what psychological issues were present that cause them to snap.
Maybe we should just call them thugs instead of excusing their behavior.
I agree with you 100%, because I know that's what you meant when talking about victimization of criminals
I'll invite you to spend some time in Chicago with the thug mentality. You will definitely understand the difference between mental illness and a cultural way of life based on brutality and ignorance. Understanding the character (or lack of) these people is understanding why they do what they do.
I don't believe it (M. Brown robbery case) was released to impugn his character so much as it was released to show that he was not the nice kid that some were purporting him to be. Also to show his propensity for violence and how this propensity could have led him to attack the officer requiring the officer to protect himself.
The bold portion is the very definition of impugning his character. It has nothing to do with whether, in the encounter with the officer, he caused the officer to reasonably fear for his life. It has everything to do with his character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeo123
I don't believe it's a matter of character assassination as much as setting of context. Without knowing the background, if I told you the US military snuck into someone's house and shot him then took his body away, that would sound horrific. With the added background of it being Osama bin Laden and all you know about his actions, it significantly changes things.
While it may appear to be character assisnation, the point to keep in mind is that police through the very nature of their job will be dealing with the people of poor character more often than morally upstanding citizens. It's the same way that they are more likely to deal with speeders than non speeders. As a result, any information relating to the background of the situation will appear to be character assassination, while it's really just laying out facts.
In the M. Brown situation, the fact that he robbed a store before hand could have easily contributed to him being more aggressive to a cop compared to someone just out for an evening walk. It also provides justification for the police involvement compared to it just being some random people on the street who were stopped and shot.
Providing more background may seem like character assassination, but only when compared to the default assumption of the person. If I say "unarmed teenager" most people picture a 160lb kid around 15-16. Release the fact that this was a huge 300lb 18 year old, and suddenly your perception changes because you understand more.
Providing background information is part of a trial. The background that can be presented is limited. This alleged robbery probably would not allowed as part of a trial. That is part of the rule prohibiting character evidence (and also evidence whose potential for prejudice outweighs its value as legitimate evidence).
In the Brown/Wilson case, there is a stark difference between the police department's release of information about Brown and its withholding of information about Wilson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by animalcrazy
The "character" of someone involved in these situations is totally relevant and the truth should come out. Who ever reported to the media that this "innocent unarmed teenage was shot in the back with their hands in the air" should be held accountable for starting the riots. That flipped the switch into rogue cop mode and put it on steroids. A rational thinking person would find that information suspect but because it's a cop involved it's perfectly fine to go ahead and assume that the person that may have been involved in a life and death situation is the villain. Does anyone really believe that a highly trained educated police officer would shoot someone in the back with their hands in the air knowing full well that the forensics would prove that it's murder?
Character is by definition not a valid type of evidence in an actual trial. In the Brown/Wilson case, eyewitnesses indicated that the victim had his hands in the air, and no one disputes that he was unarmed.
As for the question at the end of this quote, we have seen it before (and "highly trained educated" is not a given for police).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occifer
The entire public attitude against the police and government in general is also changing. When I was younger and a cop brought me home to my parents after a night of teenage partying, my parents would get mad, ask what I did, and discipline me. Now if that happens the parents ask the cop why he is harassing their child. Totally different view of things and much of it is based on the media. This entire thread is basically about the media. The "character assassination" of someone shot by the police isn't done by the department, it's done by the media outlets who print the stories because it generates money for them.
The bolded part has not been the experience of other types of people in the United States, ever.
In Ferguson, it is the police department that provided the convenience store images to the media--therefore it is fair to hold them accountable for the character assassination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre_Corriendo
It is VERY relevant to the Mike Brown case that he was suspected of robbing a convenience store, as it is simply the truth and thus part of the story. For the media to omit that would be tantamount to a cover-up. What if you were, say, stopped and detained and maybe even tazed for trespassing in someone's private property, but in reality the reason you were there was to cross their yard in order to pluck a little kid from a creek he had fallen into? Would you feel that your reason for being in the yard was "relevant."
Your last paragraph his just plain wrong, on all levels. Cops are NOT judge and jury, but rather are held up to review standards far higher than ever before. Everything changed for police after Rodney King. Videos are everywhere; the public and the media are forever chomping at the bit to get hold of a juicy "wrongful force" story. Look up stats for the number of in house review boards or even the number of suspensions for cops in this country, and you will see that number has escalated over the years. This is because they are held to increasingly higher restrictions when using force.
In all likelihood Brown was a criminal who committed yet another criminal act and then fought with a cop attempting to detain him. This is NOT a prejudicial statement, but rather the most likely scenario in view of all the facts. Had he been some kid with no police record, sitting on a park bench reading a book, THEN those facts would indeed indicate an innocent was needlessly and heinously killed.
But those who do crime put themselves in dicey situations where people with guns are on the other side. Again, Brown did not deserve to die, but to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by saying all cops are out-of-control armed thugs acting on their own with no rules or possible consequences for their actions is pure hyperbole.
Its also wrong, and not supported by facts.
For the police department to release information about a separate, alleged crime of a shooting victim in an officer-involved shooting certainly walks and talks like character assassination. It is PR work, not criminal justice work.
The bold paragarph is demonstrably untrue. Videos are not everywhere. They were not in Ferguson. They are not in most police forces. That private citizens take video of police (who regularly try to stop people from filming) is a reasonable check on police that will hopefully lead to better behavior.
Your last paragraph is unsupported by evidence, other than improper character evidence. The location of the bullets could be consistent with a charge (likely not a physical struggle without powder residue, in my understanding), or they could be consistent with the victim holding his arms over his face/torso while he is shot. The police department's release of the still images likely sought to create the impression that it created for you--"[i]n all likelihood Brown was a criminal who . . . fought with a cop attempting to detain him." It certainly was not meant to show what actually happened (as the police did not contemporaneously release their reports and interviews on the shooting).
I would be a lot more inclined not to throw the baby out with the bathwater if the police department conducted itself professionally in spite of the focused national attention. It has not done so in my view. Character assassination is part of that problem.
The bolded part has not been the experience of other types of people in the United States, ever.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this or how you can say what the experiences of any other "types of people" in the United States has ever been.
My comments alluded to that in the past, the police would bring home teenagers for the parents to discipline when they committed minor offenses such as underage drinking disorderly conduct, or being out past curfew. The parents would accept the officer's word that the kid was doing something he/she shouldn't have been doing and would take care of the situation. Now, many parents assume that the officer was harassing their child, who probably didn't do anything wrong. They call and complain that an officer violated their kid's rights by taking him away from a party and bringing him home. That's why many police departments now forbid such a practice and require that the officer arrest the juvenile and take them to juvenile detention whenever a juvenile breaks the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
In Ferguson, it is the police department that provided the convenience store images to the media--therefore it is fair to hold them accountable for the character assassination.
I'm not sure what the public records law is in Missouri, but in Florida a police department would have been required by law to release the video if the media asked for anything in the department records relating to that person. The robbery at the convenience store was a closed criminal investigation since the suspect was deceased. A department here has the legal obligation to make all evidence from closed criminal investigations public record. Failure to do so can subject the department to civil penalties and the agency head to criminal penalties in some cases.
It's routine for the media to send in public records requests that ask for any and all records that a police department has of contact with a certain person. With certain limitations (rape or domestic violence victims, juvenile records, etc), that means a department has to provide EVERY record they have of any contact with the person. If they found that the person was implicated in a robbery, they could then put in another public records request for video footage from the robbery. Again, the department would have no choice but to turn it over if the case was closed.
People want open public records laws and that's exactly what open public records laws mean. Public records are public records, no matter whether or not the records paint the picture that someone wants to see. Nobody complains when the media gets copies of the reports for closed internal affairs investigations that result in police officers getting fired or charged with crimes, so why the double standard?
........My comments alluded to that in the past, the police would bring home teenagers for the parents to discipline when they committed minor offenses such as underage drinking disorderly conduct, or being out past curfew. The parents would accept the officer's word that the kid was doing something he/she shouldn't have been doing and would take care of the situation. Now, many parents assume that the officer was harassing their child, who probably didn't do anything wrong. They call and complain that an officer violated their kid's rights by taking him away from a party and bringing him home. That's why many police departments now forbid such a practice and require that the officer arrest the juvenile and take them to juvenile detention whenever a juvenile breaks the law........
This could also be a difference in philosophies, about which does the most good.
Late 80's, when I ran a military police force, I had my people, take the alcohol, destroy it on the spot, make it very expensive immediately for the offender. Note it in the report which gave us additional administrative powers to use if need be.
Come forward to the early part of this century and a local Sheriff's approach was to take the kid down town, file a report, get the parents to come down town, get them involved in what's going on.
Which is more effective, all things being equal (and they weren't)? Perhaps not a question to answer here but one thing I was taught early on was that as head of the department, I needed to put out policies so there was a degree of standardization with how the officers enforced, such as with the traffic code (AS AN EXAMPLE). Ie, so one officer didn't issue a warning ticket while another sent the driver to the Magistrate but both were about the same offense.
But.......alas, these days, it behooves one to cover their tail with procedures, standardization, regulation. Because if one ends up in court and the opposing force can show even a slight flaw in what one did, they will exploit it to the max......and probably, highly successfully.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this or how you can say what the experiences of any other "types of people" in the United States has ever been.
My comments alluded to that in the past, the police would bring home teenagers for the parents to discipline when they committed minor offenses such as underage drinking disorderly conduct, or being out past curfew. The parents would accept the officer's word that the kid was doing something he/she shouldn't have been doing and would take care of the situation. Now, many parents assume that the officer was harassing their child, who probably didn't do anything wrong. They call and complain that an officer violated their kid's rights by taking him away from a party and bringing him home. That's why many police departments now forbid such a practice and require that the officer arrest the juvenile and take them to juvenile detention whenever a juvenile breaks the law.
To be more specific, that courtesy has been selectively applied. It has rarely been extended to black people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occifer
I'm not sure what the public records law is in Missouri, but in Florida a police department would have been required by law to release the video if the media asked for anything in the department records relating to that person. The robbery at the convenience store was a closed criminal investigation since the suspect was deceased. A department here has the legal obligation to make all evidence from closed criminal investigations public record. Failure to do so can subject the department to civil penalties and the agency head to criminal penalties in some cases.
It's routine for the media to send in public records requests that ask for any and all records that a police department has of contact with a certain person. With certain limitations (rape or domestic violence victims, juvenile records, etc), that means a department has to provide EVERY record they have of any contact with the person. If they found that the person was implicated in a robbery, they could then put in another public records request for video footage from the robbery. Again, the department would have no choice but to turn it over if the case was closed.
People want open public records laws and that's exactly what open public records laws mean. Public records are public records, no matter whether or not the records paint the picture that someone wants to see. Nobody complains when the media gets copies of the reports for closed internal affairs investigations that result in police officers getting fired or charged with crimes, so why the double standard?
Public records laws are never inflexible. They also allow public organizations time to comply with the requests. The shooting is an open case, and the department would likely be justified in withholding the images on that ground.
I just saw this story about an incident in Denver it looks like unnecessary use of force, but the officers were never charged. I wonder if the victim was considered a druggie by association. But it really illustrates the differntil treatment.
You know the "whole truth" needs to be told in these cases. Look at the Rodney King Case. How many times did the networks show him getting up off the ground and charging the police DURING the incident? I bet very few. Yet, it happened. And the fact that Michael Brown committed a strong-arm robbery just prior to his encounter with officer Wilson. In neither case do these incidents justify the beating/shooting yet they are part of the whole scenario and need to be told/shown.
First off.. Anytime an officer is involved in a shooting.. They're on desk duty. Pretty sure that's SOP everywhere.
From there, Internal Affairs does an investigation that either clears or doesn't clear, the officer.
The best thing that the police in Ferguson, or anywhere else could do is release any video they have of the incident.. And, most police have a LOT of video of every incident now with dash cams on the cars and the like.
If you owned a restaurant, and someone accused you of serving them tea with cleaning chemicals in it.. And you have video of you serving them the tea, then them pouring something into it.. Don't you release that?
At the very least, you issue a "No comment" when the media comes around. If you even HINT of throwing your employees under the bus.. You'll have no employees left. And, just that accusation hurts you. Just like the accusation of impropriety with the police hurts them.
Police operate the same way.. They have to make split-second life or death decisions.. While those decisions need to be analyzed and determined to be correct.. I have no problem with the police immediately coming to the defense of their officer. They HAVE to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
