WTF News stories

[Jackinthegreen]

Regarding the Michael Brown incident given some detail at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/

So far it looks like there was a scuffle between Michael and the police officer, and it's possible Michael was trying to get the officer's weapon.  The officer got control of that scuffle, and Michael ran away.  Officer shot at him and apparently hit but the shot wasn't so life-threatening since Michael then stopped, turned around, and raised his hands in a show of surrender.  Then the officer shot him again, this time fatally.

If you hear someone slash it down to simply "Michael had surrendered but was shot anyway" then they are not doing justice to the events.  Neither part is wholly in the wrong or right.  Imagine that, it's complicated!

[StreamOfTheSky]

I thought it was against the law for them to shoot at a fleeing suspect, and certainly to shoot at one that's surrendering.  Regardless of how much of a dick the person was prior to that point.

I know "self defense" tends to go out the window when you start chasing after fleeing would-be-thiefs and such for us lesser folk (non-cops) to beat them up or shoot them some more.

So even if "Michael had surrendered but was shot anyway" is a gross simplification....the police officer still shouldn't have shot him.  In any case, I'm almost more upset about how the police are illegally oppressing protestors in the aftermath, it's pretty sickening.

"They are now firing into the crowd," a reporter says Wednesday night as loud blasts and fiery sparks show tear gas canisters apparently being shot by police. Screams follow.

"They're firing rubber bullets," a reporter with KARG Argus Radio is heard saying on video. "They're attacking reporters; they are attacking civilians. They are firing up on the media."

But [former Washington police official] Brooks also said he has serious questions about the arrest of two journalists inside a McDonald's by an officer who, according to reports, refused to provide his name.
"Why did the police come in and ask them to leave?" Brooks asks. If there were a problem, it would be "up to the manager, the general manger of that establishment, to ask them to leave. I want to know what department these officers were from. And if I ask an officer, 'What is your name and badge number,' that officer better give it to me."

The police apparently "had their weapons up and pointed at protesters who are obviously unarmed," he said. In the military, he learned that "your force posture matches the threat. You only raise your weapon if there is a threat that requires lethal force."

With a pointed weapon, Weinberg said, "you could make a mistake, maybe get startled, put your finger on the trigger and shoot somebody who doesn't deserve to be shot."

In another, author and former Marine logistics officer Jeff Clement wrote: "Our (Rules of Engagement) regarding who we could point weapons at in Afghanistan was more restrictive than cops in MO."

[bhu]

The local cops were tossed and the highway patrol took over.  They decided to take the opposite tactic of the local cops, and for now some semblance of peace is restored.

[linklord231]

I thought it was against the law for them to shoot at a fleeing suspect, and certainly to shoot at one that's surrendering.

It's actually not, in some cases, namely if the officer has probable cause to believe that a fleeing suspect has committed a violent felony; or if the officer believes his life or the lives of others to be in jeopardy. 

[Raineh Daze]

I'm more depressed that one of the first things to follow 'cops shot one guy' is 'smash shops and loot'.

[Frogman55]

I'm more depressed that one of the first things to follow 'cops shot one guy' is 'smash shops and loot'.

It's a hair more complicated. It was more: Cops shoot one guy -> peaceful protest is held -> protest gets aggressive (a natural result of nightfall and long hours, they weren't really doing anything at that point, just shouting louder) -> Cops in vests and cammo disperse protest with tear gas and rubber bullets -> crowd gets violent during dispursal (i.e. throwing rocks at cops while teargas in incoming) -> angry violent people scatter and break things as they go -> once one bit of law & order is thrown out, nearly all of it is.

It's true that people's mental behavior is as binary as it is (if I'm not following that one rule, then I'm not following any of them), but frankly the riot-reaction of the protesters is incredibly predictable, given the action of the cops. It's really not a surprise that the state cops (who aren't using the hyper-aggressive rule-1 police tactics) got peace as quickly as they did.

[bhu]

I thought it was against the law for them to shoot at a fleeing suspect, and certainly to shoot at one that's surrendering.

It's actually not, in some cases, namely if the officer has probable cause to believe that a fleeing suspect has committed a violent felony; or if the officer believes his life or the lives of others to be in jeopardy.

There is some dispute over whether or not the officer knew the boy was a suspect in a recent robbery or not.  Even if he knew, and even if a scuffle occurred there is still the rule of preclusion, i.e. the level of force used must be appropriate to the threat.  Witnesses are saying the boy ran, got shot in the back, and when it wasn't immediately lethal turned, dropped to his knees, and put his hands in the air screaming 'don't shoot'.  At which time the officer shot him in the face.  If such is true he violates the rule of preclusion, meaning he can't claim self defense or that he didn't exceed the appropriate use of force.  Being a cop he'll probably get nothing but a wrist slap.  Which means this will fester for decades.

[linklord231]

You'll notice I didn't say whether either of those cases apply to this situation, largely because I don't have all the facts ( and neither does anyone else yet) 

[bhu]

It's not likely anyone will.  The police are willing to discuss the teen involved but not the officer, and they are very unwilling to produce any information (such as his report) which could clear him. 

There are also surfacing reports that this particular town has a long history of police brutality, including an incident in which the beat a suspect who turned out to be the wrong man and then charged him for getting blood on their uniforms once they found out they had the wrong guy.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm more depressed that one of the first things to follow 'cops shot one guy' is 'smash shops and loot'.

A mob isn't a monolithic entity.  Most people were there to protest, a bunch of less scrupulous people joined in and used the chaos as a chance to loot and steal.

[Libertad]

Not to mention that many looters are from out of town.  Basically folks using the chaos as an opportunity.  Local protestors were guarding stores from looters.

[123456789blaaa]

It's not likely anyone will.  The police are willing to discuss the teen involved but not the officer, and they are very unwilling to produce any information (such as his report) which could clear him. 

There are also surfacing reports that this particular town has a long history of police brutality, including an incident in which the beat a suspect who turned out to be the wrong man and then charged him for getting blood on their uniforms once they found out they had the wrong guy.

 

That's almost cartoonishly evil.

[dman11235]

Something else in this same vein, in Ohio (hi bhu!).  A man in a Walmart was "waving a toy gun around", and someone called the cops.  The cops showed up, and shot him dead.  This happened just before Ferguson, and thus was overshadowed.  Ohio is an open carry state, so even if it was a real gun the police would have had no reason to show up, but of course the man was black.  I found this out here: an article about how the Tea Party isnt' supporting the rights of the people in Ferguson and this man (and all the other minorities who are actually be oppressed by the government).

[JohnnyMayHymn]

^^ I heard this on the radio, but it was an air gun(bb i think) that is sold in Walmart.  They played the 911 call, some guy said the "6ft black" man was pointing the gun at people. 

[bhu]

cops are still in trouble if theres any justice.  They were told he was pointing it at people (it had an orange barrel) because he didn't have a cart.  They said in police report that they confronted him and asked him to put it down and he said no.  But the security cam footage reportedly shows them jumping into the aisle he's in and gunning him down without saying a word.

[Jackinthegreen]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/drag-queens-dress-down-facebook-over-real-names-policy-1.2011725

LGBT+ people in general will be significantly hurt by this, as will those who use different names to get away from stalkers or predators.  FB might try to hide behind its stance by saying it protects people from predators using different names online, but I would bet that innocent people trying to fucking live life vastly outnumber the creeps on this front.

[Raineh Daze]

Just don't use the thing. :/

[dman11235]

I rarely use FB, and I put adblock on on it, so yeah....

[bhu]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/feds_side_with_14-year-old_gir.html

[Raineh Daze]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/feds_side_with_14-year-old_gir.html

: |

Sore loser, much?