Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

It's a fundraiser (like a kickstarter) for the the police officer. I hope that it breaches the rules of the site or something.

 

I hope the people get tax deductions for their charitable donations. Especially that guy who had $250 to spare but was apparently too lazy to get up and flush it down the toilet.

 

OK fair, but I think you're assuming a bit here too, which may be a fault on your end and mine (for my part, in not wording with sufficient clarity).

Understanding why one doesn't something doesn't justify it. I wholly understand why al-Qaeda attacked America on September 11, and in some cases their logic is actually quite sound. But that doesn't mean I approve or wouldn't condemn it as evil.

That I formed the stereotype makes sense; that I said it was wrong is where the discomfort comes in.

 

"60 years, people. 60 YEARS have i devoted to the blacks... and this... this is how they repay me?!" ~Richard Holsinger, concerned white man

 

Give him a break. As a Justice who ruled on Brown v. Board, he had high hopes.

 

So I finally got the time to read this op-ed posted earlier from Sunil Data, a professor of Homeland Security. The highlight that was brought up in the thread was this line:

But after reading through the whole peice, his advice is actually exactly the advice I've given my son and just about any other person I've ever met with regards to interacting with the police. No matter how terrible that cop is, you cannot win if you escalate things. Their MO is overwhelming force and they now have the tools, training, and procedures to implement that strategy at any time. Fighting with them could easily get you killed--especially if you're black.

Another interesting thing about his piece was his request for empathy for the cops. I do think that's important. The vast majority of cops are good people trying to do a very hard and dangerous job. I have a bit of personal experience with that. So it is important to act in a non-escalatory manner when interacting with cops, even when you think you've been wrongly singled out. Once you're safely clear of the situation, then it's important to follow up by using the legal system to address any abuses.

That's clearly sound advice.

But I really do hate the tone of that particular paragraph I quoted. It's combative and escalatory.

 

Going back to the Michael Brown shooting, this blog post by a lawyer in Virginia does a very good job of laying out the facts that have been presented so far, the stated witness accounts, and the relevant laws in Missouri related to use of force, both by a private citizen and by police.

As things are continuing to develop, it's becoming more and more clear that we're probably never going to get a real answer to all of the questions out there. There are too many conflicting accounts of what happened, and precious little conclusive hard evidence. The conflicting stories (at the least) would be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt regarding the charges of homicide or manslaughter. At this point, I expect that the grand jury will return a "no bill" (i.e. refusing to indict) against Wilson, and they will probably be legally correct to do so.

That is not the same thing as saying that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. We'll never know that for sure. From what I have seen, I'm fairly certain that Wilson did make some big mistakes (such as the point at which he drew his weapon in the first place - it shouldn't have been out of its holster in the car, and a proper retention holster would not have made it possible for Brown to take it away in a struggle like what has been described), and those mistakes likely escalated the situation. If the accounts that Brown broke Wilson's eye socket are accurate, then Wilson could have reasonably believed Brown to be a fleeing felon, which could make the shoot justifiable (for a police officer). However, if (as some witness accounts claim) Brown was surrendering, then Wilson no longer had that justification.

There are simply too many unknowns and unknowables at this point. Because of that, I don't believe that Wilson will be charged, nor should be.

However, the fact of so many unknowns and unknowables in a police use of force situation should trouble everyone. I strongly believe that we need to provide greater transparency for the police. As I've said before, a key part of that should be body cameras used for any interaction with the public. A good example of how useful that can be is found in this piece from yesterday, comparing the Michael Brown shooting with the shooting of an unarmed man outside a 7-11 in Salt Lake City two days later. In the latter case, the officer was wearing a body camera. While there were some local protests, things calmed down significantly after the police announced that the officer was wearing the camera, and promised to release the footage after the investigation was completed.

Are there potential privacy issues with cps wearing body cameras? Yes, but in this case I believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. I don't think that the cops have a privacy interest in the performance of their official duties, and so complaints about the officer's privacy are unwarranted. As for citizens' privacy when they interact with cops, if they are in public then they have no expectation of privacy. If it is a more private environment (such as within someone's home), I would agree with making such recordings provisionally exempt from FOIA requests without the approval of a third party (either an review board independent of the police or a judge). However, any and all such recordings would not be exempt from discovery in legal proceedings, and I would add that in any charges spawned from an interaction with the public where the recordings are not available, there should be a rebutable presumption against the police (i.e. if there's no recording when there should be, it should be legally presumed that the recording would not support the police's account in any dispute, unless there is a clear and valid explanation of why the recording is missing, such as the camera being damaged by the suspect, making the data unrecoverable).

Personally, I think that police should welcome cameras, for two primary reasons. First of all, it provides an additional, mostly-objective "witness" of things that they observe. That can be a valuable source of evidence supporting any charges for crimes that the officer witnesses. This can especially be useful in capturing confessions from suspects, or documenting that individuals consented to searches. It would also provide clear evidence that something was in "plain view", preventing it prom potentially being excluded in court later if a warrant would otherwise be required.

Second, it would drastically reduce complaints against the police, and would help clarify which complaints are legitimate or not. This has the benefit of helping clear good officers while identifying bad officers, helping remove the "bad apples" that do the most to damage the community's trust. More than anything, building that trust is vital to police work.

 

It's one thing for that advice to be coming from a parent or a friend. It's another thing entirely for that "advice" to be coming from the same person who has the authority to shoot you, tase you, pepper-spray you, strike you with a baton or throw you to the ground. From the former, it is good advice. From the latter, it's a threat and an infringement on your rights.

I understand the desire for officer safety, but that should not trump individual rights. I know that the officer just wants to go home to his family safe at night, but that doesn't trump that same desire from the individuals that also just want to go home to their families safe at night. And yes, police work can be dangerous. However, much of that danger doesn't come from criminals, but from the fact that police spend so much time in a car. (For example, in the Census bureau's report of occupational fatalities, law enforcement workers had a total of 121 fatalities in 2012. 52 of those (43.0%) were from transportation accidents, while 49 (40.5%) were from homicides.)

The police should never be advocating that people allow their rights to be infringed because of officer safety. The police are there specifically to protect our rights, not to infringe them in the name of safety. If they cannot accept the risks involved in protecting others' rights, then they should not have a badge and the authority that goes with it.

And saying "take it up with a supervisor" or "sue them later" doesn't do any good. People have been filing lawsuits against the police for something as simple as photographing or videotaping them, and the Supreme Court has consistently stated that it's legal to record and photograph the police in public, and yet we still get regular cases of police forcing people to stop recording, confiscating cameras, and even destroying or deleting the photos/recordings. All of the "remedies" that the police suggest have been used for decades, and they haven't stopped the abuses. When you try to sue the individual officers, they are most often protected by "qualified immunity", for everything except the most egregious abuses. When you sue the departments, they quickly move to settle the case and impose non-disclosure agreements (with settlements paid by the department's insurance).

It's clear that allowing police to threaten individuals and then dealing with it afterwards isn't working, largely because of the lack of transparency. Yes, it's good advice to not try to argue the law at the moment, but it is also good advice for the police to follow the law in the first place.

 

Completely agree. And I 100% agree with you your point that the fact that this guy is an instructor who directly influences the views of other officers is particularly disturbing. His op-ed should be admonishing other officers who abuse their positions and reminding them of their special responsibility to the public. That said, on any given day, if you're a black man who's being harrassed by the police, your best bet is to ensure you give the police absolutely no reason to shoot you. That means comply now and seek a remedy later. It won't change the system. But it might ensure you'll live to see it change.

 

Sorry for the double post...

I disagree that they would be legally correct to do so. There is sufficient evidence here to indicate that a jury needs to make a judgment. I agree there there is probably reasonable doubt and a good attorney should be able to secure an aquittal, depending on the charges. But I think, based on what we know now, the grand jury would be negligent in not indicting.

 

It's not just that way for black men. If you legally carry a firearm openly (and sometimes even concealed). If you are photographing or recording police. If you're doing any number of legal things (sometimes collectively known as "contempt of cop"), your best bet in the moment is to not resist. It really is true, "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

However, that still doesn't change the fact that the underlying attitude that many police have, as displayed in that op-ed, is outright dangerous. It's dangerous to the individuals whose rights are violated. It's dangerous to the bond of trust between the police and the community. It's dangerous to society as a whole.

 

The reason I said that they would probably be legally correct to return a "no bill" decision is because we don't have all the evidence that the DA and investigators have. If, as the police claimed in that reporter's tweet, they over a dozen witnesses who will back up the cop's story, then likely the balance of the evidence would fall towards the cop. The grand jury only needs to determine whether there is probable cause, but if there are a larger number of witnesses supporting the cop, then there would be less and less probable cause based on the few conflicting witnesses we've heard from in the press.

If Brown broke Wilson's eye socket, that would have been a felony. Once that happened, Wilson had additional circumstances that can legally justify lethal force, as outlined in § 563.046. At that point, a lot would depend on Wilson's account and if he would be allowed to testify to the grand jury.

It may not be the morally right decision, but it would likely be legally correct.

 

Ah. You're assuming that there really are dozens of witnesses supporting the police's version of events. Given that we haven't heard from any of them, I can't comment on that. But based on what we know now, there is more than sufficient probable cause to proceed. Even the broken eye socket claim is still not verified. We just have second hand reports. And since those leaks are from the police, I'm a bit suspicious.

 

I did say "if". The other thing to keep in mind is that the prosecutor can present whatever evidence he wants to the grand jury. The reason they say that you can indict a ham sandwich is because the prosecutor can choose to present only the critical evidence and none of the exculpatory evidence. If that were happening in this case, then I would expect an indictment.

However, that's not happening in this case. The prosecutor has promised to present both sides to the grand jury, and has given Wilson the option of testifying in his own behalf before the grand jury. That makes it far less likely that they will return an indictment.

 

I realize that you said "if". I was going back to your earlier statement that (and I'm paraphrasing) at this point, you would expect the grand jury not to indict and that they would be probably be legally right to do so. I agree that if the prosecutor were to present evidence in such a manner that it would be severely prejudicial on behalf of Officer Wilson (some have suggested that he is biased to do just that, but I can't comment on that point) and there were multiple witnesses (heretofore unseen or heard from) that corroborate Officer Wilson's version of the story (which, in fairness, we have only heard through double-hearsay) and there were severe injuries to Officer Wilson that indicated a felony had been exacted by Michael Brown, then it is likely that a jury would not indict Officer Wilson and they would be correct to do so.

 

I would disagree with it being prejudicial towards Wilson. Personally, I think the lack of obligation to present evidence on both sides to the grand jury is highly prejudicial against defendants (hence the ability to indict a ham sandwich). If there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence for the accused in this country, then it seems wrong to only present the information that puts the accused in a bad light and none of the potentially mitigating information.

The grand jury is supposed to serve as a bulwark against frivolous, unwarranted, or inappropriate charges. It's not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the prosecutor en route to trial.

 

My fault. I wasn't clear. I was saying that if the prosecutor were to present the evidence in a manner that was prejudicial toward Wilson, not that simply by presenting all the evidence, that in and of itself would somehow be a bad thing. As you said, the prosecution can absolutely control the outcome of this grand jury investigation. If he wants it dismissed, it will be. That was what I was saying.

That said, I agree that the grand jury process is kind of a farce the way it's normally done.

 

welp,

Powell Shooting Video (Obvious Content Warning)

Ramza Edit: Please link offsite for graphic content.

 

...

 

I really hope that's a set up for dramatic effect.


I'm pretty sure it isn't but I really hope it is

 

Jesus wept.

 

well lets not be hasty im sure that's just a couple bad apples and all police aren't like-

oh



oh

oh

 

They wanted to squeeze that lemon