Ferguson, MO

[kayaker]

@Jay4

here’s an idea,how about you take your head out of the tight and brown thing its been stuck in

No u.

Hurr hurr hurr

[Sinaptics]

@Gatopescado

Brown’s family now saying release of the video is an attempt to smear his character.

Not, like, what the video clearly shows, or anything.

EDIT: The Ferguson Police chief is on TV right now saying they had numerous Freedom of Information requests for the video.

So, apparently, the release of the robbery info WAS to smear his character since it apparently had nothing to do with the altercation. When the chief was asked about why they chose to release this info, he said:

Jackson is asked: If the alleged robbery had nothing to do with Brown being stopped, then why would you release the video of the robbery?

“Because you asked for it,” Jackson says.

I don’t understand how that could possibly be true since nobody knew about it until this morning.

[Loach]

@Gatopescado

This is the “Oh No, You Didn’t!” defense.

Before 1985 it was a perfectly legal defense. SCOTUS ruled that at common law and by Tennessee law and Memphis police policy it was legal. In the Garner case he was fleeing a burglary. Up to that point it was legal to shoot a fleeing felony suspect. SCOTUS ruled that except in the case of preventing death or serious bodily harm. IIRC the lawsuit was lost by the plaintiff because it was ruled that they were following the proper procedure at the time. But from that point forward it was ruled to be against the 4th amendment and unconstitutional.

The waters were later muddied when Michigan decided that Garner did not effect them because it was a civil case and their criminal law regarding fleeing felons was still valid. As far as I know that has not be challenged yet but most states follow Garner.

[Gatopescado]

Unfortunate Dodge commercial inserted in CNN coverage!

[Velocity]

@Una_Persson

@Velocity

Is it so hard for everyone to agree that:

1. The police may have mishandled the situation,

and

2. Looting was/is wrong?

On the SDMB? Good grief, if you held a poll asking “Is up the opposite of down?”, you’d have answers broken down as:

10%: That depends. (followed by 5-paragraph essay invoking St. Thomas Aquinas, Alan Ginsberg, Chiang Kai-shek
10%: Did you post in the wrong forum?
10%: Pointless joke.
10%: Link to YouTube video which has been removed for copyright violations.
10%: No, thanks to Obama.
10%: No, thanks to Bush.
10%: Why can’t we be like Europe/Canada/Sri Lanka?
10%: Is anyone else confused by OITNB episode 2a7? Are they supposed to be like in prison or something?
10%: What is the deal with airline food?
10%: “Yes” with an “if,” or “no” with a “but.”

Lol, sounds about right.

[Loach]

@Sinaptics

So, apparently, the release of the robbery info WAS to smear his character since it apparently had nothing to do with the altercation. When the chief was asked about why they chose to release this info, he said:

I don’t understand how that could possibly be true since nobody knew about it until this morning.

There were multiple freedom of information act requests.

But what the hell do you mean it had nothing to do with the altercation? The story is that Brown assaulted the police officer. A skeptic may ask why he would do that. Can you see how the following two questions might have a different answer?
Why would a jaywalker assault a cop?
Why would a robber who just committed a felony assault a cop?

[Shodan]

@Debaser

Not that they should shoot every felon who flees.

Spoilsport.

@Terr

Well, no. Now it is “the evil white cop harasses an innocent black boy on his way from the committing a robbery to his grandmother’s and shoots him dead”

It was Little Red Riding Hood when my mommy told me the story.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sicks_Ate]

@Loach

Why would a robber who just committed a felony assault a cop?

His friend claims that the cop reached out of his car window and grabbed Brown (by the neck? can’t remember). It think it’s believable that he struck out in response, as I might be tempted to do if someone grabbed me by the neck.

He probably realized he had done something stupid and thought about running away, but changed his mind once the cop started shooting.

I was reasonably skeptical of the friend’s story at first. I’m quite a bit less skeptical now.

[Sinaptics]

@Loach

There were multiple freedom of information act requests.

But what the hell do you mean it had nothing to do with the altercation? The story is that Brown assaulted the police officer. A skeptic may ask why he would do that. Can you see how the following two questions might have a different answer?
Why would a jaywalker assault a cop?
Why would a robber who just committed a felony assault a cop?

One side of the story has Brown assaulting the officer. The other side has the officer assaulting Brown. As I’m in possession as the same facts as you, neither of us knows the answer to who acted first or why.

[Gatopescado]

@Loach

But what the hell do you mean it had nothing to do with the altercation? The story is that Brown assaulted the police officer. A skeptic may ask why he would do that. Can you see how the following two questions might have a different answer?
Why would a jaywalker assault a cop?
Why would a robber who just committed a felony assault a cop?

That makes a lot of sense, and also answers the question why the cop wasn’t treating the stop as a felony stop (guns drawn and shoutin’).

*If *Wilson *was *assaulted, he obviously wasn’t prepared for it.

It doesn’t help clarify why the stop happened in the first place.

[Richard_Parker]

@Loach

Before 1985 it was a perfectly legal defense.

Not quite. The Eighth Circuit (in which Missouri is located) ruled a decade before Garner that there had to be an immediate threat of deadly force.

[Terr]

This is a classic Occam’s Razor example. A “gentle giant”, studious, law-abiding, never-in-trouble-with-police black 18-year-old, in the last 10-15 minutes of his life

1. robs a store
2. has an altercation with a police officer that ends up shooting him dead.

But no, those two events are not related at all.

[Loach]

@Sicks_Ate

His friend claims that the cop reached out of his car window and grabbed Brown (by the neck? can’t remember). It think it’s believable that he struck out in response, as I might be tempted to do if someone grabbed me by the neck.

He probably realized he had done something stupid and thought about running away, but changed his mind once the cop started shooting.

I was reasonably skeptical of the friend’s story at first. I’m quite a bit less skeptical now.

You are 6-8. How easy is it for someone to reach out of a car window and grab your throat? Those are some long arms. Brown was not quite as tall but pretty damn big.

The friend that you find more credible now neglected to say that they were both robbery suspects until the evidence came out. For some reason I feel less likely to believe him now that he has been proven to be a liar and a felon. YMMV.

@Richard_Parker

Not quite. The Eighth Circuit (in which Missouri is located) ruled a decade before Garner that there had to be an immediate threat of deadly force.

Thanks I did not know that.

[Sicks_Ate]

@Loach

You are 6-8. How easy is it for someone to reach out of a car window and grab your throat? Those are some long arms. Brown was not quite as tall but pretty damn big.

The friend that you find more credible now neglected to say that they were both robbery suspects until the evidence came out. For some reason I feel less likely to believe him now that he has been proven to be a liar and a felon. YMMV.

Read so much about this I forgot details, but I believe that the officer was driving an SUV? I could absolutely be mis-remembering that, I’ll admit.

Why the hell would the friend say they were robbery suspects? And the police have already said that they don’t have anything on the friend to charge him with a crime. I believe the surveillance tape and police report indicate that he replaced the package of cigars that Brown handed to him.

[Morgyn]

I watched the interview with the police chief. What I got from it was that the officer was not responding to the robbery call and wasn’t even aware of it, so his contact with Brown and his friend had nothing to do with it, and that the videotape may not be of Brown and his friend at all.

Yes, he did actually say that they had not positively identified the two as the robbers. I concede that this does not necessarily mean the two did *not *commit the robbery, but it does mean that there seems to be some doubt about it right now.

One thing I haven’t seen is if Michael Brown had any prior record. If he didn’t, then I’m fairly certain he can’t be a felon even if he did commit the robbery (and were convicted of it), because the value of the goods stolen wasn’t high enough to qualify for grand theft.

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

Bricker, I think you’ve offered a colorable reading of Mast, but I do not think it is the best reading. You read it to hold that violations of implicit aspects of an order amount to non-compliance, and that because “Break it up” implies “Break it up and don’t immediately come back to this spot once I leave,” that it follows that “Let’s go” sufficiently implies “Depart in less than the 30 seconds it takes you to depart at your current rate.”

I disagree with that reading and application. Of course “and don’t immediately come back” is implicit in any order to disperse. There’s no reason to broaden that holding to apply to other implicit aspects of an order, and certainly not to find an implicit command that leaving in 30 seconds is too slow and he needed to leave in 25 seconds or 20 seconds or whatever you think would have been compliant here.

I also find your interpretation of the video to be tendentious. In particular, the “45 seconds” comment on which you put so much weight is not even directed at the reporter and certainly not clearly setting a timeline for the reporter to obey. More importantly, if it was a timeline, the reporter complied! He is at the doors within 30 seconds of that comment. If anything, the fact that he met the thing you think is a timeline but was still arrested cuts against your argument.

Nor do I agree that the reporter was self-evidently seeking to delay by asking questions while packing and one question while walking. Moving your lips is entirely unconnected with moving your arms and legs.

The bottom line here is that, from the evidence we have, this reporter dispersed in a minute or two. The officer is urging him along, but never says anything approaching “move faster or you’ll be arrested” or “you have 45 seconds to leave this restaurant or you’ll be arrested.” To find that the officer was implicitly ordering him to leave in less than 30 seconds is a leap of inference I do not follow and I don’t think a reasonable person would follow. It is quite different from finding that the officer was ordering him to leave and not immediately return once the officer leaves.

If I were defending the case, I’d certainly argue what you’ve said, and I’d expect to win a dismissal.

But I wouldn’t expect to prevail at a probable-cause hearing.

[Sicks_Ate]

@Morgyn

I watched the interview with the police chief. What I got from it was that the officer was not responding to the robbery call and wasn’t even aware of it, so his contact with Brown and his friend had nothing to do with it, and that the videotape may not be of Brown and his friend at all.

Yes, he did actually say that they had not positively identified the two as the robbers. I concede that this does not necessarily mean the two did *not *commit the robbery, but it does mean that there seems to be some doubt about it right now.

Wait, there is doubt as to whether they are actually the freaking robbery suspects?

ETA I mean yeah, you just said that…but that’s another can of worms.

[Morgyn]

@Sicks_Ate

Wait, there is doubt as to whether they are actually the freaking robbery suspects?

Apparently. If I understood what the police chief said.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Considering that the guy’s lawyer says his client confirmed it, that seems unlikely.

[Sicks_Ate]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Considering that the guy’s lawyer says his client confirmed it, that seems unlikely.

Oh good point.