That’s exactly what a “vigerous prosecution” is - it is not just the “trial” phase - ideally, yes - it will be done by a party that can be seen as truly objective during the process.
Since you appear to have remarkable first-hand information about this case that no one else has, I trust that you’ll share your knowledge with the appropriate authorities who are all struggling to figure out what actually happened.
Incidentally, while I have no better idea what really happened than anyone else and am not taking sides in this, check out this fine officer from a nearby community outside Ferguson who was brought in to help manage the protesters:
Considering the overall history of police officers being tried for murder for an act carried out during his official duties, no matter what the circumstances, I’m a little surprised there are so many posts thinking that this particular one is at all likely to face conviction.
I’d advise you guys to engage him in the Pit thread on the topic and ignore him here, so this thread can remain a discussion about the events as they’re understood on Earth rather than the moon.
Personally I think there is a *chance *the situation can be resolved correctly, but it may not make everyone happy.
-
I can certainly accept that it takes time for the facts to be collected and sorted by investigators, and that the process may not be very transparent (at the time).
-
I understand that once the process is complete is the appropriate time to release findings as to the facts as best as can be understood by authorities, and not before.
-
However when the findings are released I believe that the entire process should be opened to scrutiny by the public so as to assure that the situation was handled appropriately.
-
If the event in question is so significant, or the agency involved has a history of concern, independent authorities should be deeply involved from the beginning to prevent misconduct by all parties.
-
The media should be present, but should consider the effect of it’s presence upon all participants, and should certainly refrain from speculation and judgement prior to the release of verifiable facts.
So far, from what I have seen, I am concerned that there is (some) lawlessness & violence from some the protesters; (some) heavy-handedness and assaults on the public and media by some authorities; and (some) poor, inaccurate reporting and fear-mongering by some of the media. Each group’s few bad apples tarnish the whole of their otherwise generally respectable members.
I hope that in the end there is an outcome that is reasonable according to the facts that are revealed. And I hope that each group represented in Ferguson; public, authority and media, learns from their mistakes.
I agree. What’s important is a complete and fair investigation. If that leads to a trial than make certain the cop gets properly represented.
Allowing a angry mob and some CYA politicians to manipulate the justice system isn’t acceptable. That’s a dangerous precedent that can’t be tolerated.
The general attitude of the cop is consistent, act crazy, drive dangerously, do crazy things such as yelling from a car window,
the cop was crazy, mental asylum crazy… he can avoid crazy be pleading insanity.
thats my opinion.
See, I think cops need to do a much better job of handling the PR aspects even early on. When someone makes a claim you shot someone in cold blood, you need to rebut that, even if you don’t have all the facts. The worst thing you can do in any PR situation is let someone else brand the issue for you.
I don’t know exactly how to do it without tainting the investigation, but there has to be a way. The investigation is already tainted in opposite direction by the popular version of the story. Would adding another narrative really make things worse?
Basically, I don’t think you can ever afford to look like you’re covering something up. If they can’t treat every shooting as needing a public investigation, at least have people who can determine that there might be a blowback and get out ahead of it. If it could be assumed to be an improper shooting, let people know you are investigating it.
Because, from what I understand, the reason this blew up was that people thought it was being swept under the rug. Even if they hadn’t rioted, this would not have been good. The police don’t exist just to protect and serve, but also to let people know that they are protecting and serving.
And I say all this without any judgment about what happened.
The cops approach to this shooting and their response to the early protests were badly bungled. It’s a textbook example of what not to do.
I agree there should be some way to release important information without jeopardizing the case. It’s just crazy to allow wild rumors and half truths to circulate in the press. Trying to correct that misinformation later is nearly impossible.
For example, if this officer was injured and has a cracked eye socket why not get that information out there day 1? That would at least prove he was attacked. Instead there’s still no official confirmation of any injury. We don’t know if the victim fought with the officer or not. That information might change how people view this case.
This. He’s a white cop who shot a black man, so he’s not going to get convicted of anything. His guilt or the lack of it is beside the point.
Michael Brown was shot Aug 9. They’ve had protests and violence every single day since. That’s a game changer. I’m 50 years old and can never recall any US Attorney General flying out to meet with a shooting victim’s family. Its unusual for the governor of a state to get this closely involved in a police shooting. The politicians are freaking out over this case.
I think everyone is concerned what kind of rage will be unleashed if this cop isn’t indicted. That’s why I’m worried this cop may get railroaded. I hope that doesn’t happen.
Rebutting the claim before the conclusion of the investigation would be seen at best to be jumping to conclusions or at worst a cover up. That is the worst thing you can do. A random citizen can throw around accusations with little repercussions. The legal authority can’t.
We have no idea at this point why the cop and the victim even came into contact with one another. We have no idea who initiated the first contact. The public should have access to this information. Looting and burning can never be tolerated.
Police release information piecemeal all the time. It certainly doesn’t taint prosecutions or paralyze investigations. If I shot some guy, do you think they would wait 6 days to release my name, or arrest me?
First, they should have covered the body and taken witness statements at the scene. They also should have named the officer as soon as it happened, explained what happened as they knew it at that point, detailed the steps they were taking to investigate the matter, and offered to bring in independent counsel to assist in order to avoid bias. That would likely have gone a long way toward quelling public anger, and preventing some of the violence we have seen there since. People want answers. You can’t wait 6 days to release the name of the cop, especially since his name was already out there on some level. They acted shady When they didn’t need to if the officer was acting properly.
Regardless of how addicted the population is to immediate gratification, some answers just have to wait. What are indeed the facts does change as they are collected, analyzed and compared.
It really is more important for the authorities to be right than to be quick when it comes to releasing the facts to the public. The name of the officer will not change from day 1 to day 6.
I’m not blanket covering the authorities on their behavior, not by a long shot. There were many moments after the shooting that could have been handled more delicately. But I will not find fault with deliberation of investigation, especially if in the end it is shown to be correct.
I’ve seen too many cases where the initial apparent situation and the eventual reality look nothing like each other, and it takes time to get there. This case is already so big that there is very little chance that if the officer truly did something wrong he will get away with it.
But I do think it is a vile idea that the officer must be made to pay for the culmination of anger the population has against the police, especially if he did indeed act properly.
Can he get a fair trial? No.
Is he royally screwed for life? Yes.
Will he get convicted? Coin toss.
Me too. I haven’t followed this one closely at all because why bother. Regadless of fact, these all fit a pattern. The black person regardless of merit will be niggerized. The white cop regardless of merit will have folks who want to throw him a parade. The cop will most likely be back on the beat within 3 months. As for the black dude…he won’t be the last, or even the last this month.
I don’t want to be that pessimistic, but I have to admit that there’s an uncomfortable amount of truth to that. There are some very strong stereotypes at work here, and they represent almost polar opposite world views of police and of black youths on either side of the racial divide. Ferguson has shown us so far that there are assholes in both groups, but that in both cases they’re a small minority. Unfortunately that offers no clue as to the guilt or innocence of this particular officer.
What you call pessimism, I call Thursday.
Wilson is a trained professional police officer, and as such placed in a position where he makes judgment calls in which his competency is assumed. Like a doctor, not all are expected to be correct, and consequences may ensue, including death.
In the case of a doctor, it is rare (or unknown) for a doctor to be held liable for the death of a patient, if the doctor is acting according to established medical protocol. Like a doctor, Wilson was trained to make judgments, and like a doctor, blaming him for a bad judgment requires evidence that he was not acting according to established professional procedure.
Whatever happens to WIlson, should be based on whether his judgment was outside the protocol for which he was trained and presumably had demonstrated knowledge of.
This is not to defend Wilson at all, but rather to bring into perspective the manner in which it can be found that any trained and certified professional, whether policeman, doctor or librarian, has exercised judgment (right or wrong) in accordance with protocol.