This has been a really great example of bad crisis comms from the get-go - you can and should release information piecemeal.
The evidence that’s surfaced (we do still require evidence to convict people, right?) is looking increasingly like the cop was probably justified. To wit: he was beaten up, apparantly quite severely, by a guy who (judging from his behavior moments before) was likely either drunk or high. And according to the guys in the recently-surfaced video, Brown was walking back to the cop, presumably to beat him up some more. I kinda doubt he was going back to hug the cop and apologize for having just committed assault & battery.
That having been said, I strongly suspect the cop will be indicted in the name of reducing racial tensions. I hope he’s able to flee to Canada and get refugee status, on the grounds that he has almost no chance of a fair trial.
Please feel free to list a few “innocent” people who have been convicted in the name of reducing racial tensions? Please name a few who were convicted and didn’t get a fair trial? It’s pretty much a guarantee that this guy, regardless of whether or not he is guilty, will have excellent counsel paid for by random strangers who want to support him. Hell, even Casey Anthony had a good lawyer, and was acquitted despite loads of evidence against her.
The history of LE killing Black people in this country doesn’t have many conclusions where the LE personnel are convicted. But feel free to hang on to this delusion that this guy, who had been protected beyond all reasonable standards by the local LE up until this point, will all of a sudden be railroaded when the entire country (a country whose demographics skew heavily towards those sympathetic to LE generally) is watching. It pretty much never happens.
The biggest lesson from this case is the need for every cop to wear a camera. I read somewhere that the Ferguson PD had purchased the equipment but it wasn’t implemented.
Cameras will make it safer for the public and the officers. There won’t be any question when a cop crosses the line. He or she can be held accountable. The public will be held accountable for their actions too. It’s the best possible solution for a very old problem.
Such an obvious solution for a large majority of such events. Police dashcams have gone a long way in this direction, and many of them have implicated police in gross violations of civil rights, and private citizen dashcams in others. In an age of information and wearable appliances, this shouldn’t be too hard to do.
I should stress here that this isn’t passing judgment on Wilson’s possible guilt – his actions may well have been completely justified (or not) – we just don’t know. As referenced upthread, we have evidence of police officers acting like belligerent assholes very likely to overreact, and we have evidence of black youths (in a similar thread in GD) being violent and belligerent thieves.
I think it is time for society to ask itself how it got to the point at which it needs to demand that police officers wear body cameras. And then go back and start addressing the issue there.
Ahh yes, that’s Officer Gofuckyourself. Fella seemed kinda mad. 
That’s the problem I have with the protesting; it’s essentially poisoning the well for the cop as far as a trial is concerned, by the black community basically implicitly threatening worse behavior if there’s any outcome other than this guy’s conviction.
First, the cop is likely not gonna be tried by “the Black community”. I would bet the trial, if there is one gets moved to a different venue. You second claim is based on absolutely nothing but fevered delusions. There is no monolithic Black community threatening worse behavior. I don’t understand how one incident of there being rioting after a notorious acquittal implies that this is something that happens frequently.
It wasn’t the best sentence… I wasn’t saying that the black community was some kind of nationwide monolith, and nor was I saying that they would actually perform the trial.
What I was trying to say still stands - what exactly is the point of all this protesting and unrest for, if not to be an implicit threat? It was already clear early on that this was going to be investigated, and potentially that there would be a trial, if necessary. Yet we have some 11 days of unrest, politicians bloviating, and Federal involvement in something that is and should be a county and state affair.
The unrest is an attempt at influencing (intimidating?) the Missouri and Ferguson authorities into trying this cop, and hopefully finding him guilty. Otherwise, this would be saved for AFTER the verdict, when justice wasn’t actually served.
Is it an implicit threat when White people riot after their team wins or loses the Stanley Cup? Or when White college students win or lose the NCAA tournament? Are these college students who run the court or field after a win implying something? Why must there be some deeper nefarious portent when Black people are involved?
When was that clear? When they wouldn’t release the officer’s name for several days? When they reportedly left his body in the street for hours, an unnecessarily long portion of which was uncovered? I think the riots are in large part what focused attention on the case and ensured that it will be investigated impartially. I have no idea what you are sure any of that would have happened absent the protests.
But a conviction, assuming it’s warranted, is only one form of justice. Another part is demonstrating your displeasure that the interaction between a guy walking in the middle of the street and the police ends with him being shot. Or that the police feel justified not releasing information immediately, and that their first instinct is to smear the deceased. None of that is just, and little will be fixed during a trial.
The investigation must be impartial. Here’s why: the FBI investigated 150 of its own shootings from 1993 through 2011 and deemed that every single one of them was justified. So let an impartial investigation find what it may and have the cop have his day in court. He can have a fair trial and he may not even be tried.
This is why we need to make it easier for defendants to obtain a change of venue. In an atmosphere as toxic as this one, it should require little more than a procedural motion by the defense to have the trial moved somewhere else.
What makes you think it’s hard to obtain a change of venue in a controversial case? Additionally, why is the atmosphere so “toxic” that he can’t get a fair trial? Why do you think even people who may think he is guilty cannot maintain impartiality and fairness during a trial?
I’m not a lawyer, but I would argue that’s a violation of the 6th Amendment. The courts have interpreted it to include the right of a criminal defendant to have a jury comprised of a broad category of people. It should not be that easy for the defense to move the trial to a place where they can secure an all-white jury.
I didn’t say “all white.” You did. The goal should be to find a jury that can be more-or-less impartial.
And you’re the one who said all it should take is a simple procedural motion. If that was the case then what’s going to stop them from securing an all white jury?
No, it was clear that it wouldn’t be, since the entire incident being whitewashed and ignored is what normally happens.
Again, what makes you think those in the surrounding community cannot be impartial regardless if how they feel now? Do you honestly think they can’t find 12 people in this community who are willing to rule just based on the law and evidence presented to them in a courtroom? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying Black people not only feel Wilson is guilty, but also that they cannot fairly parse the information presented to them in court, and render a verdict based only on that. Is that what you are trying to say?
No, what normally happens is that most of the time the police shoot and kill they are actually justified in doing so, because most of them are not racist murderers, any more than anyone else is.