Michael Brown - Discuss the facts and the truth

[SCRUBS]

Perfect.  The terrible thing is no one will listen to him. He is a sellout, an Uncle Tom, he don't keep it real. Until voices like this are heard and applauded, blacks will continue this mediocre existence of no jobs, no families, no education, etc.......

Smh

I just don't get it.

You are 100% correct. Folks that stay willfully ignorant garner no sympathy from me....

[The Ugly]

I'm surprised as well. It's rare. We have a ridiculous policy here that no matter what claims a person makes against an officer, even when proved they are lying by video, we let them walk. The thinking is, that if we hold people accountable when they give false reports about a police officer, it will keep people from reporting officers. I personally think it's bull crap. Too often I've seen officers put through the ringer by some joker who makes crap up and when the video, not the officers word but the video vindicates the officer, the jerk who lied had no consequences. Happens more often than naught.

You can literally go to the police monitor or IA , make a complaint that a particular officer raped your girlfriend on the way to jail, report it to the press, get the local activist to rally your cause and when the video is released showing it never happend, just say "nevermind" and you get a free pass. 

Seems to be a contradiction here. Mistake, or did you mean to say this?

Maybe I'm missing something?

[tu_holmes]

I'm surprised as well. It's rare. We have a ridiculous policy here that no matter what claims a person makes against an officer, even when proved they are lying by video, we let them walk. The thinking is, that if we hold people accountable when they give false reports about a police officer, it will keep people from reporting officers. I personally think it's bull crap. Too often I've seen officers put through the ringer by some joker who makes crap up and when the video, not the officers word but the video vindicates the officer, the jerk who lied had no consequences. Happens more often than naught.

You can literally go to the police monitor or IA , make a complaint that a particular officer raped your girlfriend on the way to jail, report it to the press, get the local activist to rally your cause and when the video is released showing it never happend, just say "nevermind" and you get a free pass. 

I don't like how the media on all levels puts up sensationalism over the responsibility to "report".

How many people are put through the ringer so to speak where the initial reports are front page news, then later on, if they are found not guilty of whatever it is that they are being accused of, there is no news to be found, or if it is mentioned, it is on some back page somewhere and no one sees it.

Reputations are shattered and no one is held responsible for that destroyed reputation.

I do not blame the police for that, but the media outlets for being shills for whatever sensationalism they can press.

[muscleman-2013]

I don't like how the media on all levels puts up sensationalism over the responsibility to "report".

How many people are put through the ringer so to speak where the initial reports are front page news, then later on, if they are found not guilty of whatever it is that they are being accused of, there is no news to be found, or if it is mentioned, it is on some back page somewhere and no one sees it.

Reputations are shattered and no one is held responsible for that destroyed reputation.

I do not blame the police for that, but the media outlets for being shills for whatever sensationalism they can press.

The average cop is just a brainless dolt who does whatever his masters tell him to do.  If they tell him to (unjustly) arrest a man for defending himself with force they will, it they tell him to arrest a man for domestic violence charges (unverified) they will, etc etc 

They are just the states strong arm men.  The states thugs.   It doesn't excuse them one iota though...
 

[240 is Back]

see, this is what pisses me off...

the police fired and killed a man with a knife who was posing a threat in St Louis.
LEGAL SHOOT.  Okay, it happens.

THEN, 90 minutes after the shooting, the police chief gives a press conference.  Details include "knife in overhand grip" and "3-4 feet from our officers when they fired".   Well, the knife was by his side and he was ten feet away.  There's cell phone video showing it.

The shoot was legal - but they LIED about these little details.  What's up with that?

Same way they fudged the story about why man was stopped initially.  The shoots both looked LEGAL, but the cops lied about details.  WHY?   

[iwantmass]

240 is back, you are the last person that should call someone out for lying.  You are a compulsive liar that still distorts the detauls of the trayvon martin case. And for the last time, they did not change the reason he wad stopped, you incompetent piece of trash.  They said they initially pulled him over for an obstruction to traffic.  Police carry this device called a radio.  He was updated on the scene about the robbery

[muscleman-2013]

but they LIED about these little details.  What's up with that?

but the cops lied about details.  WHY?   

Because cops are not on average people of high integrity.  They are AVERAGE AT BEST.  They are like army soldiers.  Many high school drop outs among them.  Many psychopaths among them.  Liars gonna lie.

[ChopperRider]

Because cops are not on average people of high integrity.  They are AVERAGE AT BEST.  They are like army soldiers.  Many high school drop outs among them.  Many psychopaths among them.  Liars gonna lie.

Suck a cock gimmick....

[muscleman-2013]

Suck a cock gimmick....

LOL touched a NERVE 

[ChopperRider]

LOL touched a NERVE 

Fuck you spermburper.....

[TheGrinch]

[muscleman-2013]

I noticed middle easterners have "slightly" higher IQ than the gorilla...

correction, they are lower too..

[muscleman-2013]

These guys understand about 750 words and and 15 signs.

[Archer77]

see, this is what pisses me off...

the police fired and killed a man with a knife who was posing a threat in St Louis.
LEGAL SHOOT.  Okay, it happens.

THEN, 90 minutes after the shooting, the police chief gives a press conference.  Details include "knife in overhand grip" and "3-4 feet from our officers when they fired".   Well, the knife was by his side and he was ten feet away.  There's cell phone video showing it.

The shoot was legal - but they LIED about these little details.  What's up with that?

Same way they fudged the story about why man was stopped initially.  The shoots both looked LEGAL, but the cops lied about details.  WHY?   

Details can change when information goes up or down the chain.  Have you ever played the game asa kid where you sit in a row and hear how the words spoken at the beginning of the chain changes from the first person to the last?

[240 is Back]

Details can change when information goes up or down the chain.  Have you ever played the game asa kid where you sit in a row and hear how the words spoken at the beginning of the chain changes from the first person to the last?

Disagree.   Policeman who just fired the weapon sits down.  He is asked 100 questions by several people.  The answers are recorded and written down.  They are put into a report.

The police spokesman is asked questions.  Either he knows the answers from the report, or he tells reporter that info will be released.

THis whole "Oh, the spokesman didn't know, so he just kinda guessed on an answer" is HIGHLY irresponsible.  We're talking about the public trust here.  Some detail as SIMPLE and IMPORTANT as the position of the knife - and how many feet from the police officer - How in the fck can he get those details wrong? 

Particularly when the police HAD THIS CELL VIDEO!  They had it!  Media got it FROM THE COPS!   The policeman said overhand knife, 3-4 feet from officers.  And it was 10+ feet, knife to side.  He clearly exaggerated the shit out of those points - TO MAKE THE MAN LOOK MORE THREATNING and to make his danger look immanent. 

Yes, legal shoot, but it was less than 30 seconds from arrival to shooting/handcuffing dead guy.  There aren't that many details to fck up, and they managed to mess up distance AND the knife.


Sorry, but I can't blame the telephone game for this.  There are MAYBE 5 details about that shooting, and the cop got 2 of them wrong - 2 of them which benefitted the police for public opinion.  how convenient.  Dude, stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.  They's stretching the truth in a big way here, and people need to stop just dismissing it as incompetence.  The police are smart.  They know how to manipulate info to win public opinion. 

Simple details.  If spokesman doesn't know # of feet or knife position - in a prepared, written statement - something is seriously wrong

[mr.turbo]

What's funny is I think these guys are trying their best to demonstrate accountability. I guess they haven't quite nailed it yet...perhaps the next one will go better.

[Deacon Jeschin]

Details can change when information goes up or down the chain.  Have you ever played the game asa kid where you sit in a row and hear how the words spoken at the beginning of the chain changes from the first person to the last?

When children play "telephone" they get a laugh at how bad they screwed up the original information.  It's a game. A stupid one, but a game nonetheless.

When cops scramble the facts...or in most cases, outright lie, people are affected.....greatly.   A cop's "recollection" of facts may make the difference of money or freedom to those affected.

You can bet the times that a dirty cop is the one being prosecuted, that telephone game isn't played...

[Army of One]

Superb interview, you may not agree with the guy but he does make some good points, even the newscaster seems impressed.

[El Diablo Blanco]

Superb interview, you may not agree with the guy but he does make some good points, even the newscaster seems impressed.

Nice legs and tits on the whore

[240 is Back]

When children play "telephone" they get a laugh at how bad they screwed up the original information.  It's a game. A stupid one, but a game nonetheless.

When cops scramble the facts...or in most cases, outright lie, people are affected.....greatly.   A cop's "recollection" of facts may make the difference of money or freedom to those affected.

You can bet the times that a dirty cop is the one being prosecuted, that telephone game isn't played...

Especially when you consider they're reading a WRITTEN STATEMENT, that was made using cell video of the incident.   his hands were down, not up.  knife at side, not raised.  He was 10+ feet away, not 3-4 feet as they claimed.

it's a written statement.  they have a video.  There isn't any room for a "telephone game" error.  They can look at the video and estimate 3 feet versus 10 feet lol.  

They're doing the standard thing-- making death look immanent and immediate, making the threat look worse, to really SELL why they pulled up and wasted the guy 30 seconds later.  I"m not saying a dude with a knife doesn't get wasted, I'm saying they shouldn't EMBELLISH the facts when selling the story to the citizens.

Just SAY IT - He was ten feet away, with a knife at his side, and several of us felt threatened and fired.  SAY IT.  Video shows it.  They're playing this mass market psychology game, knowing 50% of viewers will hear them and tune out, and only 2% of viewers will call them on their EMBELLISHMENT. 

[Agnostic007]

Disagree.   Policeman who just fired the weapon sits down.  He is asked 100 questions by several people.  The answers are recorded and written down.  They are put into a report.

The police spokesman is asked questions.  Either he knows the answers from the report, or he tells reporter that info will be released.

THis whole "Oh, the spokesman didn't know, so he just kinda guessed on an answer" is HIGHLY irresponsible.  We're talking about the public trust here.  Some detail as SIMPLE and IMPORTANT as the position of the knife - and how many feet from the police officer - How in the fck can he get those details wrong? 

Particularly when the police HAD THIS CELL VIDEO!  They had it!  Media got it FROM THE COPS!   The policeman said overhand knife, 3-4 feet from officers.  And it was 10+ feet, knife to side.  He clearly exaggerated the shit out of those points - TO MAKE THE MAN LOOK MORE THREATNING and to make his danger look immanent. 

Yes, legal shoot, but it was less than 30 seconds from arrival to shooting/handcuffing dead guy.  There aren't that many details to fck up, and they managed to mess up distance AND the knife.


Sorry, but I can't blame the telephone game for this.  There are MAYBE 5 details about that shooting, and the cop got 2 of them wrong - 2 of them which benefitted the police for public opinion.  how convenient.  Dude, stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.  They's stretching the truth in a big way here, and people need to stop just dismissing it as incompetence.  The police are smart.  They know how to manipulate info to win public opinion. 

Simple details.  If spokesman doesn't know # of feet or knife position - in a prepared, written statement - something is seriously wrong

This is a perfect example of the lack of knowledge that goes on after a police involved shooting.  Protocol is likely different depending on state and contracts but the initial questions are limited to Public Safety execptions to the Miranda and are basically about 5 questions. How many officers/subjects were involved? Did you fire your weapon? Are all weapons accounted for? And that's it. There aren't 100 questions. The following is a cut a paste of general protocol on questioning an officer from Police Chiefs magazine;

Officer Statements

Statements may be voluntarily given by the involved officer shortly after the incident or may be delayed on the advice of counsel. In those incidents in which officers do not voluntarily offer statements, they may be ordered by the department to give a statement. A compelled statement cannot be used in criminal proceedings, but may be used for internal review. It is important that the agency have ban agreed-upon policy with the union pertaining to the release of statements to avoid media and citizen scrutiny. This policy should require that the officer be subject to an interview within 72 hours of the shooting. This provides ample time for securing representation, sleep, rest, and reflection by the officer. The officer still retains the right to not provide a statement if the investigation focuses on potential criminal conduct.

Every effort should be made to conduct only one interview of the officer. It is important for the investigators to be fully prepared prior to conducting the interview. Providing one detailed statement to the agency’s shooting investigative team and the agency’s internal affairs division will avoid putting the officer through two questioning sessions. This will also eliminate the opportunity for a defense attorney to try to discredit the officer by finding slightly different answers to the same question asked in two different interviews.

Remember that under stress, officers may remember certain aspects of the incident and may not remember others. In general, the officers who returned to the environment can remember from about 50 percent to 70 percent of the significant details of the experience, while those trying to remember in a different place can recall only about 30 percent to 50 percent of the specifics.1 As a result, a physical walk-through at the incident scene might assist officers in their recollections prior to or during the interview.

How can agency leadership expect law enforcement personnel involved in one of the most critical incidents in their lives, who are operating under stress and fear, to remember what just happened in a rapidly evolving event? This is not a realistic expectation. What also must be realized is that civilian eyewitness testimony may be based on beliefs and values and may not be a fair replication of the actual facts. It is imperative to combine forensics with acquired recollections of involved and noninvolved individuals who are present at a critical incident.

[Agnostic007]

Seems to be a contradiction here. Mistake, or did you mean to say this?

Maybe I'm missing something?

I think it says what I was trying to say. We allow people to make false claims without consequences so we don't discourage people who have legitimate claims from reporting them.

[Agnostic007]

see, this is what pisses me off...

the police fired and killed a man with a knife who was posing a threat in St Louis.
LEGAL SHOOT.  Okay, it happens.

THEN, 90 minutes after the shooting, the police chief gives a press conference.  Details include "knife in overhand grip" and "3-4 feet from our officers when they fired".   Well, the knife was by his side and he was ten feet away.  There's cell phone video showing it.

The shoot was legal - but they LIED about these little details.  What's up with that?

Same way they fudged the story about why man was stopped initially.  The shoots both looked LEGAL, but the cops lied about details.  WHY?   

“The police officers exiting that vehicle, and immediately, the suspect starts to walk towards the police officers,” he says. “The difference between what I said yesterday and what we’ve seen on the video is the suspect has the knife in his hand – yesterday I said it was in an overhand motion … it’s down … towards the officer.”
 
Dotson says the man then approached the vehicle while saying, “Shoot me now! Kill me now!” As he got closer to the officers, each one fired six shots, and the man was killed.
 
A taser wasn’t used, Dotson says, because Powell was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and the taser must make contact with skin.

[The Ugly]

I think it says what I was trying to say. We allow people to make false claims without consequences so we don't discourage people who have legitimate claims from reporting them.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

[Devon97]

Saving this.