18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by police over the weekend. It turns out he was unarmed and the preliminary story of what happened is all kinds of fishy.
Based on this LA Times story, Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street to Brown's grandmother's house. A patrol car pulled up and told them to get out of the street and some kind of scuffle ensued with Brown in the car. Then, Brown got out, put his hands up and was shot repeatedly?
Try to disregard all the ridiculous looting and vandalism by the opportunistic scum.
The officer who fired the shots was a 6-year vet of the force and is on paid administrative leave.
LA Times Reporting - (
New Window )
halfback20: I AGREE with your 11:53 post. I do NOT agree that the same cops who were involved in the incident have the authority to take a phone on the spot. At the end of the day (rolle '11), I want the video to be released to the public. The sad thing is that the most likely avenue for that to happen would be for the cops to have no idea it was being filmed, and for it to be subsequently leaked on Youtube.
fkap: I don't think that footage was destroyed, because it was widely reported to have existed. If nobody knew about it, I am fairly confident it would never see the light of day. And who would believe a little girl living in poverty that she even had the video? Who would she even go to? Would she file a complaint against the police? It is for this exact reason that a warrant is needed to seize and search the phone unless there is reason to believe that the evidence would be destroyed.
Taking this a step further, the fact that the officers who were involved in the homicide in the first place were the ones who confiscated the video presents a huge conflict of interest. That is not due process.
I am also struggling to see how these police, who are inherently NOT an objective party due to their direct involvement in this kid's death, could have made the judgement that this girl was going to delete her cell phone tape.
Can we not stick our heads in the sand and pretty much agree that at least ONE of the main reasons that cell phone was taken was to prevent the footage from leaking and going viral? If you think that thought did not cross the mind of the police when collecting evidence, you're out of your mind.
This is definitely a legitimate point that I'd like to know the answer to.
On one hand, evidence is supposed to be collected right away.
On the other hand, shouldn't evidence be collected once an investigation has begun? Couldn't an investigation have begun with a different segment of law enforcement on that same day? I also wonder if the fact that the footage cannot be altered in a similar manner to biological evidence has any bearing on this question.
Imagining a similar situation, I don't believe that there would be a chain of custody issue if footage from a private business security camera was taken a few days later, and I would assume that these would be basically equivalent scenarios, though I could be wrong on both those facts.
You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that it would have been deleted. You know nothing about this police department or the officer that confiscated it. It's funny you mention condescending posts and hypotheticals. You have brought up several hypotheticals yourself about how the video would have been deleted, etc.
As for your 99% of police brutality complaints go uninvestigated...well it's horse shit. That article is about central New Jersey, not the United States in general.
When the hell did I question the DOJ's authority on filming police? Are you just making shit up now? I never said people shouldn't be allowed to record police. But if your recording becomes evidence, don't be surprised if it gets seized.
Most people don't feel the same way you do re: police. Just because a few people on Reddit hate the police doesn't mean everyone does.
You are wrong.
Ferguson has a whooping 8 guys on shift including the Sargent. Very few departments investigate their cop involved shootings. Just because of the wild speculation it causes and the appearance of impropriety. Since St Louis County sheriff's department is issuing statements, I'll assume that they are the lead agency being overseen by the MDLE (what ever their state agency is called there) and the DOJ.( Holder already said their keeping an eye on the investigation. A good thing in MHO.
Chain of custody
Yes there would be. Why wouldn't investigators take store security tapes during the investigation? Once you leave the scene. That'a it. It's no longer secure. You better believe these guys are doing everything by the book. They have to. Everybody is watching.
You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that it would have been deleted. You know nothing about this police department or the officer that confiscated it. It's funny you mention condescending posts and hypotheticals. You have brought up several hypotheticals yourself about how the video would have been deleted, etc.
As for your 99% of police brutality complaints go uninvestigated...well it's horse shit. That article is about central New Jersey, not the United States in general.
When the hell did I question the DOJ's authority on filming police? Are you just making shit up now? I never said people shouldn't be allowed to record police. But if your recording becomes evidence, don't be surprised if it gets seized.
Most people don't feel the same way you do re: police. Just because a few people on Reddit hate the police doesn't mean everyone does.
You're naive, sorry. I'm basing my assertions off of human nature and the past behavior of cops.
I've presented a number of articles regarding police conduct regarding video evidence. The Supreme Court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html has essentially ruled that police can be videotaped, yet time and time again, police react aggressively to those filming them.
On a level more specific to this case, the Department of Justice, literally in charge of enforcing laws, specifically states that police cannot seize or search a video or cell phone unless it is likely to be deleted by the person who recorded it . They need a warrant to take that video evidence. It's clear as day.
Answer me this: Do you believe the police confiscated that girls cell phone video because it was evidence, or because they did not want it to leak and go viral? Because if you think it is the former, not the latter, you have your head in the sand.
It would actually just be truly sad if you honestly think the police took that video for an investigation... it just shows you blindly put your faith in ordinary men and regarded them as such upstanding, pillars of moral superiority, as opposed to fully fleshed humans
Anyway, as usual, you ignored every pertinent question in my post, and have reduced your argument to well you don't know him personally so blehhhh. I've raised numerous questions. You've refused to answer any of them. You have said virtually nothing of substance.
And think about how utterly pathetic it is that you are arguing over essentially semantics with regards to police ignoring 99% of complaints. Oh, it's just Central NJ.. I'm sure the rest of the country must have police forces very responsive to complaints from citizen, correct?
The point remains the same: police do not give a shit about complaints about them. They cannot police themselves.
So please, clarify your point for me. Please make it clear to me that you think that the cops took that video to further an investigation, not to avoid a media shitstorm of it showing up on youtube. And please, make it clear that you think that Central NJ is the one isolated area where cops ignore virtually ever complaint against them. Just so I can keep everything straight, conclude that your views are simply not grounded in reality, and move on.
This is anecdotal evidence but I am very confident a quick Google search will be able to provide data to back this up.
I'm not arguing about whether or not this is fair, or warranted, and that is neither here nor there; it's simply the truth. Young people and minorities typically do not trust the police (btw, how we even came to this talking point, I have no idea, but you are the one who raised it).
You are wrong.
Ferguson has a whooping 8 guys on shift including the Sargent. Very few departments investigate their cop involved shootings. Just because of the wild speculation it causes and the appearance of impropriety. Since St Louis County sheriff's department is issuing statements, I'll assume that they are the lead agency being overseen by the MDLE (what ever their state agency is called there) and the DOJ.( Holder already said their keeping an eye on the investigation. A good thing in MHO.
Chain of custody
Yes there would be. Why wouldn't investigators take store security tapes during the investigation? Once you leave the scene. That'a it. It's no longer secure. You better believe these guys are doing everything by the book. They have to. Everybody is watching.
Hey, I said I might be wrong, and I probably was regarding a private business. I said from the start that my issue wasn't so much the recording being taken, but that the recording was taken by an involved party. That's it, and I don't think theres anything too egregious about that stance. If you disagree, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, it's an inherent conflict of interest.
Quote:
absolutely do not trust police.
Taking shit out of context. Conveniently leaving out that I was talking about specific demographics. You think minorities trust the cops? Every other week there's another black kid who gets shot by the cops.
But it was cute how you tried to frame it as if I was speaking about myself. I definitely don't give them all the benefit of the doubt automatically on an institutional level, but I judge people on a case by case basis.
Nice of you to show up and provide nothing of value.
Kid was born in 1996. Really fucks with my head.
deadspin - ( New Window )
I'm sure an outside agency was there almost immediately. I will guarantee that phone chain of custody is documented extremely well.
I was involved in fire (arson)investigation. The system of evidence collection and chain of custody is the same.
I'm sure an outside agency was there almost immediately. I will guarantee that phone chain of custody is documented extremely well.
I was involved in fire (arson)investigation. The system of evidence collection and chain of custody is the same.
CTC: I am going on the account of the actual girl who had her phone taken away. It was in the initial news report. She was interviewed and said the police came over and took it away. I am trying to find the video now.
So yeah!! duh?
What is so unusual with that?
It's what is suppose to happen. Just as the officers gun was taken in as evidence. Just like the cruiser was taken in as evidence.
Why would you want a piece of evidence that that could clear or hang the cop not taken in as evidence for the investigation?
You make no sense. The prosecutor has to bring charges. Why would you not want the prosecutor to have what may be a key piece of evidence to present to a grand jury?
So yeah!! duh?
What is so unusual with that?
It's what is suppose to happen. Just as the officers gun was taken in as evidence. Just like the cruiser was taken in as evidence.
Why would you want a piece of evidence that that could clear or hang the cop not taken in as evidence for the investigation?
You make no sense. The prosecutor has to bring charges. Why would you not want the prosecutor to have what may be a key piece of evidence to present to a grand jury?
Police have a tendency to confiscate video recordings immediately after they are recorded during incidents. This isn't a new phenomenon.
This JUST happened last week...but there are no questions. The police were out of line, because it's legal to record police. - ( New Window )
This happens fairly often. So you can see why I think it would be prudent to have a THIRD party collect digital evidence. It makes perfect sense, I don't really see how or why you would disagree.
"Luckily", the Brown shooting is too high profile for this kind of thing to fly under the radar (poor choice of the word luckily, I know).
Apparently New York City is toying around with the idea of making police wear on duty cameras. That would be a huge win for the public, IMO. Don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Do you disagree with that?
you style yourself clever for having identified an area of conflict - police seizing evidence from bystanders that may incriminate them - but you haven't posed a practical solution.
how exactly is an uninvolved third party - whoever that is - supposed to reach the scene of a conflict in time to both collect evidence and prevent it from being destroyed?
it seems you've watched a little too much L&O and CSI. the forensic team is not going to show up within minutes to collect the phones of bystanders every time there's an incident. that may seem plausible to you in fantasy land, but it doesn't happen in reality.
so, again, who is this miraculous, impartial, omnipresent third party that is going to act as a check on police behavior in the field while staying neutral between the cops and the public?
or maybe you think Superman should do it?
I've presented a number of articles regarding police conduct regarding video evidence. The Supreme Court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html has essentially ruled that police can be videotaped, yet time and time again, police react aggressively to those filming them.
you should read your "articles" a bit more closely. the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. in fact, they specifically declined to hear this case.
now, to a layman or, in your case, someone who doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about, generally speaking, because he thinks carnival gambling games are legit, declining to review the decision may seem equivalent to the Supreme Court's endorsement of the lower court's ruling. errrrrr. sorry. incorrect. that's not how the Supreme Court works.
so they haven't ruled on this question yet, nor have they "essentially" ruled anything.
now, run off and find us some more articles that you don't understand and perhaps someone can walk you through those too.
Quote:
Quote:
absolutely do not trust police.
Taking shit out of context. Conveniently leaving out that I was talking about specific demographics. You think minorities trust the cops? Every other week there's another black kid who gets shot by the cops.
But it was cute how you tried to frame it as if I was speaking about myself. I definitely don't give them all the benefit of the doubt automatically on an institutional level, but I judge people on a case by case basis.
Nice of you to show up and provide nothing of value.
A specific demographic that includes you but you weren't talking about yourself??? Bullshit.
I'm not confused at all. What I'm absolutely sure of is that you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about.
The uniforms on the initial scene do not do the investigation. Their job is to secure scene integrity until the investigating team arrives. That includes preserving all possible evidence. That phone is possible evidence and was properly treated as such. It was their job to secure that evidence. Not to look at or anything else. That phone did not leave the scene until 3rd parties arrived and took possession.
Are you suggesting that they should have detained the girl, make sure she doesn't use her phone, until a detective from an outside agency arrives? That would really go over well.
We already know that the Ferguson PD, while the center of attention, is not the lead agency on this investigation since St. Louis County Sheriff's office is issuing statements. We know the state and the federal government is involved. We also pretty much know that Ferguson doesn't have the capabilities to do this type of investigation due to their size. Why regional task forces are the norm.
What we also know for sure is that you don't have a clue about the difference in evidence preservation and investigation.
As MT stated, you watch too much CIS, etc. You ever notice when they arrive on the scene that they look at the cop standing there and say thanks. Then go in. Or the cop will say this guy here said he saw what ever. Then the investigators go over and interview him.
You really need to do a ride along with you local PD to gain a little insight how things work.
As I stated earlier, I did and taught fire investigation classes. Proper scene and evidence preservation until an investigator(s) is taught in rookie school.
"Laura Hettiger KMOV @LauraKHettiger
Follow
#Ferguson police chief tells me officer who killed #MikeBrown was injured in altercation, side of his face swollen after being "hit" @kmov
8:37 AM - 13 Aug 2014"
but that wouldn't jive with the claims made by Brown's friends...but this may be BS also, which is why nobody should be passing judgment now...
Quote:
What I meant was that the police came over immediately after the shooting and demanded it right away. Not an uninvolved third party. You'd hope there would be some foresight to have some unrelated party, anyone, come and investigate, not the people on the scene. I feel that evidence should be collected by parties that don't have their skin in the matter.
I'm not confused at all. What I'm absolutely sure of is that you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about.
The uniforms on the initial scene do not do the investigation. Their job is to secure scene integrity until the investigating team arrives. That includes preserving all possible evidence. That phone is possible evidence and was properly treated as such. It was their job to secure that evidence. Not to look at or anything else. That phone did not leave the scene until 3rd parties arrived and took possession.
Are you suggesting that they should have detained the girl, make sure she doesn't use her phone, until a detective from an outside agency arrives? That would really go over well.
We already know that the Ferguson PD, while the center of attention, is not the lead agency on this investigation since St. Louis County Sheriff's office is issuing statements. We know the state and the federal government is involved. We also pretty much know that Ferguson doesn't have the capabilities to do this type of investigation due to their size. Why regional task forces are the norm.
What we also know for sure is that you don't have a clue about the difference in evidence preservation and investigation.
As MT stated, you watch too much CIS, etc. You ever notice when they arrive on the scene that they look at the cop standing there and say thanks. Then go in. Or the cop will say this guy here said he saw what ever. Then the investigators go over and interview him.
You really need to do a ride along with you local PD to gain a little insight how things work.
As I stated earlier, I did and taught fire investigation classes. Proper scene and evidence preservation until an investigator(s) is taught in rookie school.
What is so difficult to understand. I dont care how its done.
The involved cops took a girls phone that she recorded them with. Its a conflict of interest. Nobody should shoot people and then be in charge of collecting evidence against themselves.
Police have a pattern of confiscsting video of themselves.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
Quote:
In comment 11804943 Peter in Atlanta said:
Quote:
Quote:
absolutely do not trust police.
Taking shit out of context. Conveniently leaving out that I was talking about specific demographics. You think minorities trust the cops? Every other week there's another black kid who gets shot by the cops.
But it was cute how you tried to frame it as if I was speaking about myself. I definitely don't give them all the benefit of the doubt automatically on an institutional level, but I judge people on a case by case basis.
Nice of you to show up and provide nothing of value.
A specific demographic that includes you but you weren't talking about yourself??? Bullshit.
Fuck off. Dont tell me how I feel. One of my closest friends is in state trooper school, im not justifying shit to you. Youre out of touch if you think cops and minorities trust police.
"Laura Hettiger KMOV @LauraKHettiger
Follow
#Ferguson police chief tells me officer who killed #MikeBrown was injured in altercation, side of his face swollen after being "hit" @kmov
8:37 AM - 13 Aug 2014"
but that wouldn't jive with the claims made by Brown's friends...but this may be BS also, which is why nobody should be passing judgment now...
Not sure which story is more accurate, but I'll bet both stories are embellished to some degree.
Quote:
I've presented a number of articles regarding police conduct regarding video evidence. The Supreme Court http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html has essentially ruled that police can be videotaped, yet time and time again, police react aggressively to those filming them.
you should read your "articles" a bit more closely. the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. in fact, they specifically declined to hear this case.
now, to a layman or, in your case, someone who doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about, generally speaking, because he thinks carnival gambling games are legit, declining to review the decision may seem equivalent to the Supreme Court's endorsement of the lower court's ruling. errrrrr. sorry. incorrect. that's not how the Supreme Court works.
so they haven't ruled on this question yet, nor have they "essentially" ruled anything.
now, run off and find us some more articles that you don't understand and perhaps someone can walk you through those too.
Listen to me, you condescending piece of shit. I know it's youre MO to compensate for your shitty life and inadequacies by going on message boards and acting like a big dawg and a prick, but I'm not fucking having it. You wanna have a discussion? More than happy to. Don't you fucking act like I'm some two bit 14 year old incapable of understanding what he's posting.
If you didn't try and cherry pick your arguments, you'd see that the cumulative body of rulings and statements by organizations such as the Supreme Court, DOJ, among other courts. You wanna order semantics about what each one individually means? Have fun with that. You tryin to tell me that it's illegal to record cops? Cause if not, STFU, your point is totally fucking unrelated. http://ideas.time.com/2012/05/21/a-new-first-amendment-right-videotaping-the-police/ wanna decode that for me? That's right, it basically fucking says you are allowed to record cops. So maybe they should stop harassing citizens for recording them while beating people?
What a novel fucking idea, right?!
As for what "magical third party" should come and collect evidence - I have no fucking idea, who the fuck made me the supreme LEO organizer in the United States.
Anyone with any semblance of common sense can see the conflict of interest when a cop murders a kid, then he and his buddies are tasked with collecting the evidence. [b]Do you know see the conflict of interest there?[b]
And the most pathetic part of this thread... how about ONE of you people who will go through mental gymnastics to prove to themselves that cops never do anything wrong... ONE of you... admit that this cop COMPLETELY FUCKED UP.
The rules, procedures, and laws, clearly don't work, since it's run of the mill for police to confiscate videos of them on the job.
Anyway what's your point here? You can't point out flaws unless you have solutions? It's not my job to have solutions. You can't just neglect to attempt to improve a biased, broken system, because someone on a Giants board can't think of anything better.
Of course nobody is looking at the actual cases I've shown in this thread, which I pretty much expected.
From the article:
Yeah, sounds like cops really do a good job of self policing. Internal Affairs seems great. So do you think its okay that the vast majority of complaints go completely unaddressed?
What's your take on that?
youre a shitty troll
Someone happened to be filming it, he never even tried to grab their gun. They didn't have any reason to pursue him either, as he was buying cigarettes and ran back into his house.
But who cares, right - ( New Window )
and it's clear you are one of the may uninformed who have rushed to judgment that the cop was in the wrong here...I'm not saying he was or he wasn't - nobody on this board knows...
and citing examples of other situations is meaningless here...doesn't prove a thing...
of course nobody in this thread who is arguing with me over whatever-the-fuck has even touched on cops wearing cameras
Link - ( New Window )
and it's clear you are one of the may uninformed who have rushed to judgment that the cop was in the wrong here...I'm not saying he was or he wasn't - nobody on this board knows...
and citing examples of other situations is meaningless here...doesn't prove a thing...
No, my point isn't worthless, I don't need to have a valid solution to poke a hole in a shitty procedure.
Other incidents are not useless, it shows a pattern in behavior.
BTW, here's a solution: Let digital evidence be backed up.
[quotes]What is so difficult to understand. I dont care how its done.
The involved cops took a girls phone that she recorded them with. Its a conflict of interest. Nobody should shoot people and then be in charge of collecting evidence against themselves.
Police have a pattern of confiscsting video of themselves.
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?[/quote]
Most folks I imagine comprehend exactly what you are saying and probably agree to some extent re: the conflict of interest.
What you have made clear by your quoted post is that you don't comprehend that there is no practical way to do what you propose until we invent teleporters to get investigative teams at the crime scene quick enough to gather evidence. The only way to gather evidence and secure the crime scene right now is for the po-po to do it- they're the only one's there capable of doing it, for better or worse.
So until you come up with a practical solution for conflict of interest, you may as well be complaining that the sea is blue.
On the other hand, practical solutions that are already in place like other agencies taking over the investigation or conducting concurrent investigations, although not perfect, are already in place. Maybe your focus should be on how to improve these methods?
Media reports and investigative journalism also provide the protections you are looking for (although they are also quite flawed).
not trying to be racist here but your diatribes have no point...pointing to past behavior of someone else entirely unrelated to what you're trying to prove is ridiculous...cops are people like everyone else...they make mistakes, they even commit crimes sometimes...having a badge doesn't make them infallible or above the law...but come back when you have proof regarding this event, not just citations to stories you find on the internet...if the evidence proves this cop to have been in the wrong, throw the book at him...but you've already made your conclusions based primarily on your view/attitude toward cops...
"Dear Ferguson:
I have no doubt that the vast majority of you (including the family of the late Michael Brown) are solid, law-abiding citizens who want no more than to see the proper thing done after an unspeakable tragedy. You have my deepest and sincere condolences. I am equally certain that you are willing to let the investigation run its course and will be able to restrain yourself from flying off the handle before all the facts are known and officially made public. The next paragraphs are NOT intended for you.
To all the thugs, looters, race-baiters, rabble-rousers, and Monday Morning Quarterbacks that live in the same area: you are idiots. You are parasites and opportunists who have decided to use a deeply personal tragedy as an opportunity to, as my grandfather would have said, act a rot-non FOOL! Only ONE person on this planet really knows what happened the other day. Tragically, the other young man is no longer with us.
Thugs, theft and destruction is NOT justice. It never has been, and it never will be. Dr. King never said, "Let freedom ring, and get yourself a free TV while you're at it." You people aren't worth a warm bucket of hamster vomit. Race baiters, we don't know WHAT the officer's motivation was. So how about we let the case run its course before we assume that color was the primary motivation? MMQBs, if you've never been in a potential deadly force situation, SHUT UP!!! You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Save some of that hot air for a balloon float. Reverend Sharpton, if you and Treyvon Martin's lawyer really want to really do some good, STOP using the word "execution," for Christ's sake! It's a SHOOTING. A deeply unfortunate SHOOTING. And until the case is closed, that's ALL it is! How about focusing your energy on improving relations between the police and the community? Oh, yeah ... you won't make any money that way, will you? Silly me.
I am a police officer, and I am saying that if the officer in question is wrong, then he should suffer the consequences. But if it is proven that Mr. Brown was in the wrong, I hope all of you parasites are as quick and vocal with your apologies as you were with the officer's condemnation. I also hope that you offer to help rebuild what you destroyed.
Oh -- one more thing: If you want to hate the police and wish us dead, that's fine by me. I don't care. Just do me one favor: Don't call me for any kind of law enforcement service -- regardless of how major or minor -- for the rest of your days. EVER.
Rant over. Back to my seclusion."
not trying to be racist here but your diatribes have no point...pointing to past behavior of someone else entirely unrelated to what you're trying to prove is ridiculous...cops are people like everyone else...they make mistakes, they even commit crimes sometimes...having a badge doesn't make them infallible or above the law...but come back when you have proof regarding this event, not just citations to stories you find on the internet...if the evidence proves this cop to have been in the wrong, throw the book at him...but you've already made your conclusions based primarily on your view/attitude toward cops...
It really boils down to this (see if you agree with me or not): There needs to be more accountability and more checks on their power.
The reason I group cops together is because they are in a unique situation in society, with a unique amount of power of the populace. It is from this position of power that they are able to manipulate situations into their favor. That is the commonality, that's the common thread.
I don't know why I need to always give a disclaimer that it's not every single one. Not all cops are bullies, manipulative, or abuse their power, but a sizable amount do, and that's too many.
There's no recourse anyone has against them. They have carte blanche to do what they want. I would welcome any type of oversight over them. Internal Affairs doesn't seem to be working, and common sense dictates it wouldn't work, anyway.
Your 95% or 99% stat has no value unless you can show how many of those were valid complaints. If anything, the conclusion that could be drawn from those studies (if looked at with an unbiased eye) is that most complaints against the police are bogus and unfounded.
You place value on them because you have a predetermined conclusion- that police won't prosecute or police themselves.
His face being swollen still isn't justification for the kid being shot in the back.