Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Trebla » Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Trebla wrote:It happens "all the time"... but it happens significantly less frequently than the other way around. At least, that's the impression I have. Most people don't shoot someone who's fleeing from them, even if "all the time" a tiny fraction of people do. My default assumption for ANY person is that they wouldn't shoot in that situation until evidence shows otherwise. (But my default assumption is that most people are inherently good until they demonstrate otherwise, too, so... maybe I'm too optimistic).

Okay, so you're ignoring what the generic behavior of a cop, especially the documented behavior of the cop's Wilson worked with would act, and saying "well, a normal person on the street wouldn't do this, so obviously it's more plausible that Wilson acted like a normal person on the street than the people he's actually most similar to in terms of career/culture/etc."


You're still being disingenuous here. It's far more common that a cop, any cop, even a cop with documented misbehavior, will NOT fire upon a fleeing suspect in a statistical situation. Yes, some cops do sometimes, but those are exceptional cases, so saying "it's more plausible that he fired upon a fleeing suspect" is saying that the exceptional case is the more plausible. That's the opposite of true. If there was ANY evidence that pointed to it happening, you could swing the other way, but there's not... the best you have are inconsistent and conflicting testimonies which essentially contributes nothing to either side.

So yes, the most plausible assumption, absent any additional physical evidence, is that he probably wouldn't fire upon a fleeing suspect. I'm not saying he definitely didn't, but if we are applying Occam's Razor (which seems to be how this line of assumptions got started), it's far more plausible to assume, on this point, he didn't.

Yes, common sense dictates it's more plausible that Brown bent down and reached into Wilson's car rather than Wilson being able to wrap his arm around the neck of a (tall) man standing outside his window while seated.

Because there's literally no way Brown would have gotten close to the window of the cop unless he was about to attack him? "Boy, c'mere" has never happened?


So now we can invent things that Johnson didn't even claim happened? The only hostile account of the actions at the car comes from Johnson, so even if we take that account at face value... Wilson tried to open the door, it bounced off BOTH Johnson and Brown hard enough to close back on itself and then Wilson grabbed Brown. Nothing about Brown bending down (and why would he after he'd just been hit by the door of an aggressive officer?).

So yes, it's possible that the only account which has every incentive to bias itself towards painting Brown as the victim at the car (he's obviously the victim of the shooting) didn't mention that Wilson made a racist remark and Brown bent down, at which point Wilson grabbed him. It's unreasonable to believe that's likely. But yes, it's possible that "it could have gone that way," but nobody involved said anything about it. It's also possible a lone gunman on a nearby hill fired the shots. If we're just making things up, you can paint any picture you want.

Chen
Posts: 5579
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Chen » Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The system is broken. And this from Ars Technia sums it up.
In Eric Garner's case, legal experts have said that the District Attorney involved, Dan Donovan, likely had little impetus to indict Pantaleo. "It’s politically costly for Dan Donovan to indict a police officer on Staten Island," Jeffrey Fagan, a criminal law professor at Columbia told Gothamist. "He can easily shift the political and legal burden to the Department of Justice to decide whether to pursue criminal charges. He’s washed his hands of it."


But does the DA even get to decide on a grand jury or not? The wikipedia article about New York grand juries says that the defendant, by default, has the right to have a grand jury decide whether or not to indict. Does the "washing his hands of it" refer to the fact he didn't present the "proper" evidence to the grand jury? I didn't think this latest grand jury's transcripts were released yet.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10328
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:21 pm UTC

The moment I can do something to help, let me know.
Until then, I'm going to have myself a little cry. (sniff-sniff)
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:15 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The system is broken. And this from Ars Technia sums it up.
In Eric Garner's case, legal experts have said that the District Attorney involved, Dan Donovan, likely had little impetus to indict Pantaleo. "It’s politically costly for Dan Donovan to indict a police officer on Staten Island," Jeffrey Fagan, a criminal law professor at Columbia told Gothamist. "He can easily shift the political and legal burden to the Department of Justice to decide whether to pursue criminal charges. He’s washed his hands of it."


But does the DA even get to decide on a grand jury or not? The wikipedia article about New York grand juries says that the defendant, by default, has the right to have a grand jury decide whether or not to indict. Does the "washing his hands of it" refer to the fact he didn't present the "proper" evidence to the grand jury? I didn't think this latest grand jury's transcripts were released yet.
It doesn't matter in any practical sense what the defendant wants. He may get to testify but he won't get to cross examine. Had the DA wanted an adversarial proceeding he would have asked for a judge to look at the evidence in a preliminary hearing. The DA has the discretion with a Grand Jury, he can tell the story he wants the Jury to hear. So if the DA wants to keep his hands clean he dumps it in the Grand Juries lap. It's a win-win for him. And given that proceedings are sealed in a lot of cases, there is no review. You get a No True Bill and no explanation. The DA can say the Grand Jury did it.

In these cases the DA is an elected official.
He depends on the police to give him good cases that are winnable
You keep the public wondering about how safe it really is then show them your conviction rate
Piss the police off and suddenly you could be looking at many few winnable cases
Your convictions drop and you're gone
Add to this a society that in a real sense is conditioned to accept the authority of the police, by teaching in schools and by the popular media
The law is biased towards the police(for instance if Brown assaulted Wilson in fact, he was looking at a possible 5 to 15 years, since assaulting a police officer is a special case of the assault law)
Figure in that society is racist on any number of levels and your lucky that the death rate isn't much worse
The system stinks, it isn't fair on any number of levels
And to put the icing on the cake, since reporting isn't mandatory you can't say with any certainty exactly what the numbers are.

addams wrote:The moment I can do something to help, let me know.
Until then, I'm going to have myself a little cry. (sniff-sniff)
Try taking it to the streets. The only thing wrong with the protests is that they are happening in the wrong places and they aren't angry enough. Fear may change what reason has failed to. Here is what happened in 68 courtesy of Wikipedia referring to the riots in Washington DC.
On Friday, April 5, the White House dispatched some 13,600 federal troops, including 1,750 federalized D.C. National Guard troops to assist the overwhelmed District police force.[2] Marines mounted machine guns on the steps of the Capitol and Army troops from the 3rd Infantry guarded the White House. At one point, on April 5, rioting reached within two blocks of the White House before rioters retreated. The occupation of Washington was the largest of any American city since the Civil War.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10328
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:27 pm UTC

I think you are Wrong about the protests not being angry enough.
It is not anger that will move us from where we are to where we want to be.

Of course, we are angry.
What the Hell are we going to do on the Streets??
Stand there with cardboard signs like Beggars??

That is not productive.
We need Unformed Professionals.

Uniformed Professionals that were Not trained inside the US to US standards!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, you're upset because you feel Wilson was patronized?

Please.

Do I look like gmalivuk to you? I'm stating the prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a solid case. Then he messed up again by implying the cop was innocent. This is defined by pussyfooting around and not vigorously calling out a cop dumb enough to testify without a judge or defense attorney present. And then presenting a muddled case ' fir the jury to figure out' . prosecutors dont do this for anyone else. The alternative is the prosecutor conspired with Wilson that he would have an easy time if he testified.

I'm also calling your libertarianism into question when you give officers this level of deference.


Have I said Wilson should have deference due to his status as an officer? Actually, have I said he should have ANYTHING different due to his status as an officer?

I merely do not believe that "poor Wilson" is a reasonable complaint about this indiction. I am certain that the Wilson camp is in fact quite happy with this outcome, and framing this as "insulting for both sides" is...cmon.

I also don't see any confusion of you with gmalivuk. I do not think he is attempting a "this is unfair to both sides" argument.
yes you have. You explicitly said that you expect cops to exercise reasonable discretion as to who they deem a threat. This is implicit support of the status quo where minorities are killed at disproportionately higher rates. The statistical evidence shows you can't rely on the cops to be fair. That's you giving deference to cops when they need to be held to a higher standard and use stricter guidelines in the use of force.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:40 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:So now we can invent things that Johnson didn't even claim happened? The only hostile account of the actions at the car comes from Johnson, so even if we take that account at face value... Wilson tried to open the door, it bounced off BOTH Johnson and Brown hard enough to close back on itself and then Wilson grabbed Brown. Nothing about Brown bending down (and why would he after he'd just been hit by the door of an aggressive officer?).

So yes, it's possible that the only account which has every incentive to bias itself towards painting Brown as the victim at the car (he's obviously the victim of the shooting) didn't mention that Wilson made a racist remark and Brown bent down, at which point Wilson grabbed him. It's unreasonable to believe that's likely. But yes, it's possible that "it could have gone that way," but nobody involved said anything about it. It's also possible a lone gunman on a nearby hill fired the shots. If we're just making things up, you can paint any picture you want.

I'm not claiming that's literally what happened - to my understanding, you're saying it's more plausible that Brown bent down in order to assault Wilson, and presenting it as a dichotomy between that and Brown standing straight up and Wilson lunging out of his window.

I'm saying that setting that up as a dichotomy doesn't make sense. Just because one person's account of how people were arranged was wrong doesn't mean the opposing account is right in every detail. Brown could have bent down as Wilson was saying, but done so for the very plausible reason of talking to him, rather than just to immediately assault a cop. After all, isn't that what your standard for what a normal person would be far more common to do in a statistical sense would suggest?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby mosc » Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:13 pm UTC

"a normal person" who just robbed a convenience store and has caught the attention of the police? I'm sorry, minor fucking detail. Normal behavior is not relevant.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:38 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Were Mike Brown's fingerprints found on the gun? My understanding was that they weren't, and DNA on something inside a blood-spattered car doesn't prove anything beyond that it was present when the car was spattered with blood.

So no, the shot to his hand inside the car does not mean Brown was trying to grab the gun.


No one tested the gun for prints. They found Mike Brown's blood all over it however (which is consistent with a story that Mike Brown's hand was shot while he was trying to grab the gun from Darren Wilson).

BTW: Its not just a "shot to the hand". Its a shot to the area between the thumb and index finger.

Autopsy Report
11. There is a tangential (graze) gunshot wound near the ventral surface of the right thumb. This wound is
located 5.0 cm below the level of the right wrist and 4.0 cm right of the ventral midline of the right hand. The
wound measures 5.0 2.0 cm. It is oriented, approximately, in a 12 o?clock to 6 o?clock position. It is
elongated with dried edges and associated with skin tags. The skin tags point towards the tip of the right
thumb. The path of the track is upwards. No powder stipple is identified. There is a focal area of
discoloration near the ventral surface of the base of the right thumb.


I'm not a medical expert.. But here's my interpretation of the above (using google vigorously to look up medical terms I didn't know).

Image

Mike Brown was shot on the inside of his hand (the "ventral"). It seems like the bullet traveled from his fingers towards his wrist, in a manner I recreated with the image above.

I can't imagine how Mike Brown got a wound like this unless he was grabbing the gun when Darren Wilson fired it.

Again, I'm not a medical expert. I'm a computer engineer. I know nothing about medical terms. I made the above image using wikipedia's article on hands and a crappy paint-job. So please double-check the autopsy quote above, and make sure it is consistent with my understanding.

Some bloggers have used this wound as the proof of "Hands Up" when Mike Brown got shot. However, I find it unlikely, as there would be an exit-wound on the dorsal side of the hand. Instead, the graze wound travels from the side of the hand into his wrist, highly suggesting that Mike Brown was grabbing the gun when it went off. Indeed, the bullet came from the direction of his right thumb.

The skin tags point towards the tip of the right thumb


-------------------------

BTW: gmalivuk, what witness are you using as the basis for your suppositions? I can't seem to find any witness that matches up with your interpretation of the events.

Unless you're using Dorian Johnson, but I think we've already established that Dorian Johnson is a bold-faced liar. Dorian Johnson's story cannot explain this bullet wound.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Trebla » Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:50 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:I'm not claiming that's literally what happened - to my understanding, you're saying it's more plausible that Brown bent down in order to assault Wilson, and presenting it as a dichotomy between that and Brown standing straight up and Wilson lunging out of his window.

I'm saying that setting that up as a dichotomy doesn't make sense. Just because one person's account of how people were arranged was wrong doesn't mean the opposing account is right in every detail. Brown could have bent down as Wilson was saying, but done so for the very plausible reason of talking to him, rather than just to immediately assault a cop. After all, isn't that what your standard for what a normal person would be far more common to do in a statistical sense would suggest?


So maybe this is our different experiences leading us to different conclusions.

If we follow Johnson's account and assume Wilson is the aggressor... a normal person would not bend down in the face of an aggressive cop sitting in his vehicle who just slammed the door into them.

If we follow Wilson's account that Brown slammed Wilson back into the car... then we're not dealing with a normal person in the first place, but it might be more believable that Brown bent down either to talk to Wilson or to taunt his inability to get out. Now is it more likely, once we're here, that he'd assault the cop or that the cop would grab him. I could see it going either way, but to get to this point, we've already accepted that, so far, Wilson was being truthful with the encounter description while Johnson wasn't. Of course Wilson COULD have the first part right, then this part wrong to justify his actions and paint himself further as the victim, but I don't think that's any more believable than Brown continuing his aggression (if we've accepted that Brown was aggressive in the first place).

I don't have numbers like "12% of the time when a civilian bends down at a cop's window, the cop grabs him, but only 3% of the time the civilian assaults the cop"... I'm just going with what I think I know about the human psyche, and as I've already pointed out, I tend to think people are "less evil" than they probably really are.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:44 pm UTC

I do think it possible that

a) cop stops brown in the street calls him over
b) brown being stoned leans into the car
c) cop gets nervous takes out gun
d) brown being stoned panics and reacts, hitting the cop and reaching for the gun
e) cop shoots

is a plausible narrative that is kinder to brown

Any cop assaults first narrative is always going to need a stage were ( justified or not ) he attacks an armed cop, which still doesn't bode well for his state of mind.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:58 pm UTC

On Brown being stoned: Yes, the autopsy found MJ in his system. But MJ's halflife is ridiculously long. Single-time users have MJ detection for days after use, while regular users can have MJ detected for months.

So I'll give Brown the benefit of the doubt here, and presume that he was clean.

Besides, aggressive behavior isn't exactly associated with sedative effects of marijuana. (It happens, but it isn't as common as other drugs)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Ormurinn » Thu Dec 04, 2014 5:25 pm UTC

This seems like a pretty good breakdown of physical evidence vs. testimony;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... e-officer/
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:02 pm UTC

mosc wrote:"a normal person" who just robbed a convenience store and has caught the attention of the police? I'm sorry, minor fucking detail. Normal behavior is not relevant.
Even an abnormal person might have reasons to lean down toward a car window other than to assault the armed cop inside the car.

You're allowed to assume Brown leaned down and that's how he could "vicously" assault Wilson, but I'm not allowed to assume he leaned down for any other reason and that put him in reach of Wilson?

I'm not taking Johnson's versions as literal truth, but I'm *also* not taking Wilson's as automatically true. He is after all the actor in this story with by far the most to gain by lying. It's not necessary to posit that Johnson's story was true in every detail in order to nonetheless point out how parts of it could be true.

- - -

Regarding the hand wound, I'll grant that it does suggest Brown was grabbing for the gun when it was fired (were there powder burns on that hand?), but it doesn't get us the order of events. If someone was pointing a gun at me and looked ready to fire you can be damn sure I'd reach for the gun and try to point it away from myself.

Fingerprints elsewhere on the gun might have given additional useful information about whether he grabbed at the gun in order to take it or simply in order to defend himself. (I forget: Was Wilson's story that Brown went for his holstered gun, or that Brown grabbed at his gun only after Wilson himself had already drawn it?)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby mosc » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:12 pm UTC

Stop speculating trying to assume police abuse. It's unwarranted. You have a police officer's sworn testimony and that should mean something on it's own. He didn't rob a convenience store. He was doing his job. There WAS a criminal in this altercation.

There was Brown's DNA found on the gun. There was brown's DNA found on the interior of the driver's side door panel. There was a bullet lodged in the door. There was gunpowder residue on Brown's hand. It's blatantly obvious that Brown's hand was within the police car and was shot while at extremely close range (to quote the ME "less than 6 inches"). It's also rather obvious (unless you think Wilson was trying to hit the lower part of his car door from the driver's seat) that the gun went off in a direction unintended by either party. This is, of course, exactly as described by the officer. He stopped, Brown reached into his car (reason does not matter), the officer was struck in the face with considerable force by brown's hand, there was a struggle for the gun which went off TWICE inside the car, Brown's hand was shot WITHIN the police car that the officer was still inside, and then things went on from there.

The rest of the physical evidence equally supports the officer's sworn testimony as described in the link shown. No factual analysis indicates any reason to suspect the officer of deceit.

EDIT: Or it was all planted evidence made by a bunch of racists who wanted to kill a black kid for no reason... probably the same guys who faked the moon landings, shot JFK from the grassy knoll, and blew up the world trade centers on 9/11.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:23 pm UTC

Racism comes in many forms mosc. Inherent deference to the cops side of the story is racism too. Institutional racism.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:30 pm UTC

To be fair, the police officer's sworn testimony is also Darren Wilson, who is the defendant in the case. I wouldn't trust the defendant's words on its own. Period. Doesn't matter if they're a cop or even a saint. Skepticism against the defendant is a good thing. However, Witness #10, Autopsy, physical evidence (location of blood on the street and inside the car), and more corroborate with Darren Wilson's description of the event. It is because of these facts that I'm trusting Darren Wilson. Not because "he's a cop".

I think gmalivuk's approach is correct here. You can't trust Darren Wilson... simply because he's the defendant in this case.

Regarding the hand wound, I'll grant that it does suggest Brown was grabbing for the gun when it was fired (were there powder burns on that hand?)


Washington Post IIRC reported gunpowder residue inside of the hand-wound (and not in any of the other wounds). I can't seem to find it in the initial autopsy though. (there were other autopsies however).

but it doesn't get us the order of events. If someone was pointing a gun at me and looked ready to fire you can be damn sure I'd reach for the gun and try to point it away from myself.


You can't make up suppositions. You weren't there. I wasn't there. It is neither your nor my place to make up hypotheticals here.

We need to rely on witness testimony. Do you have a witness lined up that states that Mike Brown reached for the gun after it was pointed at him? As a reminder, here's Dorian Johnson's testimony:

And in a minute I heard “I’ll shoot, I’m about to shoot.” And I’m standing so close to Big Mike and the officer that I look in his window and I see that he has his gun pointed at both of us. And when he fired his weapon, I moved seconds before he pulled the trigger. I saw the fire come out the barrel, and I instantly knew that it was a gun. I looked at my friend, Big Mike, and I saw that he was struck in the chest or up region because I saw blood splatter down his side or his right area.

[snip]

The bullet came outside the car and struck him [Big Mike]. He was never inside the car and got struck, he was outside the car when the first shot went off. The officer was inside the car . . . but when he shot the gun, [the] bullet traveled outside his car and struck Big Mike in the chest, or I seen blood coming from [there] (106:7).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby mosc » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:51 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Racism comes in many forms mosc. Inherent deference to the cops side of the story is racism too. Institutional racism.

Racism is differential treatment based on race. Not based on Job. Institutional racism does not mean what you say. This is literally one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on this forum. Police are paid public servants with strict rules, frequently life threatening jobs, and who work frequently with very difficult people most of society does not need to associate with. Police, in general, are heros. In specific they are flawed people who are capable of both great deeds and horrible ones. As a whole, they serve a critical role in our society and the police in the united states are some of the best in the world.

Inherent deference to the cops is both logical and a civic responsibility. It also has nothing to do with race. A lack of deference to the police seems to have some correlation with race, which is sad, but not what I'm talking about at all.

A police officer is an extremely credible witness by virtue of their experience and training. Much more credible than a witness with no law enforcement experience when it comes to law enforcement matters such as what constitutes a threat or a gesture of surrender or similar. They are not infallible and certainly can be shown to be less than credible WITH EVIDENCE but that is not the case here. Being a defendant does not in any way lessen their credibility as a witness. That's not how the law works. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental keystone of the modern justice system.

EDIT: Let me explain more directly what credibility as a witness is about. Dorian Johnson was very recently an accessory in a robbery. That hurts his credibility. Dorian Johnson is the associate of the victim and not impartial. That hurts his credibility. Dorian Johnson's testimony is refuted by physical evidence and other witnesses. That hurts his credibility. He has almost no credibility as a witness. His testimony is not very relevant. Certainly less relevant than a police officer.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:58 pm UTC

mosc wrote:"a normal person" who just robbed a convenience store and has caught the attention of the police? I'm sorry, minor fucking detail. Normal behavior is not relevant.

He didn't catch the cop's attention for the robbery.

It's inherently biased to assume that Brown must be acting irrationally, but that Wilson must be acting rationally. It's fair to assume that both were probably rational, or both irrational, but it is straight up biased to start with, as your default position, that the only options are that the victim was irrational and the killer was rational.

If we follow Johnson's account and assume Wilson is the aggressor... a normal person would not bend down in the face of an aggressive cop sitting in his vehicle who just slammed the door into them.

If we follow Wilson's account that Brown slammed Wilson back into the car... then we're not dealing with a normal person in the first place, but it might be more believable that Brown bent down either to talk to Wilson or to taunt his inability to get out. Now is it more likely, once we're here, that he'd assault the cop or that the cop would grab him. I could see it going either way, but to get to this point, we've already accepted that, so far, Wilson was being truthful with the encounter description while Johnson wasn't. Of course Wilson COULD have the first part right, then this part wrong to justify his actions and paint himself further as the victim, but I don't think that's any more believable than Brown continuing his aggression (if we've accepted that Brown was aggressive in the first place).

...seriously, this doesn't need to be a dichotomy.

It is absolutely, 100%, totally possible that both sides have made mistakes in how they described things. It is absolutely, 100%, totally possible that both sides were acting irrationally, possibly aggressively out of fear.

However, one side used a gun when it absolutely was not warranted. Bullshit that him "being terrified" is justification -- he had a fucking car, and he initiated the confrontation. All he had to do was retreat. Maybe "stand your ground" has merit when you are on foot and not wearing body armor, but we're basically looking at the individual analogy of an astronaut tripping while on the moon, so the earth decides to nuke the whole thing.

I don't have numbers like "12% of the time when a civilian bends down at a cop's window, the cop grabs him, but only 3% of the time the civilian assaults the cop"... I'm just going with what I think I know about the human psyche, and as I've already pointed out, I tend to think people are "less evil" than they probably really are.

So, you are pulling assumptions out of thin air, in order to claim that Wilson would react to his black constituents in a non-confrontational, non-oppressive manner totally at odds with how his current and previous departments have been documented and demonstrated to react to them.

No, the behavior of his fellow cops is certainly not enough to convict him of certainties, but it makes it ridiculous to be harrumphing about what a "normal person would probably do in his situation". Either discuss the facts only, or deal in assumptions that don't require "Ferguson cops don't usually act like Ferguson cops" to be true.

Stop speculating trying to assume police abuse. It's unwarranted. You have a police officer's sworn testimony and that should mean something on it's own. He didn't rob a convenience store. He was doing his job. There WAS a criminal in this altercation.
[/quote]
Funnily enough, not all crimes have the death penalty, and we generally have the policy that police should actually confirm a crime happened before even arresting someone, not just kill first and hope they can find something afterward to taint the victim's character.

If we followed your standard, I'd be able to kill most people on the internet on the reasonable assumption that they've all stolen intellectual property at one point or another. After all, they are criminals, it's not like it matters why I killed them at that point.

A police officer is an extremely credible witness by virtue of their experience and training. Much more credible than a witness with no law enforcement experience when it comes to law enforcement matters such as what constitutes a threat or a gesture of surrender or similar. They are not infallible and certainly can be shown to be less than credible WITH EVIDENCE but that is not the case here. Being a defendant does not in any way lessen their credibility as a witness. That's not how the law works. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental keystone of the modern justice system.

Jeebus, it's like you've never heard of the word corruption, or see the point of internal affairs departments.

What's your thought on that one cop who was raping all the poor, sometimes criminal-historied people that was mentioned earlier? Should he not even be investigated until they can bring up physical evidence?

Being a defendant does not in any way lessen their credibility as a witness.

Bull. It's called a conflict of interest, and it is a fundamental bias from top to bottom in any power structure.

EDIT: Let me explain more directly what credibility as a witness is about. Dorian Johnson was very recently an accessory in a robbery. That hurts his credibility. Dorian Johnson is the associate of the victim and not impartial. That hurts his credibility. Dorian Johnson's testimony is refuted by physical evidence and other witnesses. That hurts his credibility. He has almost no credibility as a witness. His testimony is not very relevant. Certainly less relevant than a police officer.

Wilson was very recently proven to have killed someone. That hurts his credibility. Wilson is the suspect and not impartial. That hurts his credibility. Portions of Wilson's testimony are refuted by physical evidence and other witnesses. That hurts his credibility. He has almost no credibility as a witness. His testimony is not very relevant. Certainly less relevant than someone without a huge, flashing, conflict of interest and record of incompetence.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:22 pm UTC

Dorian Johnson said Brown was hit in the chest, but that could just have been blood from the shot to his hand. He said he'd never entered the car, which could have been true apart from when he reached in to grab and redirect the gun.

Again, I'm not nor would I ever say that Johnson's story is airtight or that any witness testimony is. But it is not particularly more inconsistent with physical evidence than Darren Wilson's whole story, neither is a terribly reliable witness, and Wilson had far more to gain by lying. He also made "mistakes", or intentionally obfuscated the facts, when he washed the blood off his hand and didn't go to the hospital in a timely manner--possibly because he wasn't actually injured as evidenced by his razor burn pictures. That additionally hurts his credibility.

Dorian Johnson and Darren WIlson are the only living people who could have seen what went on in the car. Neither is completely credible, neither tells a story totally consistent with physical evidence and neither agrees with the other on many of the particulars. The decision to trust either story completely, as mosc seems to, is therefore arbitrary and unjustified.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:25 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
sardia wrote:Racism comes in many forms mosc. Inherent deference to the cops side of the story is racism too. Institutional racism.

Racism is differential treatment based on race. Not based on Job. Institutional racism does not mean what you say. This is literally one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on this forum. Police are paid public servants with strict rules, frequently life threatening jobs, and who work frequently with very difficult people most of society does not need to associate with. Police, in general, are heros. In specific they are flawed people who are capable of both great deeds and horrible ones. As a whole, they serve a critical role in our society and the police in the united states are some of the best in the world.

Inherent deference to the cops is both logical and a civic responsibility. It also has nothing to do with race. A lack of deference to the police seems to have some correlation with race, which is sad, but not what I'm talking about at all.

A police officer is an extremely credible witness by virtue of their experience and training. Much more credible than a witness with no law enforcement experience when it comes to law enforcement matters such as what constitutes a threat or a gesture of surrender or similar. They are not infallible and certainly can be shown to be less than credible WITH EVIDENCE but that is not the case here. Being a defendant does not in any way lessen their credibility as a witness. That's not how the law works. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental keystone of the modern justice system.

EDIT: Let me explain more directly what credibility as a witness is about. Dorian Johnson was very recently an accessory in a robbery. That hurts his credibility. Dorian Johnson is the associate of the victim and not impartial. That hurts his credibility. Dorian Johnson's testimony is refuted by physical evidence and other witnesses. That hurts his credibility. He has almost no credibility as a witness. His testimony is not very relevant. Certainly less relevant than a police officer.

I can think of a dumber post. There's this poor sap who has bought into the privileged world of white cops so deeply that he doesn't even recognize the patriotic bullplop he's spouting. Its OK, the civil rights act was made to deal with racists sheeple.

What's next, its OK for cops to seize money until its proven innocent because the cops are so great and trustworthy?

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

To be fair a suspects testimony is very open to question, but so long as its consistent and in line with physical evidence its normally treated as sound. Afterall getting caught out in even one inconsistency destroys a defendents credibility almost completely - which is why cops interogations drive this technique (hence that never talk to police video) as a way to break defenses.

On a side note - that current case does look like manslaughter to me, the police do that overwhelming force thing far too quickly for me - escalating things that don't need escalating. I again though don't see the race element - its seems exactly like the way the british police act in 100% white areas sans the choke hold. The problem I think you have for this one is the elected DA problem generating some horrid conflict of interests particularly in getting the blue wall of silence.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:45 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Or it was all planted evidence made by a bunch of racists who wanted to kill a black kid for no reason... probably the same guys who faked the moon landings, shot JFK from the grassy knoll, and blew up the world trade centers on 9/11.
I see you're a fan of the leady technique of absurdly exaggerating claims no one even made in the first place.

No one to my knowledge at any point in this thread has said anything about anyone planting evidence. Why plant evidence when you can wash away some of it or skip collecting some of it or have someone who isn't a real doctor collect some of it (and skip collecting other of it "because his camera batteries died")? Why tamper with the evidence so it matches your story when you have time to review all the evidence before you even tell your story? Why even worry all that much about how closely your story matches the evidence when you know you've got a sympathetic prosecutor handling you with kid gloves and "failing" to cross-examine you or even ask you in the first place about some of the relevant particulars?

People who are so quick to point out Eric Garner's asthma to explain why he couldn't breathe, or the fact that he was able to say "I can't breathe" to argue that he actually could breathe just fine, are equally quick to take Darren Wilson 100% at his own word when he claims his patches of redness (including the one on his right side, allegedly sustained while he was turning away from Mike Brown's "punches") came from a brutal and "demonic" physical assault on his person.

Whether that inconsistency is because they are too gullible ever to doubt what cops say or because they are too racist ever to trust what black people say, I don't really care. It's completely ignorant and irrational either way.
Last edited by gmalivuk on Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:46 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Dorian Johnson said Brown was hit in the chest, but that could just have been blood from the shot to his hand. He said he'd never entered the car, which could have been true apart from when he reached in to grab and redirect the gun.


Incorrect.

Dorian Johnson:
The bullet came outside the car and struck him [Big Mike]. He was never inside the car and got struck, he was outside the car when the first shot went off.


According to Dorian Johnson's story, Mike Brown was shot when he was outside the vehicle. His testimony is clear.

Again, I'm not nor would I ever say that Johnson's story is airtight or that any witness testimony is. But it is not particularly more inconsistent with physical evidence than Darren Wilson's whole story, neither is a terribly reliable witness, and Wilson had far more to gain by lying. He also made "mistakes", or intentionally obfuscated the facts, when he washed the blood off his hand and didn't go to the hospital in a timely manner--possibly because he wasn't actually injured as evidenced by his razor burn pictures. That additionally hurts his credibility.

Dorian Johnson and Darren WIlson are the only living people who could have seen what went on in the car. Neither is completely credible, neither tells a story totally consistent with physical evidence and neither agrees with the other on many of the particulars. The decision to trust either story completely, as mosc seems to, is therefore arbitrary and unjustified.


I'm not asking for an airtight witness. I'm simply asking that you stop making up hypotheticals in this case. Your hypothetical is neither an argument of Dorian Johnson nor Darren Wilson. It is pure fantasy that no one related to the case is arguing.

That's all that I'm pointing out.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:48 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Your hypothetical is neither an argument of Dorian Johnson nor Darren Wilson.
So there are no reasonable possibilities other than what one of two unreliable witnesses said?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Your hypothetical is neither an argument of Dorian Johnson nor Darren Wilson.
So there are no reasonable possibilities other than what one of two unreliable witnesses said?


Not if you're making a case in the court of law.

The question is why did the Grand Jury fail to indict Darren Wilson.

If the best that the prosecution can come up with is a hypothetical that no witness claimed... then its pretty obvious why the indictment failed. The lawyers in a case are not allowed to make up hypotheticals IIRC, they can only argue what has happened if a witness testifies... and then provide evidence for a witness's testimony. (But IANAL, so someone double-check these facts)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:57 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Why even worry all that much about how closely your story matches the evidence when you know you've got a sympathetic prosecutor handling you with kid gloves and "failing" to cross-examine
There is no cross examination in a Grand Jury. And as far as I have read to this point the only Lawyers in the room are the DA's people.
KrytenKoro wrote:However, one side used a gun when it absolutely was not warranted. Bullshit that him "being terrified" is justification -- he had a fucking car, and he initiated the confrontation. All he had to do was retreat.

That's not what we pay them to do. We pay them to confront people that we don't want to.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Trebla » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:57 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:...seriously, this doesn't need to be a dichotomy.

It is absolutely, 100%, totally possible that both sides have made mistakes in how they described things. It is absolutely, 100%, totally possible that both sides were acting irrationally, possibly aggressively out of fear.


I don't disagree at all, I wasn't trying to paint that as "what happened," so much as explain the Occam's Razor application. Those are the easiest conclusions to draw without making unsupported assumptions. It doesn't make them right. I also don't think that creating assumptions out of thin air is more plausible than using the information available from either witness, despite the inherent bias of both. If neither says "Brown bent down to talk to Wilson" then that seems like a VERY unlikely assumption to make given that there are two accounts of the scene, even accepting that both accounts fail to capture the scene accurately.

However, one side used a gun when it absolutely was not warranted. Bullshit that him "being terrified" is justification -- he had a fucking car, and he initiated the confrontation. All he had to do was retreat. Maybe "stand your ground" has merit when you are on foot and not wearing body armor, but we're basically looking at the individual analogy of an astronaut tripping while on the moon, so the earth decides to nuke the whole thing.


He initiated contact... that's a fair point that may be wrongdoing. It's possible he was harassing Brown because of his race.

He did NOT have a car when he was standing on the street away from the car when he shot. Yeah, there was a car nearby, but it wasn't part of the situation. He did NOT "have a car" that he could use to any extent when they were tussling through the window. Yes, he was in a car, but regardless of who was the aggressor in that contact, the car provided no benefit to him.

He was (allegedly) being charged at by a man that outweighed him by 80 pounds (38%). Did he unreasonably see Brown as more of a threat because of his race? Maybe. But if Brown was indeed charging at him, I don't think you can say "no way he was afraid" with a straight face. Is deadly force warranted when a police officer is under attack? Probably, but I'll defer to those who are more familiar with the law.

No, the behavior of his fellow cops is certainly not enough to convict him of certainties, but it makes it ridiculous to be harrumphing about what a "normal person would probably do in his situation". Either discuss the facts only, or deal in assumptions that don't require "Ferguson cops don't usually act like Ferguson cops" to be true.


Fine, what would a normal Ferguson cop do when an unarmed suspect is fleeing? You're saying more than 50% of them shoot? I'd really like to see your supporting evidence?

A "normal Ferguson cop" may racially profile (that seems to be the prevailing opinion, at least), and that's wrong, and something should be done (though damned if I know what).

Wilson was very recently proven to have killed someone. That hurts his credibility. Wilson is the suspect and not impartial. That hurts his credibility. Portions of Wilson's testimony are refuted by physical evidence and other witnesses. That hurts his credibility. He has almost no credibility as a witness. His testimony is not very relevant. Certainly less relevant than someone without a huge, flashing, conflict of interest and record of incompetence.


Killing someone is not the same as committing a crime. I don't think that hurts his credibility at all... (and technically, was he "proven" to have killed someone? There was nothing to prove since he didn't deny it... nitpicking).

Portions are refuted by physical evidence? Significant portions? There are inconsistencies, nobody's memory is perfect. There's a big difference between "I think I saw him get shot in the chest" when there are no bullet wounds in the chest and "I think he was hitting me with his right hand." That's a BIG difference in how much the testimony lines up with physical evidence. And given how much of his testimony lines up with physical evidence, that ADDS to his credibility.

He's not impartial. That provides conflict of interest and requires additional scrutiny. It doesn't, given other factors, render his testimony irrelevant.

But I'm playing devil's advocate... I don't think we should trust his testimony any further than it can be positively correlated with physical evidence regardless of how credible he may be only because he's not impartial. However, it appears to be very positively correlated with physical evidence.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, you're upset because you feel Wilson was patronized?

Please.

Do I look like gmalivuk to you? I'm stating the prosecutor messed up by asking to indict without a solid case. Then he messed up again by implying the cop was innocent. This is defined by pussyfooting around and not vigorously calling out a cop dumb enough to testify without a judge or defense attorney present. And then presenting a muddled case ' fir the jury to figure out' . prosecutors dont do this for anyone else. The alternative is the prosecutor conspired with Wilson that he would have an easy time if he testified.

I'm also calling your libertarianism into question when you give officers this level of deference.


Have I said Wilson should have deference due to his status as an officer? Actually, have I said he should have ANYTHING different due to his status as an officer?

I merely do not believe that "poor Wilson" is a reasonable complaint about this indiction. I am certain that the Wilson camp is in fact quite happy with this outcome, and framing this as "insulting for both sides" is...cmon.

I also don't see any confusion of you with gmalivuk. I do not think he is attempting a "this is unfair to both sides" argument.
yes you have. You explicitly said that you expect cops to exercise reasonable discretion as to who they deem a threat. This is implicit support of the status quo where minorities are killed at disproportionately higher rates. The statistical evidence shows you can't rely on the cops to be fair. That's you giving deference to cops when they need to be held to a higher standard and use stricter guidelines in the use of force.


I expect them to. I am not claiming that they meet this standard 100% of the time. Obviously. I expect EVERYONE to exercise reasonable discretion in determining a threat before pulling the trigger. This is not a strange, unfair, or high bar.

And using the same standard for everyone is not giving deference to cops.

KnightExemplar wrote:On Brown being stoned: Yes, the autopsy found MJ in his system. But MJ's halflife is ridiculously long. Single-time users have MJ detection for days after use, while regular users can have MJ detected for months.

So I'll give Brown the benefit of the doubt here, and presume that he was clean.

Besides, aggressive behavior isn't exactly associated with sedative effects of marijuana. (It happens, but it isn't as common as other drugs)


At a minimum, it'd be very weak evidence indeed. I honestly wouldn't bother to factor it in. Marijuana use at or around the time does not seem indicated or relevant to either narrative, so it's presence seems relatively unimportant.

gmalivuk wrote:Regarding the hand wound, I'll grant that it does suggest Brown was grabbing for the gun when it was fired (were there powder burns on that hand?), but it doesn't get us the order of events. If someone was pointing a gun at me and looked ready to fire you can be damn sure I'd reach for the gun and try to point it away from myself.


That is not a good idea, for obvious reasons. If the cop has a gun pointed at you, going for his gun is really, really dumb, and will usually result in a shooting, as you are presenting a credible threat. Grabbing for a cop's gun, even if to point it somewhere, is NOT a reasonable thing to do.

mosc wrote:
sardia wrote:Racism comes in many forms mosc. Inherent deference to the cops side of the story is racism too. Institutional racism.

Racism is differential treatment based on race. Not based on Job. Institutional racism does not mean what you say. This is literally one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on this forum. Police are paid public servants with strict rules, frequently life threatening jobs, and who work frequently with very difficult people most of society does not need to associate with. Police, in general, are heros. In specific they are flawed people who are capable of both great deeds and horrible ones. As a whole, they serve a critical role in our society and the police in the united states are some of the best in the world.


While you are entirely correct that race and job are different indeed, and the appellation of racist is not a good description for those who give the police or any other profession a special status. However, I do not think we should give one person's testimony about a case in which he is directly involved special status due to his profession.

While I *am* inclined to believe that he was grabbing for the gun when shot, this is solely due to physical evidence. Testimony, without that...cmon. The motivation to lie here is huge. Testimony from people with potentially huge incentives to lie should be suspect.

KrytenKoro wrote:However, one side used a gun when it absolutely was not warranted. Bullshit that him "being terrified" is justification -- he had a fucking car, and he initiated the confrontation. All he had to do was retreat. Maybe "stand your ground" has merit when you are on foot and not wearing body armor, but we're basically looking at the individual analogy of an astronaut tripping while on the moon, so the earth decides to nuke the whole thing.


How the shit is body armor relevant? Body armor does precisely crap-all against getting punched in the face.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:48 pm UTC

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force
In 1985 police required probable cause before exercising deadly force, then in 1989, it was expanded to objective reasonableness of an officer.
"Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others
The severity of the crime
Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest
Whether the suspect is a flight risk or attempting to escape custody"
Note how there's nothing that restricts a racists cop from calling out every minority as a danger and gunning them down. Just like how civil war states have a history of racism had to get approval before implementing racists laws, cops should do the same. The statistics show the institution is racist, so they need to be held to a hire standard. You're saying, ' I'm OK with the standard we have now so long as its reasonable to me, whitey mcwhiteguy '. That's why you are unnecessarily deferring to the cops.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:04 pm UTC

Statistically then these cronically racist cops are remarkably restrained generally given opportunity vs outcome stats by seveal orders of magnitude

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:11 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Your hypothetical is neither an argument of Dorian Johnson nor Darren Wilson.
So there are no reasonable possibilities other than what one of two unreliable witnesses said?


Not if you're making a case in the court of law.

The question is why did the Grand Jury fail to indict Darren Wilson.

If the best that the prosecution can come up with is a hypothetical that no witness claimed... then its pretty obvious why the indictment failed.

No, it perhaps would be obvious why an indictment failed if the only thing that happened that day had been an altercation at the police car, but what happened there isn't the main issue, it's just what some of you are using to justify Darren Wilson's subsequent homicidal actions.

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Why even worry all that much about how closely your story matches the evidence when you know you've got a sympathetic prosecutor handling you with kid gloves and "failing" to cross-examine
There is no cross examination in a Grand Jury. And as far as I have read to this point the only Lawyers in the room are the DA's people.
Not exactly cross examination the way it happens in a criminal case, but I mean asking any tough questions at all when the witness (who in this case was the defendant) gives incomplete or inconsistent accounts of some of the details.

Tyndmyr wrote:Grabbing for a cop's gun, even if to point it somewhere, is NOT a reasonable thing to do.
So now we're to assume Mike Brown was only doing completely rational, thought-out things?

This is the same totally reasonable Mike Brown who, in your alternative version of events, completely rationally attacked an armed cop through the window of his car and who was completely rationally trying to steal the cop's gun so he could use it against him?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:16 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Your hypothetical is neither an argument of Dorian Johnson nor Darren Wilson.
So there are no reasonable possibilities other than what one of two unreliable witnesses said?


Not if you're making a case in the court of law.

The question is why did the Grand Jury fail to indict Darren Wilson.

If the best that the prosecution can come up with is a hypothetical that no witness claimed... then its pretty obvious why the indictment failed.

No, it perhaps would be obvious why an indictment failed if the only thing that happened that day had been an altercation at the police car, but what happened there isn't the main issue, it's just what some of you are using to justify Darren Wilson's subsequent homicidal actions.


Fair point. We can move onto that issue if you'd like. There's a lot of ground to cover.

My point of view is mostly based on Witness #10. Witness #10 independently confirms Darren Wilson's point of view. The blood stains on the ground indicate that Michael Brown was running towards Darren Wilson while he was getting shot. And the autopsy also confirms based on the angles of the entry wounds. I'll provide citations / details later... but this is going to be the gist of my argument.

All gunshot wounds are to the front of Michael Brown's body... which provides strong evidence towards Darren Wilson's testimony. Not only does Witness #10 claim Michael Brown charged at Wilson... but #30 as well. Both include some key details that are extremely similar to Darren Wilson's testimony (although there's reason to disbelieve #30... but it is evidence nonetheless). All Witnesses saw Mike Brown running away from the car at some point... which means Mike Brown turned back around and faced Darren Wilson before getting shot.

There are numerous witnesses who claim Brown was shot in the back. Because this disagrees with the autopsy (again: all entry wounds are in the front of Brown), I generally ignore mark each single witness as unreliable if they make this mistake.

IE: Dorian Johnson claims that Mike Brown was shot in the back at this time. Dorian Johnson isn't the only witness to make this mistake however.

With witness testimony, the location of the blood on the ground... I think I can prove that Mike Brown turned around and attempted to attack Darren Wilson while his gun was drawn. The date of Witness #10's interview is 8/11, 11:39am. Its one of the earliest interviews, so I feel it is a strong reliable witness.

But before explaining those details...I'd like to know what your argument is, and what evidence will you cite. We'll of course twerk our arguments as we go back and forth... but I'd like to know what your starting argument is at least before going into more details of my perspective. Above is just the sketch of my argument so you can prepare accordingly.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26820
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:29 pm UTC

I'm not interested enough in that argument to go digging through all of everyone's testimony.

My position has always been that there is enough conflict and inconsistency between witnesses to warrant an indictment. Toward that end I pointed out that it isn't justified to lead with, "Well obviously Mike Brown was the initial aggressor and obviously Brown punched Wilson repeatedly before going for his gun," because those things aren't obvious.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:34 pm UTC

leady wrote:Statistically then these cronically racist cops are remarkably restrained generally given opportunity vs outcome stats by seveal orders of magnitude

Chronically racists cops who aren't genocidal are still racists. Also your baseline comparisons are so bad that it could be considered a joke.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:39 pm UTC

There's a lot of inconsistency between witnesses. I'll grant you that. Each one is basically telling a different story. I've only gone through ~10 statements personally, but they're all saying different things at different points.

However, there are two witnesses that describe the moment of death as thus:

1. Darren Wilson yelled at Mike Brown to get down.
2. Instead, Mike Brown charged Darren Wilson.
3. Darren Wilson takes shots, but only while Mike Brown was running at him.
4. Mike Brown pauses after getting shot a few times. Darren Wilson stops firing.
5. Mike Brown resumes charging at Darren Wilson and then gets shot in the head.

Witness #10 and Witness #30 describe the "run - stop - run" moment. Which is a major detail that connects the three stories together. (the 3rd being Darren Wilson's testimony).

There are numerous witnesses describing "Hands Up, don't shoot" for example. Some also say he was shot in the back. Some say he was shot while kneeling. Again, all the witnesses are basically saying different things. But then all of a sudden, two witnesses converge upon the same story independently, and this converged story also happens to match up with Darren Wilson's point of view.

If that wasn't enough, the blood on the street and autopsy confirms this story. So there's physical evidence for this.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby leady » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
leady wrote:Statistically then these cronically racist cops are remarkably restrained generally given opportunity vs outcome stats by seveal orders of magnitude

Chronically racists cops who aren't genocidal are still racists. Also your baseline comparisons are so bad that it could be considered a joke.


So we agree then that chronically racist genocidal cops are so are rare as to be useless in this case as any sort of comparison for predicting behaviour in the absence of any evidence - good

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:48 pm UTC

He was (allegedly) being charged at by a man that outweighed him by 80 pounds (38%). Did he unreasonably see Brown as more of a threat because of his race? Maybe. But if Brown was indeed charging at him, I don't think you can say "no way he was afraid" with a straight face. Is deadly force warranted when a police officer is under attack? Probably, but I'll defer to those who are more familiar with the law.

At no point did I say he was lying about being afraid.

I'm saying he was criminally irresponsible to let that lead him to firing on an unarmed suspect. Why wasn't there more emphasis on warning Brown that he had a weapon, and ordering him to stand down? Why didn't he just retreat to his car? Why is "I could be in danger here, if I assume a racist narrative" enough to kill someone?

Honestly, I'm not even adamant about claiming that Brown definitely wasn't being aggressive -- I just want more than Wilson's say-so on that. Whether or not Brown was being aggressive, Wilson was incompetent as a policeman in following standard protocol before, during, and after the shooting, and was mortally irresponsible with his weapon.

He did NOT "have a car" that he could use to any extent when they were tussling through the window.

What, did Brown take the keys? Wilson couldn't have just slammed on the gas? Why, accepting that he was "afraid", was it more responsible to get out of his car instead of waiting for backup?

Fine, what would a normal Ferguson cop do when an unarmed suspect is fleeing? You're saying more than 50% of them shoot? I'd really like to see your supporting evidence?

How about when an unarmed protestor is protesting peacefully and demonstrably not breaking any laws?

In that case, they use tear gas, threaten to shoot "all you animals", etc.

If you want the full list, go read the wikipedia article. My point being -- the assumption that the Ferguson cop would do what is reasonable and treat a fleeing, minority suspect in a non-aggressive, non-escalating manner seems to have little basis in fact.

Killing someone is not the same as committing a crime. I don't think that hurts his credibility at all... (and technically, was he "proven" to have killed someone? There was nothing to prove since he didn't deny it... nitpicking).

I think it hurts your credibility a ton, not least from the emotional trauma it often causes. Even if you were completely justified and acting in self-defense...well, there's a reason we sometimes say people were "shaken" by what they've done.

Portions are refuted by physical evidence? Significant portions? There are inconsistencies, nobody's memory is perfect. There's a big difference between "I think I saw him get shot in the chest" when there are no bullet wounds in the chest and "I think he was hitting me with his right hand." That's a BIG difference in how much the testimony lines up with physical evidence. And given how much of his testimony lines up with physical evidence, that ADDS to his credibility.

Still doesn't need to be treated as a dichotomy. It's very easily possible for both Johnson and WIlson to have given inaccurate testimony.

He's not impartial. That provides conflict of interest and requires additional scrutiny. It doesn't, given other factors, render his testimony irrelevant.

Seriously, I was mimicking mosc's post to illustrate its absurdity.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10328
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:51 pm UTC

leady wrote:
sardia wrote:
leady wrote:Statistically then these cronically racist cops are remarkably restrained generally given opportunity vs outcome stats by seveal orders of magnitude

Chronically racists cops who aren't genocidal are still racists. Also your baseline comparisons are so bad that it could be considered a joke.


So we agree then that chronically racist genocidal cops are so are rare as to be useless in this case as any sort of comparison for predicting behaviour in the absence of any evidence - good

Nope.
We do not have agreement.

There are many factors at play in the US today.
Those factors have a product in Uniform in the US.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:57 pm UTC

leady wrote:
sardia wrote:
leady wrote:Statistically then these cronically racist cops are remarkably restrained generally given opportunity vs outcome stats by seveal orders of magnitude

Chronically racists cops who aren't genocidal are still racists. Also your baseline comparisons are so bad that it could be considered a joke.


So we agree then that chronically racist genocidal cops are so are rare as to be useless in this case as any sort of comparison for predicting behaviour in the absence of any evidence - good

I'm afraid you don't realize that racist cops still kill abnormal number of minorities. Congrats, our cops have progressed past civil war and barely left Jim crow behind. I would say we agree but that would require you to stop the trolling.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests