the Michael Brown thread
- Thread starter 2clicker
- Start date
Caligula
Maximus
That's a very nice proverb. Theres already a thread for those though.
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
Nice use of sarcasm bro...I don't think it has anything to do with cost. My point is, that MOST police departments would in fact fight tooth and nail not to use these devices. You said " almost ANY PD would be willing to accept in use these cameras; yet you provide only a couple examples of departments who actually want to at least test these devices. My point was that MOST Police departments would not want to use these cameras for the reasons I've stated in my previous post. Of course, this is pure speculation on my part.
BTW, there are 301,088 law enforcement agencies in metropolitan areas throughout the United States.
Last edited:
2clicker
Observer
oh boy... i figured showing police officers refusing to wear them was what we were talking about. i didnt realize it had to say dept in it or have a specific # of officers involved to prove cops will fight this. that was about two mins of searching, but i digress...
ill look for more later, but until then i am going to step back and test my new INH05 that just arrived!
grokit
well-worn member
If you're speaking to my statement above yours, thanks
I googled it, and nobody's ever said it before me
or it would be on the internets.If you put it there I'd be flattered, but I'm not going to quote myself in the quotes thread!
Here's a couple of very interesting perspectives, one by a black ex-cop that's been there done that, and one by a former nypd police commissioner. Not in the msm yet but close, and at least not in a foreign paper:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1315081/-A-Cops-take-on-Ferguson?deatil=facebook
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/ray-kelly-ferguson_n_5691739.html
I haven't read the second one yet (it was referred to at the end of the first),
but I thought the first article was well-written.
Last edited:
Caligula
Maximus
Never said you did, but I'm actually responding to multiple posts by multiple people. Cost was brought up at some point, which is why I referenced it.
Before anyone starts claiming hypocrisy, I should point out that I said "I have no doubt in my mind most police departments would use said devices if provided to them free of charge". I'm obviously paraphrasing, but I don't type words for no reason. "I have no doubt in my mind" was there in the front of that sentence for a reason... it's the same reason why I included "almost" in front of "any". I understand that this may have been misinterpreted, however the intent was to denote this being a belief and not a declaration of facts.
What I did was provide 13 different, hand selected examples for you. I actually went through a bit of reading and effort to get a good cross section here. These citations were selected due to the diversity of the locations of the Police Departments, as well as when these policies were adopted. I was attempting to show a variety of examples which showcased both large and small police forces as well as PDs that adopted this technology well before the whole MB thing. I suppose I could keep putting up URLs for you though.
Regardless, if you were to add up the personnel on each of the police departments I used an examples, you will easily reach the 5 digit range which is actually statistically significant.
caligula said:
Guy, you showed me 12 people who didn't want to wear cameras. I can find 12 people in my office building right now that don't want to wear these RFID name tags. Doesn't mean that's in any way representative of the 2500 people working in here at any given time. Its a statistically insignificant amount of people when were talking about tens of thousands of police departments and hundreds of thousands of individuals. Actually scratch that, I was talking about Police Departments as organizational entities. Not even the individuals there in.
edited to correct verbiage.
Last edited:
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, it's speculation for both our arguments . You say, you believe almost any police department would be willing to use these cameras, while I believe most police departments would not unless forced to do so. So, let's just agree to disagree
...And please don't send me 300,000 URLs that would be way too much work....
Last edited by a moderator:
Caligula
Maximus
Wouldn't need to. From my recent research, almost every major metropolitan I looked into either already has cameras or are in the process of getting them, or at the very least are talking about getting them. It wouldnt take too much effort to tally enough large police forces together (after verifying they are or will be using cameras) to meet the threshold required to create an accurate statistical projection. A projection, that I assume, only needs to meet half of the total number of active duty police (another number easily accessible).
While it would take a while, it would be relatively easy to do.
Of course if you are talking about total police organizations and not individuals, I couldn't really help. In fact given how many small, underfunded police, sheriff, marshal, etc... departments there are in this country I'm more than certain less than half can even afford these cameras let alone already have them or plans to get them.
Doesn't mean they all need them either.
Anyway, here's some relevant factual information everyone can use. Information was taken from cnn.com:
Here are a few things to know about how the grand jury system should work as it pertains to this case and others in Missouri -
Is the grand jury the only way that a person can be charged with a crime?
No. In fact, it's not the way most people are charged with crimes. It's used by prosecutors only in a small percentage of cases.
Authorities can file a criminal complaint, which could then lead to a probable cause hearing in court. Such a proceeding is open to the public and media.
That's not the case with a grand jury proceeding.
So it's closed to the public?
Yes.
How is a grand jury picked?
Just like any other jury. Citizens get a summons in the mail telling them to come to court. If they make the cut, they are on a grand jury.
In this case, the jurors will come from St. Louis County, Missouri.
How many people are on a grand jury?
In Missouri, it's 12 people. (The number might be different in other cases.)
So what are the grand jurors deciding?
According to the Missouri state attorney general's office, a grand jury is looking at two things. One, was a crime committed? Two, is there probable cause that the accused -- in this case Officer Darren Wilson -- committed the crime.
It is very significant that this is a lower standard than for a criminal trial. In that case, jurors must decide if someone is guilty of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." "Probable cause" isn't as stringent.
Does their decision have to be unanimous for a charge to be filed?
No. It's true that, in a criminal trial, all jurors must agree to convict someone on a given charge. But in Missouri only nine jurors -- or three-fourths of the grand jury -- have to agree.
Is the process overseen by a judge?
No. As Neil Bruntrager, a criminal defense lawyer and general counsel for the St. Louis Police Officer Association explains, it's just the grand jurors, the prosecutors and the witnesses. That means no judge or defense lawyers.
"The prosecutor simply presents the information that they have," Bruntrager explains.
Does that mean the accused can't present a defense?
Yes and no.
First off, unlike during a regular trial, defense lawyers can't rebut the prosecution or cross-examine a witness. It's the prosecutors who present their case, without interruption.
That doesn't mean that the voice of the accused isn't heard. As the attorney general notes, "defendants do not attend unless they are testifying as witnesses." Since Darren Wilson witnessed what happened on August 9 as much, if not better, than anyone else alive, he might be invited to testify in court.
"Usually an accused will not be invited to testify," Bruntrager told CNN. "But I would expect, in a case like this, that an invitation would be extended to him."
What will the prosecution present to the grand jury?
In a word, everything.
Just take McCulloch's word for it, according to the Wall Street Journal: "Absolutely everything will be presented to the grand jury. Every scrap of paper that we have. Every photograph that was taken."
Will McCulloch himself present the case?
Ed Magee, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the prosecution will be "handled by the attorney regularly assigned to the grand jury. It will not be by Mr. McCulloch."
So how long will this process take?
A grand jury could indict some one as early as tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it's going to happen that fast. In fact, it could be weeks or months.
After all, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department -- conducting a parallel federal civil rights investigation into this case -- has interviewed hundreds of potential witnesses. There's no reason to believe local authorities haven't similarly conducted lots of interviews and collected various pieces of evidence to sort through and present to the grand jury.
Doing so should take some time.
Last edited:
Madcap79
Jack of all trades, master of none.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-rethinks-giving-excess-military-gear-to-police/
Maybe there's some hope.
Maybe there's some hope.
olivianewtonjohn
Well-Known Member
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
Not surprised, just fed up with it.
aesthyrian
Blaaaaah
So are people getting thrown in jail for simple cannabis possession.
Some people aren't so easily obedient to the unjust and demand a change.
grokit
well-worn member
One small point; this kind of oppression has traditionally been mostly along lines of color, but it's evolving into more of a class war. As we continue to evolve into a "post-racial america" (bs but the media says so), I think that this dynamic will continue to subtly change. We're really messing up the lives of the homeless when we should be providing shelter for them, and ferguson could even be part of some kind of urban renewal/gentrification program with the agenda of replacing a low-income community with a more profitable one (at least to the moneyed players like the asshole in charge of the schools in mb's "educational district").
Last edited:
Caligula
Maximus
This is an interesting proposal. Can you elaborate?
Citation? Or are you being facetious?
grokit
well-worn member
He's not only from texas, but he has a missouri hunting license so I guess he's good to go
It's a tired storyline, featured in many tv shows and movies. The dude running the school district into the ground isn't even an educator, he's a casino owner so he fits the evil r/e developer role perfectly.
Last edited:
Caligula
Maximus
Well look at that! And he didn't even have to shoot him.
2clicker
Observer
my thoughts as well. the writing is on the wall. literally
Madcap79
Jack of all trades, master of none.
Interesting piece on the leftist HuffPo.
21 Numbers That Will Help You Understand Why Ferguson Is About More Than Michael Brown
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-black-america_n_5694364.html
21 Numbers That Will Help You Understand Why Ferguson Is About More Than Michael Brown
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-black-america_n_5694364.html
2clicker
Observer
thats a good one.
did you see st louis countys yearly budget?
certainly cameras can be obtained.
Magic9
Plant Enthusiast
I wonder how many STL cops are part of this Oath Keeper group?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/dan-page-st-louis-police-officer_n_5702000.html
Plus a very blank copy of the police report obtained by the ACLU
http://www.aclu-mo.org/files/4314/0871/7727/Ferguson_Police_incident_report.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/dan-page-st-louis-police-officer_n_5702000.html
Plus a very blank copy of the police report obtained by the ACLU
http://www.aclu-mo.org/files/4314/0871/7727/Ferguson_Police_incident_report.pdf