Dashcam/incar video
Will be conveniently lacking in this case, of course.
Anonymous threatens to name cop who shot dead unarmed Michael Brown
A group claiming to be affiliated with hacktivist collective Anonymous has threatened to release the name of the police officer who shot unarmed teen Michael Brown in the town of Ferguson, Missouri. Operation Ferguson says it is a group of hackers linked to Anonymous. It was set up a day after the 18-year-old black man was …
-
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 19:06 GMT Eric Olson
Re: Dashcam/incar video
It was already noted by the police department that the in-car dash cam did not have a view of the struggle as it occurred behind the wheel and to the side. And while the police department had purchased the vest-mounted video cameras for cops to wear, they hadn't gotten around to installing them yet.
I guess it was this cop's last chance to shoot some kid (struggle or not) before there would be video evidence to put him on the other side of the bars.
It just so happens that this is the same town that had a blow-up when the white school board dismissed the black superintendent without any kind of due process or evidence of the charges levied against him. The town has changed in the last decade from being majority white to majority black, but the powers that be are still all-white. And the US Justice Department was already investigating the police department on unrelated issues dealing with race.
-
-
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:24 GMT Stuart 39
Re: "they would release the name of the daughter of St Louis County’s police chief"
Err, am I being a little thick, or am I missing the point.
Surely if the woman's father is known, it isn't a mad jump to identify his daugher? Isn't such stuff just common knowledge ?
Or is it the case that all offspring of high ranking officials have to now have a new secret identity ?
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 17:07 GMT Stevie
Re:Isn't such stuff just common knowledge ?
Incoming clue missile: It's about not putting public focus on someone for the benefit of those too ... let's say "busy" ... to do that work, and to not do so to someone who is entirely unconnected to the affair.
And by Jove lets hope that whoever is named in this jolly little demonstration of the rule of the mob in action is actually the one to blame.
Though "anonymous" will be safe in any event because, well, no-one is threatening to name any of them.
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 20:04 GMT Midnight
Re: "they would release the name of the daughter of St Louis County’s police chief"
They're not threatening to say "We know the name of the police chief's name and it's Suzy Derkins!"
They're threatening to say "We know the name of the police officer who shot an unarmed man six times in the back and it's Suzy Derkins!"
It's the kind of stunt that anyone with half a brain could see through, but the audience is already an angry mob which is sadly lacking in a competent research assistant.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 15:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
"the global collective was outraged at the events in Ferguson and demanded new legislation setting strict guidelines for police conduct in the US."
So let me get this right.... A group of bored teenage virgins have caught some news extract while channel hopping between StarTrek and Playboy telly, and are now making demands of the USA?
Forgive me if at this point I don't start holding my breath or shittin' me britches.
Now, were these radicals actually radical, or intelligent, they might consider waiting for due process to take its course before deciding the police are guilty and the dead guy is innocent, and that they have some right to name and shame the officer involved. It very well might be the case, but thankfully there's a judge and a jury before we determine that, not just an angry asshat with a keyboard.
Anonymous because I can't be arsed fending off of whiney mob of wannabe's online for the next decade.
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:11 GMT Psyx
"Now, were these radicals actually radical, or intelligent, they might consider waiting for due process to take its course before deciding the police are guilty and the dead guy is innocent"
Putting the name of a suspect in the public domain long before court proceedings start is something common in the media. We all get to find out what celebrities are under investigation for long before they are found guilty (or not). While I don't agree that names should be dragged through the mud prior to evidence being presented, what is good for the goose is good for the gander: Police officers should be subject to trial by media in the same way that you or I would be.
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
"While I don't agree that names should be dragged through the mud prior to evidence being presented, what is good for the goose is good for the gander: Police officers should be subject to trial by media in the same way that you or I would be."
We'd also be offered police protection from an angry mob. How do you envisage that working in this instance?
I don't disagree with you by the way, but I find the whole anonymous making demands thing purile, repulsive, and deserving of stomping into the dirt. I'm not sure who they think they are that they feel entitled to make demands.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 08:50 GMT Psyx
"We'd also be offered police protection from an angry mob. How do you envisage that working in this instance?"
I would imagine that should his name be released, he would be given a safe house and police protection. Cynically, he'd probably get better protection than you or I would, too.
"I don't disagree with you by the way, but I find the whole anonymous making demands thing purile, repulsive, and deserving of stomping into the dirt. I'm not sure who they think they are that they feel entitled to make demands."
I don't entirely disagree. I don't approve the methods but they are essentially doing what the media would be doing (and earning money from doing it) were this a member of the public under investigation for -say- child abuse. Trial by media and mob justice are not good things.
-
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 20:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
> We all get to find out what celebrities are under investigation for long before they are found guilty (or not).
You get to find out what celebrities have been arrested or had a warrant of some form issued against them as that is a matter of public record. You rarely hear that one of them is under investigation.
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 20:36 GMT Don Jefe
The original AC is correct, the case absolutely must go through the system in accordance with the law. Any debate about vigilante justice cannot even begin until the case has been heard and ruled on by the court. After, but only after, the court has dealt with the case those who might be inclined to administer their view of Justice, as they see it, can make those decisions then. But to do so prior to the hearing is wrong on every single level of society. No different than shooting an unarmed man trying to surrender. It is wrong and cannot in any way be justified.
That being said, as far as I'm concerned the public has every right to know the name of the shooter. In fact, I can't think of a single better example of 'in the public interest' than knowing which of the public protectors is going around shooting people. If (celebrity) shot someone the police sure as fuck wouldn't be doing anything to keep the shooters identity secret. The police are simply being lazy twats and not wanting to do their job. A job which would include protecting people who might be endangered by others.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 02:57 GMT Eric Olson
I think this is one of the few times I've agreed with you, Don. The public interest is served by knowing the name of the shooter. That or the police need to be forbidden from leaking names, addresses, shoe size, and everything else they typically "leak" when pursing a suspect, person of interest, or witness who isn't hiding behind a badge. Cops don't get special treatment because they are cops. If they commit a possible crime, even if on-duty, such information should be publicized. In fact, it should be the first thing they do: "Office Bob was involved in a situation today that left a citizen dead. As it's one of our own, the investigation is being turned over to <insert non-city police department or sheriff's office here> to ensure that Office Bob acted within accordance of the law rather than acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer."
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 15:58 GMT Don Jefe
Re: @ Tom 13
That has been official policy since the 1960's (in most States), but that hasn't stopped untold numbers of law enforcement personnel from 'leaking' information. In this case, the police are choosing to bestow special treatment on another officer. That in itself is a major failing in law enforcement in general and only compounded by the paramilitary mentality mindset, actions and mindset of modern law enforcement.
If the police 'leak' details of an accused celebrity/famous person and that person gets lynched 'too bad, but cops are underpaid and that $250 from the reporter really helped out buying school supplies'. Fuck that. The police should treat themselves the same as they treat others. This is nothing but police rallying together so they can shoot somebody too. Fuck 'em. If they're judged responsible enough to carry a gun then they should be held accountable for what they do with that gun and held accountable in the public eye, like they so love to do to the people they arrest.
-
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 08:52 GMT Psyx
"You get to find out what celebrities have been arrested or had a warrant of some form issued against them as that is a matter of public record. You rarely hear that one of them is under investigation."
True that.
But if you or I shot someone dead, we would not *be* under mere investigation. We would be arrested and questioned, with full charges pending.
The Officer is being extended a luxury that the public would not have.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 09:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
> But if you or I shot someone dead, we would not *be* under mere investigation. We would be arrested and questioned, with full charges pending.
Yes it is standard practise that if a member of the public shoots somebody in ambiguous circumstances they are arrested (shoot a mugger, bank robber etc. and you are unlikely to be arrested).
It is also standard practise that if a police officer shoots somebody they are put on restricted duties whilst an investigation takes place. To do anything else (such as arrest him) would prejudge any investigation.
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 12:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: well and maybe
You did not read what I said.
I said it is standard practise to put the officer on restricted duties, not to suspend him.
In the US it is not standard practise to arrest all citizens who shoot somebody (it differs from state to state). A member of the public shooting somebody who is committing a crime (whether the offender is armed or not) is not always immediately arrested. The arrest usually comes after the investigation and only if they have Probable Cause.
-
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 14:15 GMT Tom 13
Re: The Officer is being extended a luxury
No he isn't. You or I are not expected in the normal course of our jobs to confront situations in which we need to use lethal force to subdue someone. The police have procedures for dealing with such incidents and we do not routinely read their names when they shoot someone.
-
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 13:54 GMT Tom 13
Re: Putting the name of a suspect in the public domain
The names of suspects are only put in the public domain when there is little anticipation of a lynch mob attacking the suspect before a trial is held. That is not the current atmosphere in Missouri, nor even here on the pages of El Reg where the police officer has already been assumed to be guilty. Even within this article there is no mention of the police chief's remarks that the face of the officer involved in the shooting was severely bruised as a result of his encounter with the so called harmless and surrendering victim.
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 16:15 GMT James Micallef
"waiting for due process", as has been repeatedly shown in the cases of Rodney King, Trayvon Martin etc, will go something like this:
Investigation* will find 2 different versions, that of police and that of witnesses. Any evidence that corraborates any version different from police's will disappear. Investigation will conclude that the officer involved acted within procedure, investigators are saddened by a tragic, avoidable accident that no doubt happened because of the victim's actions (no doubt implying in hidden subtext that it was his fault anyway)
Sadly, for all the due processes in the world, the police will protect their own. If this was a civilian suspected of shooting a policeman no doubt that his name would have been splashed all over the papers together with various leaks and anonymous 'sources' dishing dirt on him. The police are probably right to withhold the officers' name for the moment, for the sake of his and his family's safety to prevent a lynch mob. And Anonymous are right to firstly be 100% sure of any name, and secondly to keep the name to themselves FOR THE MOMENT.
If it looks like the investigation is going to end in a whitewash they should release the name immediately
*No doubt formed of all-white or majority-white team headed by a white boss reporting to white superiors
-
-
Wednesday 13th August 2014 23:56 GMT Mark 85
Actually, you're right Jullen1.
Well let's face it a call a freakin' shovel a shovel, shall we. If the dead guy were white, would there be publicity? If the cop and dead guy were both black, would there be all this publicity? There are somethings in this world that the media feeds on. White guy kills a black kid is one of them. Black guy kills a white kid, not so much. White kills white or black kills black.... often ignored.
So, I think the term "racist" needs to be banned from media. Perhaps any mention of race should be banned as well.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 08:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
"I think the term "racist" needs to be banned from media."
It neeeds to be banned everywhere, either that or misused of the race-card needs to be made into a very serious criminal offence attracting a lot of jail time. Calling someone a racist is worse than calling them a n***** or other race based slander, because it implies prejudice against all races other than their own, rather than the former which implies prejudice against one race only. Word starred out because people that use it perjoratively are c****.
Positive discrimination is just racism, sexism, and ageism dressed up in a thin vaneer for the intellectually and emotionally challenged.
-
-
-
-
Friday 15th August 2014 07:29 GMT deadlockvictim
spelling
AC» Really? You are a moron.
Sir (or possibly Madam *)
If you are going to call people morons, would you at least misspell it properly please?
There should be an 'a' in there somewhere.
Kind regards
* Is there an accepted greeting for asexuals, other-sexuals as well as the other combinations of sex that have recently come to light?
-
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 09:27 GMT James Micallef
"You do realise that's incredibly racist, right?"
Just pointing out facts here. Is it racist to point out that the %age of people in US prisons who are black is many many times higher than the percentage of the US population who are black? Is it racist to point out that according to one article I saw, the town where the shooting occurred, which is majority black, has 80-odd police officers of whom 3 are black?
I don't think it's racist, any more than I think it's racist to point out that the reality in the US is that among public officials, and especially among law enforcement officials, black people are heavily under-represented.
"If you turned it around and put "black" in there..."
That's a straw man if I ever saw one, and BS to boot.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 09:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
> Just pointing out facts here. Is it racist to point out that the %age of people in US prisons who are black is many many times higher than the percentage of the US population who are black? Is it racist to point out that according to one article I saw, the town where the shooting occurred, which is majority black, has 80-odd police officers of whom 3 are black?*
Just pointing out facts here, Is it racist to point out that the %age of people in US who commit crime are black is many many times higher than the percentage of the US population who are black? Is it racist to point out that according to an article I saw, in areas which are majority black less than 15% of applicants to join the police are black?
* The correct figure is 53 police 3 of whom are black.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 13:01 GMT Psyx
"Is it racist to point out that the %age of people in US who commit crime are black is many many times higher than the percentage of the US population who are black?"
No, but its racist to then assume that the cause of them being criminals is because they're black. Truth be told, the reason why the percentage is high is because of the endemic racism in society means that people from racial minorities are more likely to be poor than us white guys.
"Is it racist to point out that according to an article I saw, in areas which are majority black less than 15% of applicants to join the police are black?"
Maybe because they are bought up in a section of society where the police are viewed as oppressive and unjust, rather than as protectors of the community?
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 13:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
> No, but its racist to then assume that the cause of them being criminals is because they're black.
I never made any such claim or assumption.
> Truth be told, the reason why the percentage is high is because of the endemic racism in society means that people from racial minorities are more likely to be poor than us white guys.
That is a matter of opinion. My own opinion is that people continually telling racial minorities that they are oppressed creates a self fulfilling prophecy. Why should somebody from a racial minority, who is continually told they wont achieve anything because they are oppressed try to achieve anything? I see kids (many of them very smart) who wont even try at school because they are of the opinion that it wont do them any good afterwards and then when they leave and end up in low paid jobs, due to poor education, they say "See I told you so".
> Maybe because they are bought up in a section of society where the police are viewed as oppressive and unjust, rather than as protectors of the community?
And now you have a circular argument. The make up of the police isn't representative of the people they are drawn from but a section of the populace wont even try to join the police because they view them as not representative.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 15:30 GMT Psyx
"I never made any such claim or assumption."
I never said or assumed you were.
"That is a matter of opinion."
No, it's a matter of historical fact. 150 years ago they were slaves. 50 years ago they were not allowed to sit at the front of the bus. Even if we pretend for a moment that America is no longer racist in any way, that means that the current generation is the first to have anything like equality. No time to establish themselves, no 'old money', not proportionally many families with enough tucked away to provide their kids with the best chances, et al.
"I see kids (many of them very smart) who wont even try at school because they are of the opinion that it wont do them any good afterwards"
And that's uniquely a 'black thing'? If it's not, then it's not a valid reason why a grossly disproportionate number are deprived. Are you seriously trying to go down 'the poor black kids are poor because they won't help themselves' route?
I can't even fathom why you are trying to persuade me that racism is not still firmly a part of US culture and that black people are not disproportionately deprived because - at heart - of racism.
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 14:21 GMT Tom 13
Re: endemic racism in society
People using this phrase are racist. The facts say otherwise. In the 1950s, at the height of Jim crow, arrest rates for blacks were lower than they are now. Poverty was provably higher than it is now. So poverty is NOT the cause of increase arrest among the black population.
You want a better explanation? The rising crime rates among blacks are a result of the racist attitude that they just can't help themselves so their behavior should be excused. It gets damnably worse when it is justified because of "endemic racism in society."
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 14:38 GMT Dan Paul
Not if you apply yourself!
Stop trying to make excuses for people who would rather loot and steal than face facts.
The percentage is high because they won't apply themselves. You take the anti side to any rational argument about race because you think you can over compensate by excusing others shortcomings. All you do is enable idiots to commit more crime with less guilt.
The truth be told, when a whole culture promotes crime; there is nothing that can be done until they growup and want to have a better life than "living on welfare". The black CULTURE is WRONG to glorify the "Thug Life".
Any argument between a white cop and a black victim is going to be considered "racist" when you can't possibly separate the two. When the crime in the black area involves blacks they will view the cops as "oppressive". That does not mean the cops are "racist", just that the perpetrators are black and cops are white. That's too bad.
My Niece (who was poor and half black and had a hard life with addicted parents and was raised by her white gandma) IS NOW A DOCTOR!
That did not happen by being a defeatist and saying "Woe is me, Whitey is keepin me down".
That's BULLSHIT and you should know that by now.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 15:37 GMT Psyx
Re: Not if you apply yourself!
"Stop trying to make excuses for people who would rather loot and steal than face facts."
Wow.
I don't think he was looting anything. He was too busy being back-shot by a police officer.
"The percentage is high because they won't apply themselves."
'They'? What, all of them? More than the white people in the neighbourhood, or equally?
If it's the latter, then it's a problem with POVERTY, not racial minorities, as you would have it.
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 15:49 GMT Psyx
Re: Not if you apply yourself!
"Not if you apply yourself!"
I just gave that post a second read, and it was no better the second time. Please tell me how the "whole culture promotes crime".
"there is nothing that can be done until they growup and want to have a better life"
I'm pretty sure most poor people don't want to be poor.
"My Niece (who was poor and half black and had a hard life with addicted parents and was raised by her white gandma) IS NOW A DOCTOR!"
Clearly only because she was raised by a white person or something, right?
The kind of attitude that you are preaching is precisely the problem: "It's not racist, it's just them poor black people all like rap music and won't try".
-
-
-
Thursday 14th August 2014 14:08 GMT James Micallef
"the %age of people in US who commit crime are black is many many times higher than the percentage of the US population who are black? "
I think it's more correct to say that the %age of people in US who who are arrested / prosecuted / jailed for commiting a crime are black is many many times higher than the percentage of the US population who are black. White guys smoke dope, no one gives a shit. Black guy - straight to the slammer.
Oh, and also, white teenager can and does walk down high street carrying a loaded shotgun. Police stop him, he claims he's perfectly entitled to do so under firearms laws, he refuses to show ID to prove he's over 18, gets away with a citation, weapon not confiscated.
http://kdvr.com/2014/08/01/aurora-teen-walks-on-busy-streets-with-shotgun-videotapes-encounters-with-police/
Black 22-year old at Walmart chatting on the phone while picking up a BB gun off the shelf in the toy gun section, gets the cops called in on him, he says 'it's not real' and they shoot him dead.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/man-police-shot-in-walmart-killed-over-fake-gun-fa/ngw77/
Unfortunately this is the reality in the US - if you're black, cops shoot first and ask questions later. As AC says above, a white guy would probably not have been shot, possibly not even stopped in the first place
-
-
-
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
