back to article 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 …

  1. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Dashcam/incar video

    Will be conveniently lacking in this case, of course.

    1. Scott Broukell

      Re: Dashcam/incar video

      But surely incidents such as this highlight the need for mandatory police body-cams as well?

    2. 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.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Let them publish and be damned...

      And they will be damned when they get caught, and caught they will be. I hope they like sharing a small space and bad food.

  2. Bloodbeastterror

    "they would release the name of the daughter of St Louis County’s police chief"

    Seriously? This is how a group seeking justice acts? I applaud their desire for openness and transparency, but this threat disgusts me.

    1. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: "they would release the name of the daughter of St Louis County’s police chief"

      Read further in the article ... they recognised the point that you make and said that they would not release the name.

      1. Stuart 39
        WTF?

        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 ?

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

      2. Michael Thibault

        Re: "they would release the name of the daughter of St Louis County’s police chief"

        A good principle to apply, even if you're a vigilante, is 'measure twice, cut once'. Another relevant principle is to stay on task.

      3. Tom 13

        Re: Read further in the article

        I don't give a damn. They should never have made the terrorist threat in the first place. They are thugs and that threat shows them out for what they are.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Read further in the article

          How low the bar for "terrorism" has apparently fallen.

          I wonder what word will have to be coined for the armed militias that pointed loaded weapons at peaceful protestors last night and arrested politicians, clergy, and journalists for simply being there?

  3. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

    I don't think they've really thought this through...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. 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.

      1. Tom 35

        For a non-cop

        They would notify the press that he was going to appear in court at 3pm so they would have lots of time to film him being lead into court handcuffed with a coat over his head and get it on the 6pm news.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. 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.

        2. Martin-73 Silver badge

          They're members of the public, anonymous ones like you, they're entitled to demand whatever they like. Whether they're entitled to have the demand taken seriously, or to get it is a different matter entirely (and probably what you were aiming at)

      3. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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."

          2. Tom 13

            @ Don Jefe

            Since the end of the 1960s we have a history of withholding the names of suspects who are likely to be lynched. It was a wise policy to adopt then and a wise one to continue now. Precisely for the reasons you outlined in your first paragraph.

            1. 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.

        2. 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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            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.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              well and maybe

              If it was standard procedure to suspend the officer from duties completely then it would not prejudge any investigation, because it would be SOP and everyone knows that, further as with all other citizens he should be arrested as that is SOP - no excuses

              1. Anonymous Coward
                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.

          2. 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.

      4. 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.

    2. James Micallef Silver badge

      "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

      1. Juillen 1

        "*No doubt formed of all-white or majority-white team headed by a white boss reporting to white superiors".

        You do realise that's incredibly racist, right? If you turned it around and put "black" in there, you'd be hauled in front of a court for speaking that in public.

        1. 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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            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.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "If the dead guy were white..."

            If the guy were white, they wouldn't have shot him.

            That, right there, is the problem in Ferguson.

            1. Dan Paul

              Re: "If the dead guy were white..."

              Hey Coward, If a white guy grabbed a white or black cops gun ANYWHERE, he would be shot dead.

              That is a fact. Not conjecture or speculation like your comment, the problem in Ferguson is like you. Full of BS.

        2. LucreLout
          Trollface

          "You do realise that's incredibly racist, right?"

          It can't be racist you fool, (s)he was disparraging white people! White people are scum.

          Joke icon supplied, but it really is beyond a fucking joke these days.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            When did the Register become the fucking Daily Mail?

            Really? You are a moron.

            1. deadlockvictim
              Trollface

              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?

        3. James Micallef Silver badge

          "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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            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.

            1. 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?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                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.

                1. 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.

              2. 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."

                1. Dan Paul

                  Re: endemic racism in society

                  Absofuckinglutely! Right on the money.

              3. 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.

                1. 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.

                2. 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".

            2. James Micallef Silver badge

              "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

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                > white teenager can and does walk down high street carrying a loaded shotgun.

                If he walked into Walmart or any public building with it he would have been arrested.

                > 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.

                Not quite.

                The 22 year old removed this Crosman MK 177 air pump rifle from all of its packaging and walked around the store with it. He was ordered to put it down and when he did not comply he was shot.

                In the UK an air rifle with more than 12 Foot-Pounds of power is classified as a firearm and needs a firearms certificate to own. The Crosman MK 177 is 12.5 Foot Pounds and has a muzzle velocity of 750 feet per second.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  I should also mention that a 37 year old nurse died when fleeing the store that the 22 year old was waving the air rifle, that looks like an automatic rifle, around.

              2. Dan Paul

                Sweeping generalizations again...

                Stop feeding the Bullshit Machine!

                Cops do not shoot blacks first and ask questions later. That is a stupid sweeping generalization taken from watching too many TV shows or listening to too much gangsta rap music. Either way you are obviously addlepated.

                The fact is that if you won't stay in school, you are not going to graduate. If you don't graduate, you won't get a job, if you don't get a job you often end up relying on criminal means to support yourself and you WILL get caught. Then you are a criminal and it doesn't get better from there.

                Just remember this; you put yourself there, not anyone else; including the cops.

                None of those things are directly related to race, only to how hard you apply yourself to make life BETTER not WORSE.

                Your first example was an activist trying to push open gun carry laws further and he was charged with a misdemeanor for not showing ID; by the cops. He's done this over a dozen times. Oh, that was in Aurora Colorado where there was an actual mass shooting. Cops actually showed some restraint didn't they?

                The second example was for a guy who was described as waving a gun at people in the store; turned out that was only an air rifle. Since you don't have any fire arms over there, an "air rifle" can look like a regular gun. I saw ones at Wal-Mart just the other day that look like an AR-15, .3006, H&K, any number of pistols etc. People waving air guns at other people frequently get shot by the cops, moral...don't wave any guns (of ANY type) at people or you may get shot.

            3. Dan Paul

              Just pointing out the facts..

              That some 50% of high school dropouts are black, of that percentage almost 75% end up in prison? Is it their race or is it due to the culture?

              If you glorify the gang life as something to aspire to (because you don't have to work hard, just kill a cop and sell lots of drugs to be installed as a gang member) don't you run the risk of getting caught committing the crime?

              The fact is that very few blacks have any interest in becoming a cop because that would be viewed as selling out. It is far more attractive to be a "Gangsta", so you will always be against the cops.

              Blacks in poor areas do not become cops and thats the cops fault for what reason?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      re: So let me get this right....

      You're far from correct. Suggesting that the system will bring justice for this young man shows you've never followed any cases like this before. The normal process is that the truth will come out in about 30 to 40 years, once the officer involved has died peacefully in retirement.

      Or is this case magically going to be different?

    4. Eric Olson

      You just need to look to NYC

      Where a man was killed by a cop for selling smokes without a license. Yes, the man had priors for similar activities. Yet when six (if I remember correctly) surround the man, one plainclothes office jumped on the man's back and put him in a choke-hold. The man eventually went to the ground, complained about being unable to breath, lost consciousness, and died at the hospital.

      How do we know this? It was videotaped by a witness (who was later arrested by police for carrying a handgun). Choke-holds have been forbidden by the city for a decade, so much so that cops are supposed to receive alternative methods and be continually trained on them. Yet the fraternal order that represents the police closed ranks, in the face of absolute proof that the cop not only killed someone but did it by violating police procedure, and pleaded with the public and media that they should not be held accountable, as being a cop is hard.

      The 90%+ of cops who are honorable and work day in and out to be peace officers are smeared by idiots like this, yet they still protect their own. Better to cast those fools out and revoke protection since it endangers the rest of them.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: You just need to look to NYC

        The two cases have nothing in common, first nothing in NY Shitty is ever on the up and up, the entire force and the government is corrupt. Who knows about the case down south. All we know for sure is there is a dead teenager and a cop who says he tried to grab his gun from him.

        If the cop is right and you backyard quarterbacks have already convicted him without a court of law, you should all burn in hell. Sometimes you don't get what you expect.

        NYC Police are a thing to avoid. Don't fuck with them, you'll get hurt. What you saw on TV, they call resisting arrest.

        When confronted by a cop in any locale, don't get wise, do what they tell you and shutup.

        1. James Micallef Silver badge

          Re: You just need to look to NYC

          "All we know for sure is there is a dead teenager and a cop who says he tried to grab his gun from him"

          We also know that the kid got shot at least 4 times, possibly as much as 8, and his body ended up 35 yards from the police car. We do not know whether the kid actually went for the gun, or the officer thought he was going for the gun, or indeed if the officer is making up the whole 'went for the gun' thing, but in none of those scenarios would shooting an unarmed kid in the back be warranted.

      2. Turtle

        @Eric Olson

        "Where a man was killed by a cop for selling smokes without a license."

        This statement is false, as the rest of your post proves. He was not "killed for selling (untaxed) cigarettes". He was killed while resisting arrest. I understand that put this way it is not as inflammatory or politically useful, but it does have the advantage of being more accurate. (Which of course you might feel is not a virtue worth having...)

        1. Eguro

          Re: @Eric Olson

          Well unless he was resisting with some version of a weapon - stabbing or shooting for instance - I'd say the selling of smokes is the only one of the two likely to lead to deaths (at least deaths of other people), meaning that being killed for resisting arrest is actually even worse...

        2. Eric Olson

          Re: @Eric Olson

          Yes, and if you had watched the freely available video, you'll see his resistance was standing there and saying, "Don't touch me." And while doing that, the murderer... I mean peace officer... jumps on the man's back, wraps his arms around the man's neck, and choke-holds him to the ground. I guess never mind that even within the NYC Police Department, such a move is banned and forbidden. The man said, "Don't touch me." That is clearly resisting arrest in a manner that requires complete and utter disregard by the officer of official policy, kind of like, I don't know, the Boston Marathon bomber. Totally in the same league.

          You might want to look at the facts (as documented in video) before you try to pull stupid crap like that.

  5. nanchatte

    Seriously...

    Can you trust a group that say 'we will only release his name when we are certain we've go it right,' when they can't even get their own hashtag right.

    1. Psyx
      FAIL

      Re: Seriously...

      By your own measure, the omission of a question mark at the end of the sentence means that no information you supply can be trusted, either.

      Making a typo doesn't make a source unreliable.

  6. chivo243 Silver badge

    Releasing it will be bad, very bad

    Releasing the officer's name now would create a vehicle for much worse injustices to be committed, and innocent people will be caught in the feeding frenzy. It's a tragedy about to get worse.

  7. Valeyard

    ha

    they don't half talk like they're super spy commandos or something

    TARGET DOWN!!

    oh no, black ops neutralised our FAQ website. shit. gonna have to stop the conspiracy guys, we're in deep trouble now.

  8. James 51

    If the decision is make to charge the officer with a crime, they might actually prevent justice being done if a judge decides he can't get a fair trial after these kind of stunts.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      ...or (the cynical version) could be used as an excuse to let the officer off scot-free as seems to happen on a disturbingly regular basis in cases of abuse of power like this.

    2. Eric Olson

      Jurisdiction and trial can easily be moved at the request of the defense. Additionally, this could end up being a federal case if there is a finding of civil rights violation by an officer of the government; the notion is that by acting as an agent of the city or state, the city or state cannot be impartial or unbiased arbiters and the US Federal Court needs to take over, just like how the investigation has been taken out of the hands of the city police department and transferred to the county, with the assistance of the FBI.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Ferguson has been the scene of [...] looting since Brown was shot"

    Yeah, because nothing assuages a sense of gross injustice better than a new telly and some flashy trainers.

    1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

      > a sense of gross injustice better than new flashy trainers.

      Nothing pushes the right wing buttons than the appearance of new trainers on the block.

      1. LucreLout

        "Nothing pushes the right wing buttons than the appearance of new trainers on the block."

        No, you're right. Lets just skip the investigation & trial and execute the copper publicly.

        The new trainers haven't "appeared" on the block. They've been stolen from hard working businessmen, and paid for by all of us through increased insurance premiums. The people upon who's feet said trainers have "appeared" are scum. Society would be better off if we could just make the stolen sh*t explode.

        People who excuse serious crime because its being committed by their pet demographic are utter utter morons.

        1. James Micallef Silver badge

          And people who respond to injustice by going on a looting spree are also utter morons

  10. The Grump
    FAIL

    I call BS on these anon-tards

    If they REALLY had the name of the officer, don't you think that they would be shopping that information around to all the tabloids, to see which tabloid would offer the highest price ? I know I would.

    Anonymoose is just bluffing - yeah, they can take down computers, but they know as much about the officer who shot the kid as I do - zilch. BS called.

    1. Psyx

      Re: I call BS on these anon-tards

      No, because that's never how they've historically acted. Selling information to tabloids is never what the organisation has done.

      I don't think much of them myself, but I'm not about to accuse them of selling out when they don't really seem to have that arrow in their quiver.

      "yeah, they can take down computers, but they know as much about the officer who shot the kid as I do - zilch. BS called."

      Quite right. Because people who can organise the taking down of websites and with a long track-record of hacking stuff certainly wouldn't know enough about computers to hack into a local police department to obtain data, would they?

    2. asdf

      Re: I call BS on these anon-tards

      The news organizations may well already know his name and being asked to not release it which they are complying with. After all the did give the prince 9 weeks or whatever in Afghanistan before the lowest common denominator internet blog finally blabbed.

  11. Dan Paul

    What happened to the principle of...

    Innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law?

    It has gotten to be WAY too much. The minute MSNBC hack "reverend" Al Sharpton goes to the scene, all hell breaks loose because he stirs up an already bad situation and no one is able to get a fair trial until the "court of public opinion" has already tarred and feathered the cop. Funny how that works. What about all the damage to property? Who pays for that? Did they all get arrested?

    If this kid went for the cops gun while he was being handcuffed, then the cop was entirely justified in shooting him; whether he was black or any other color doesnt matter. Cops get to be safe on the job regardless of the criminals race. Just because you're black doesn't mean you get special treatment. The object lesson here is don't sass off to the cops and don't resist arrest.

    Too many call out "racist" when they don't know any facts besides what they are told by the rabble rousers who are callously looking for ratings. Everytime Obama gets criticized, someone pulls out the race card to hide behind because he can't stand the scrutiny. Same thing happens all day long.

    Maybe they should charge Sharpton with "Inciting a Riot" or "Interference in a Police Investigation"?

    Both of those would apply to script kiddies too!

    1. Havin_it

      Re: What happened to the principle of...

      Well, I'm not going near the rest of your post, but I feel it should be pointed out that it's: "unless proven guilty ..." Important distinction, that. All too often forgotten.

    2. Keven E.

      Re: What happened to the principle of...

      "Everytime Obama gets criticized, someone pulls out the race card to hide behind because he can't stand the scrutiny."

      Another idiotic blanket statement from a reactionary. When will it ever end.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: What happened to the principle of...

        Look at the comments that are made all the time by the media, particularly on MSNBC. Holder does it too. The whole time they hide behind the race card because they are afraid to stand up and say what they mean in plain english. He has a Socialist agenda and he's afraid to say it.

        Obama is a baldface liar and you have no real argument just your ignorant comments.

        Wait until 2015 and you see the REAL cost of Obamacare that he has been hiding by defferring the empoloyer mandate.

        Reactionary does'nt even come close

        1. Psyx

          Re: What happened to the principle of...

          "Obama is a baldface liar and you have no real argument just your ignorant comments."

          Unlike your chosen brand of politician, who is honest and not a massive lair at all.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: When will it ever end.

        About ten seconds after the last libturd like you pulls his head out of his arse and admits it is a true, non-racist statement.

    3. Eric Olson

      Re: What happened to the principle of...

      Public opinion never has nor never way held to that same idea. And as the idea of a perp walk is something that gets county and state prosecutors all hot and bothered, it's hard to understand why cops should be protected. Not to mention that cops are quick to leak and broadcast action against civil servants and public officials who aren't cops.

  12. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Because vigilantes are never wrong...

    1. Mephistro

      "Because vigilantes are never wrong..."

      Vigilantes usually sprout in areas where there is no justice. Not saying that that's a good thing, just that that's the way things are.

      1. Someone Else Silver badge
        Holmes

        "Because vigilantes are never wrong..."

        "...and you know that the hypnotized never lie."

      2. Tom 7

        Re: "Because vigilantes are never wrong..."

        It seems to me that vigilantes usual spring up in areas where there are enough out of control fuckwits to start a vigilante group.

  13. ItsNotMe
    WTF?

    Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

    ...maybe...just maybe...the kid shot and killed was the one at fault? Hmmm?

    It was reported that the kid pushed the officer back into his police car, then grabbed for his gun, then things went terribly bad.

    Yea...yea...I know...that's the police version...and the "eye witness" versions are different. They always are. But why are most people assuming that the kid was innocent? How about the possibility that his friends aren't telling the truth, and may be lying? It does happen.

    And as a lot of kids his age do carry concealed weapons...maybe the cop was afraid for his/her own life, and reacted accordingly.

    Because that is exactly what happened earlier today (Wednesday) when a "protester" drew a gun on an officer...and the officer shot back and seriously wounded the little charmer.

    "Early on Wednesday, a police officer shot and critically wounded a man who drew a handgun near the site of protests over the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, a St. Louis County Police Department officer said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKBN0GA0Q420140813

    And before anyone gets their collective knickers in a bunch over what I am saying...believe me...police in general are not on my list of respected persons. They are right there at the very bottom...right alongside politicians.

    But the reality of the situation is that there are only two people who know the real answer...and very sadly...one of them is dead.

    1. James Loughner
      Big Brother

      Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

      The interesting thing is that this happened in day light on the street there are other witnesses and the authorities have not even talked to them yet 5 days after the incident. So the only story the establishment has heard is the officers. I call bullshit

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

        Now that Al Sharpton is there; witnesses miraculously appear out of nowhere with a story that supports the kid?

        THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME SHARPTON GOES TO THE SCENE!

        I call bull shit!

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Now that Al Sharpton

          That's Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, good friend of Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations

          http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/05/209194252/15-years-later-tawana-brawley-has-paid-1-percent-of-penalty

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm

          http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=370

          Yeah the riot starting race baiters are back.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

        The only bullshit here is what you are spewing.

        Within hours of the event happening the riots started. The police have been on call 24-7 since then. They probably have interviewed the witnesses and their notes are waiting on their desks. Problem is, since they're out on the streets trying to protect the public from looters and worse, their reports aren't getting written so there's no official story yet. And no, the cops' story isn't what is being published. What is being published are the facts that fit the anti-police, racism everywhere meme of the LSM. Even this story doesn't include facts released by the police that show there is more to the story than the neat little template the author and you are using to promote a political agenda that has nothing to do with justice to the cop or the kid who was shot.

    2. Eric Olson

      Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

      I don't think anyone has disputed that something went wrong at the car. All reports are that a struggle ensued, which may or may not have involved the victim grabbing for or seeming like he was grabbing for the officer's gun. That is something only one person alive had a view of. What is in dispute is what happened next. If the kid was killed at the door of the car during the struggle, then how did he end up away from the car with six bullets in his corpse? It's hard to imagine that multiple witnesses who didn't know about the other witnesses had a similar story, where there was a initial gunshot, the kid went away from the car, and then turned around with his hands up, only to be shot some more. That's not a situation in which the cop is being threatened anymore.

    3. Tom 7

      Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

      Even the police dont think he had a gun - the best they can come up is that he was struggling for the officers weapon.

    4. Barry Rueger

      Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

      a police officer shot and critically wounded a man who drew a handgun

      Um, it is not unheard of for cops to claim that the dead guy had a weapon when in fact none seems to have existed. It is also not unheard of for cops to gather immediately after a shooting to "get their story straight.'

      Pretty much every Canadian is familiar with the Robert Dziekański murder, during which a group of RCMP tasered an unarmed man to death.

      (Oh sorry, he had threatened them with a stapler! And yelled at them too!)

      Only later was it found that the cops involved had met secretly at a family member's house, presumably to make sure they all were singing the same song.

      The story told by police turned out to be complete fiction, and it was only because of bystander video that they were forced to admit as much.

      At this point the only reasonable action is to assume that the police are lying in situations like this, and that the ordinary citizen who has been killed or wounded probably was not at fault.

      1. Eguro

        Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

        You are of course right!

        I have once or twice felt threatened by humans, so now the only reasonable action is to assume that all humans are threatening psychos who want to harm me.

        How about instead we acknowledge that it isn't unheard of, but more information is required before making a judgement.

        In this case - where he apparently drew a handgun during a protest - I would expect there to have been a bunch of witnesses. Surely it would not have gone without remark if he hadn't had a gun.

        I'm also a loss for motivation for the police officer. "Well... They're already rioting because of a dead guy, one more couldn't hurt"? Or is it "Did I remember to put bullets in my gun today? Only one way to find out I guess".

        I'm not saying he couldn't have had a motivation for doing it - and I'm not saying things went exactly as it is being claimed. I'm just struggling to understand why he would shoot - and "only" wound - someone during a protest.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

      >Yea...yea...I know...that's the police version...and the "eye witness" versions are different. ... But why are most people assuming that the kid was innocent?

      You've said it yourself, police version(singular), "eye witness" versions (multiple). According to the article it seems he was with one friend so the other eye witnesses must be independent not his friends.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: witnesses must be independent not his friends.

        Not merely not just his friends but truly independent. The problem at the moment as the mayor of the town has noted is that the black community so distrusts the police force they won't apply to work on it. Which means you can't assume they won't be lying if the corroborate the victim's story. In the same way this story broke running under "white racism" they all know what they're supposed to say to back up a brother. Racism doesn't only come in white sheets.

      2. Psyx

        Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

        "But why are most people assuming that the kid was innocent?"

        I'm personally not assuming he's innocent at all. I have an open mind.

        However, when you have corpse with multiple bullet-holes in its back and no weapon, and another guy standing nearby with a weapon, it's fair to make some working assumptions in the name of public safety. You don't just assume the person was innocent and let them carry on as they were while you go about finding out.

        When that person is a civvie, they are immediately arrested, the weapon taken away, they are detained, questioned and probably charged. Their name is leaked to the media and published, and their freedoms curtailed while an investigation is under-way. I don't think it's unreasonable for police officers to expect the same - or even more stringent - measures to be taken when they're the one standing next to the corpse. Certainly, my consent to be policed only extends for as long as police officers are subject to the same laws and treatment as the rest of us.

        My open mindedness to the dead guy's guilt or otherwise is also a separate concern to him being dead, backshot, yards from the car. If he was struggling for control of a lethal weapon and was shot in the process... well that's fair enough: Tough. I'd expect the officer to be cleared (providing he had followed procedure and his firearm was properly secured.) But when the guy stops struggling, turns and runs away unarmed... that doesn't warrant execution: Which is what shooting someone unarmed in the back is.

  14. FuzzyTheBear

    On the matter of the public's right to know.

    When an officer uses deadly force ,shoots someone or else , since he's a pubiic servant he's got no rights to privacy. This principle is well known here in Canada. For certain , the officer would be put on administrative leave and not reintegrated to the force until the end of the investigation and trial if there is one. That very matter should be legislated if it is not. A public servant ( whoever he is ) has no right to withhold his name saying " it's private " , they have to declare their name and number. In this case their laws might be different , but it looks more like a big " cover his ass cause we know he's a murderer and had no valid reason to shoot " than about respecting the law. Police , Sheriffs in the USA enjoy murdering people without valid reasons , specialy in New York . The USA is the wild wild west and the law does not apply to " lawmen " . They are free to murder anyone they want and walk a free man.

    Ouch ? yes .. i hope it hits every American in the nuts and bolts and make em react and write their legislatures that they got enough of that crap .

    1. Dan Paul

      Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

      Oh yeah he does have a right to privacy. When do we get your real name moron? Then we will go to the media and have your name and address to give to all the nice police officers here in New York who will then do what you say they do.

      A cop is not automatically bad, you just make him out to be that way. They call that "prejudice". A "public servant" doesn't have to take your shit either and certainly has a right to a fair trial, something he can't get with idiots like you and Al Sharpton around.

      I can say you are a terrorist and you may be or not be. You just did the same thing to all the police in the US.

      The USA is not the Wild Wild West idiot. There are some people who think they are above the law, can try and grab a cops gun and throw gang signs in the pictures they are showing on TV. It's pretty obvious to me that one look at that picture tells me he's hooked up with gangs. It is a "right of passage" of gangs to kill a cop or some bystander.

      Therefore the cop shouldn't even think once before unloading a whole magazine into the scumbag.

      It's as simple as that. And by the way don't expect any fair treatment by cops, TSA, ICE, Border Patrol or any other "public" servant who puts his life on the line every day for sorry losers like you!

      1. Mike VandeVelde
        Flame

        "puts his life on the line every day"

        "puts his life on the line every day"

        it would be much easier to swallow a line like that if it wasnt a case of simply executing someone at the first sign of the slightest danger, could maybe still give the benefit of the doubt if it wasnt the umpteenth case with similar circumstances, could possibly still even get a little sympathy if any previous case had ever resulted in anything besides total impunity.

        but no, so no.

        1. Dan Paul

          Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

          My brother in law was a cop for 25 years. You don't EVER know when you come up to the car window whether the drunk driver you pulled over has a weapon or not so yeah, "He put his life on the line". It only takes once to die. Happens all the time but you never hear about it because a cop died, not some gang member.

          You Eurotrash should spend a whole night on the streets of a major US city and see how scared you get by the scum that police have to deal with every day; BEFORE you spout off about something you have NO IDEA about.

          There isn't time for "benefit of the doubt" when someone grabs your gun, you are trained to react.

          It's pretty clear that you have already made up your mind and convicted the cop before he ever has a chance to go to court.

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

            Its quite clear you have also convicted the person shot. How about we wait for the trial.

            Oh and I quite like being Eurotrash if it means I can walk around a city without fear of some gun toting idiot whatever side of the law they may be on.

            1. Dan Paul

              Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

              No, you will just get harmed in some other way, taking guns away from citizens doesn't mean the criminals gave them up. Try reading instead of reacting, try more sources than this rag, you are an anti-cop idiot who would rather believe the crook than the cop any day and I have to disregard YOUR version of reality as ridiculous

              1. Mike VandeVelde
                Alert

                Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

                "Eurotrash" "chickenass" "anti-cop idiot" "moron"

                It's pretty clear you have already made up your mind and convicted me before I ever had the chance to let you know even a single thing about me.

                Some light reading for you regarding my "version of reality":

                http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=311919

                http://www.straight.com/news/new-video-shows-paul-boyd-crawling-being-shot-dead-vancouver-police

                http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justice-system-failed-frank-paul-left-to-die-of-hypothermia-report-1.800186

                http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rcmp-taser-knife-wielding-82-year-old/article959259/

                http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/victoria-police-officer-who-abused-authority-suspended-without-pay-for-two-days-1.115285

                http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=5d9f4899-2a62-470a-b57b-e1d09a61ac79

                Our streets might not be quite as psychotic as yours, but I don't really think it's fair for you to say "you spout off about something you have NO IDEA about."

          2. Daggerchild Silver badge

            Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

            You would have a point if what you were describing was anything like what actually happened.

            It's pretty clear that you have already made up your mind and exonerated the cop before this ever has a chance to go to court.

            And us 'Eurotrash' *all* seem to be able to run our countries without turning them into thug-bordered police states with gargantuan and undeniably effective crime-school systems (I think you call them penetentiaries), because maybe we passed *through* your current stage of civilisation a looooooooong time ago. Maybe we even wrote books about it!

          3. Psyx

            Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

            "You Eurotrash should spend a whole night on the streets of a major US city and see how scared you get by the scum that police have to deal with every day; BEFORE you spout off about something you have NO IDEA about."

            I have, thanks. Baltimore. It was surprisingly ok. The only intimidation I suffered through was a police officer. I'm not damning the man for being aggressive towards me or tarring an entire organisation with the actions of one man, but the only aggressive, rude and threatening behaviour I experienced was at the hands of a guy in uniform, toting a lethal weapon.

            "It's pretty clear that you have already made up your mind and convicted the cop before he ever has a chance to go to court."

            No, I'm open minded as to whether the gun was grabbed. I'm more appalled that the cop kept shooting after the guy had started running (and I'm open minded as to if that happened still), and even more appalled by your own attitude towards the impoverished racial minorities.

        2. Dan Paul

          Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

          C'mon over and find out! We are being taken over by gangs here in both major and minor cities.

          You don't know shit you little chickenass!

          For example:

          http://www.policemag.com/channel/gangs/news/2012/10/30/gang-member-shot-killed-after-grabbing-ariz-cop-s-gun.aspx

          http://www.policemag.com/channel/gangs/news/2013/03/11/citizen-saves-calif-cop-from-gang-member.aspx

          http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/Two-Local-Men-Charged-In-Suspected-Gang-Initiation-Rape-254225701.html

        3. Barry Rueger

          Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

          Always wondered just how dangerous being a cop really is. Turns out it doesn't even make it into the top ten.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

          1. Logging workers

          2. Fishers and related fishing workers

          3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers

          4. Roofers

          5. Structural iron and steel workers

          6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors

          7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers

          8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers

          9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers

          10. Construction laborers

          1. Dan Paul

            Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

            Are you fucking kidding me? Try a stint "on the job" in any major city. It's like a warzone, one that the US Government and the media doesn't want to admit exists because it would make a certain President "look bad". Too bad you only get left leaning "news" over there or you would know better.

            And quoting a Forbes "feel good" article from a "jobs" hack does not mean that there is any veracity to your argument. Anyone can look up the same crap from the bureau of labor or wikipedia.

            Try some reality and shadow the cops in Detroit, Chicago or New York and tell me thats the case. I live in the burbs and we now have similar crime to the big cities and it's getting worse.

      2. Someone Else Silver badge

        Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

        [...] or any other "public" servant who puts his life on the line every day [...]

        Yes, that they do. Those donuts will kill you....

      3. Eric Olson

        Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

        As a public employee, they actually have little right to privacy. Public servants in other arenas of government do not have it. If you work for the local DMV and you are terminated for cause, that's something the public can find out. By law (at least in many states) cities must publish the salaries and ranks of all public employees, but since that method of publication hasn't been defined, it usually becomes a matter of, "Here's a shovel. Start digging through these papers until you find what you want."

        So no, there is no right to privacy. In fact, challenges to that have generally been thrown out on the basis that as government officials/employees, they are subject to more scrutiny and leave some of those pesky civil liberties at the door. As an agent of the government, they are protected less in that role than a regular member of the public. It's a thankless job, which why I'm constantly amazed that these folks try to protect the people who give them black eyes and tarnish public opinion.

        Due process is fine, but when your initial reaction is that, "He's one of ours, so let's protect him regardless of how many extra 'warning shots' we found in the kid's body or that simple forensics shows he was running away," you do nothing but further the impression that your first duty isn't to the public, but to your buddies. A computer can't even count high enough to arrive at the number of times the police has released the name and information of citizens, public officials, and others because it was the public's "right to know."

      4. Triggerfish

        Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

        "It's pretty obvious to me that one look at that picture tells me he's hooked up with gangs. It is a "right of passage" of gangs to kill a cop or some bystander."

        The media have been criticised on their choice of pictures causing a negative bias, I didn't think anyone was that daft..... but well done you for proving me wrong.

        "Therefore the cop shouldn't even think once before unloading a whole magazine into the scumbag."

        I was going to say "Admit it what you really want to say is I should shoot him coz he's black", but then I realised you may not be racist and think anyone white and not dressing correctly should receive such fascist treatment as well. Rather remarkable considering you are complaining about prejudice in the same post

        1. Dan Paul

          Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

          These comments are in response to people who have already convicted the cop without any proof or a trial so I am entirely justified in my remarks until proved otherwise.

          FACT: Anyone who tries to grab a cop's gun will be shot. White/Black/Who cares!

          FACT: "Signing" as in 'throwing a gang sign means you are in a gang. There are pictures of the kid throwing gang signs all over the media.

          Gang members REGULARLY kill cops.

          FACT: Put the FACTS together and you are going to get shot by the cop you tried to grab the gun from.

          1. Triggerfish

            Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

            FACT: "Signing" as in 'throwing a gang sign means you are in a gang. There are pictures of the kid throwing gang signs all over the media.

            No being a gang member means you are in a gang.

            Plenty of kids do stuff like through gang signs because its cool or whatever it does not mean they are in a gang.

          2. Psyx

            Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

            "FACT: "Signing" as in 'throwing a gang sign means you are in a gang. There are pictures of the kid throwing gang signs all over the media."

            It doesn't mean you're in a gang at all. It means you have sympathies towards them and MIGHT be in the gang. However, whether the guy is in a gang or not has nothing to do with the matter. Just as if the police officer is a member of the KKK or a freemason shouldn't have any bearing on the matter. Our courts do not recognise gang affiliation when determining what happened over the course of the ten seconds before they were shot by an officer. What you're doing is judging guilt by social and racial profiling.

            "Gang members REGULARLY kill cops."

            What does that have to do with it? You attack others for judging guilt, but you've done just the same:

            He was black and threw gang signs.

            Ergo he was in a gang.

            Gang members kill cops.

            Egro he deserved it and the cop was defending himself.

      5. Psyx

        Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

        "A cop is not automatically bad, you just make him out to be that way. "

        When someone is standing over the body of someone they repeatedly shot, they probably aren't a 'good' person by my moral default.

        "It is a "right of passage" of gangs to kill a cop or some bystander."

        What, all of them? citation required. You condemn a poster for inferring all cops are bad, but then state that all gangs murder cops/bystanders by way of initiation.

        "Therefore the cop shouldn't even think once before unloading a whole magazine into the scumbag."

        Yeah. Screw it: Gun the scumbag down! And like you said: The USA is NOT the wild, wild west!

        "It's as simple as that. And by the way don't expect any fair treatment by cops, TSA, ICE, Border Patrol or any other "public" servant who puts his life on the line every day for sorry losers like you!"

        Idiot. You have appeared to missed the entire concept of justice, policing and policing by consent.

        1. Psyx

          Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

          I love it when someone disagrees so vehemently that they go through the entire thread, down-voting every one of someone's comments.

          Because that really shows rationality and isn't at all laughably pathetic.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

            Because you did the same thing under multiple logins?!?!

        2. Dan Paul

          Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

          When someone grabs your gun you don't have any time to socialize, moron. Or should you try counseling the perp while you are being shot? Sometimes, the gene pool is better off without the scum and I have none of the guilt you espouse.

          As a cop you are trained to react and shoot the aggressor. Since you made a moral judgement, so will I. If you grab a cops gun, you likely did not have his/her best wishes in mind. Does not a cop have the right to do his job without fear of being killed by a gang member trying to make his nut? Yes, they do!

          YOU are completely ignorant of reality on the streets and apparently only take the side of the opposition because it "makes you feel good" and relieves you of your white guilt for having a better life than the people you always take the side of (wrongly).

          The cop was in his car when the perp tried to grab his gun. Your artistic licensce with the events belies your viewpoint.

          There are pictures of the so called "victim" throwing gang signs and wearing colors!

          1 plus 1 DOES = 2 There should be no justice for gang members and none for you because you only want chaos and anarchy. Obey the law and you don't get shot or arrested, dumbass.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not a problem

    Ship some more arse clown ASSnonymous off to prison.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shot Six Times !

    Who was the cop trying to execute stop, Superman ?

  17. Dale Differential

    I don't suppose anyone else finds it ironic that a group calling itself anonymous because its members fear reprisal for pursuing "justice" (by legally questionable means such as computer intrusion I might add) is threatening to identify a law enforcement official who was (allegedly) performing his duty?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave

    No corrupt cops here. Move along citizen before we arrest you too ....

  19. Keven E.

    Yet another BS comment...

    "It is a "right of passage" of gangs to kill a cop or some bystander."

    Yet another piece of blanket.

    1. Dan Paul

      Re: Yet another BS comment...

      You are woefully ignorant of how gangs work in this country. Especially the ones that originate in Mexico. Try looking it up or spend some time talking to an American cop in any city about the gang problem here. People are shot all the time from gang initiations, including cops.

      More bullshit from wimps who don't understand reality.

  20. Christopher E. Stith
    FAIL

    St. Louis County police are not Ferguson city police. These are two different agencies. If their problem is with the city why are they messing with the outside agency helping the investigation?

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Darren Wilson

    The cops beat Anonymous to it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon