The Ferguson police chief will announce the name of the officer in a noon press conference.
I can't see the anonymous video at work - was that one of their demands?
Here's the press release. Most of this was in the video: Anonymous Operation Ferguson - Press Release
Sunday - August 10, 2014 1:30 PM CST USA
A little over 24 hours ago in Ferguson, Missouri - USA the Ferguson Police Department shot an un-armed teen 6 times and killed him. His body was left to lie in a pool of blood in the sweltering heat for hours while the police militarized the area against protesters and attempted to concoct a reasonable story as to why they snatched this innocent students life for no reason. The St. Louis County Sheriff Department even sealed the roads leading to Ferguson in a vain attempt to prevent protesters from reaching the city. His name was Mike Brown, he was 17 - and he would have started college next week. Instead, his family is struggling to come up with funeral costs.
The entire global collective of Anonymous is outraged at this cold blooded murder of a young teen. Not a week goes by that some young person, usually of minority ethnicity - is slaughtered by murderous police in the USA. For this reason Anonymous will not be satisfied this time, as we have in the past - with simply obtaining justice for this young man and his family. Anonymous demands that the Congressional Representatives and Senators from Missouri introduce legislation entitled "Mike Brown's Law" that will set strict national standards for police conduct in the USA. We further demand that this new law include specific language to grant the victims of police violence the same rights and prerogatives that are already enjoyed nationwide by the victims of other violent criminals. The Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution demands nothing less.
To the good people of Ferguson, take heart - and take your streets. You are not alone, we will support you in every way possible. Occupy every square inch of your city. Open your homes and help in any way you can the protesters who will come to your city from every part of Missouri and the USA. Businesses and householders that are near protest rallies, open your WiFi routers so that live streamers and other independent journalists can use the Internet connections. Feed each other, keep each other safe - and stay in the streets until we are totally victorious in all our demands.
To the Ferguson Police Department and any other jurisdictions who are deployed to the protests: we are watching you very closely. If you abuse, harass - or harm in any way the protesters in Ferguson we will take every web based asset of your departments and governments off line. That is not a threat, it is a promise. If you attack the protesters, we will attack every server and computer you have. We will dox and release the personal information on every single member of the Ferguson Police Department, as well as any other jurisdiction that participates in the abuse. We will seize all your databases and E-Mail spools and dump them on the Internet. This is your only warning.
The time has come for more than simple justice for these atrocities. The time has come to draw a line in the sand and say "no more dead kids", no more police killings and beatings. Anonymous is drawing a line in the sand, and that line runs right down the middle of Main Street Ferguson, Missouri. Police impunity ends with the barbaric death of Mike Brown.
We Are Anonymous - We Are Legion - We Will Not Forgive - We Will Not Forget
I have a naive question. Is there protocol on where to draw the line on civil disobidience? How do (or should) they determine when this type of action is justified?
I have a naive question. Is there protocol on where to draw the line on civil disobidience? How do (or should) they determine when this type of action is justified?
I think that these folks don't quite understand how to deal with such an issue. What could have been more effective is if the Mayor or Councilperson who was filming all this stuff managed to talk to the people organizing the protest. If there is a specific group doing the protests, city leadership could say - look - we know people are hurting and they want their voices to be heard. Let's do some organized demonstration so that we can pull back the police presence and allow people to gather.
The more you see pictures of the police in full fledged riot gear, the more I think they haven't the slightest fucking clue as to how to deal with the community. Also, the image is stark - some white guy is the spokesperson meanwhile I see police in riot gear with a dog at a black person. I need these folks in Ferguson City Hall to get some better PR people working. For real. Because the narrative will be that it's a town run by a racist police among a town of mostly black folk.
On the crowd - I understand that you have to control riots. I get that. So, yes the police are necessary, but it really falls on the city's leadership to get their asses out there and allow for peaceable protest. I haven't heard anything that says they are doing this. Local people - check in if you have any deets.
So, slightly off topic, but DH was just telling me about this documentary. Spanish Lake is just a few miles northeast of Ferguson. Holy shit. I want to watch this.
Don't know. Twitter told me this. Also,saying on Twitter that press is being forced back and out. Neighborhoods blocked by police. Protestors chanting with arms up in "surrender" before them.
and yesterday, a SWAT member was caught on video telling them to bring it, you fucking animals.
Exactly this is the issue RIGHT HERE. That's why they shot an unarmed kid because they think we are animals, dude in Florida shot the kids with the music too loud because they think we are animals, and people think they can get away with it for the same reason.
What is to be accomplished by releasing his name right now?
What's going to be accomplished by saying they will and then turning around and saying they won't? Other than pissing off a whole lot of people who are already pissed off enough and also, making themselves look even sketchier???
What is to be accomplished by releasing his name right now?
What's going to be accomplished by saying they will and then turning around and saying they won't? Other than pissing off a whole lot of already pissed off enough and making themselves look even sketchier???
I don't think they counted on the rioting and violence when they first said they would release his name. At this point, releasing his name would likely only put him and his family in danger (and probably anyone else who shares his name - see also the death threats that the 50 year old black male Casey Anthony got after the other Casey Anthony's acquittal).
What is to be accomplished by releasing his name right now?
I genuinely don't know.
I do know that if Michael (or anyone) had shot the police officer, his name would be released already.
Why is this?
If there had been violent protests in reaction to that incident, then I think it would be wrong of them to release that name too. But it's also because if that person has been arrested, they *have* to release his name. I don't think we want to get into secret arrests.
This police officer has not been arrested, so they aren't under the same obligation to release his name.
Post by cookiemdough on Aug 12, 2014 11:14:29 GMT -5
The fact that he hasn't been arrested is already unsettling for many. Now He gets the protection of anonymity while his victim is portrayed as throwing up gang signs in the media. I think people want to know if this cop has a history of abusing his position, a history of complaints against him, etc. Unfortunately in a situation where the perception is that police are not doing their job fairly in this case, a lack of transparency is not going to be received well in an already tense situation.
The fact that he hasn't been arrested is already unsettling for many. Now He gets the protection of anonymity while his victim is portrayed as throwing up gang signs in the media. I think people want to know if this cop has a history of abusing his position, a history of complaints against him, etc. Unfortunately in a situation where the perception is that police are not doing their job fairly in this case, a lack of transparency is not going to be received well in an already tense situation.
The fact that he hasn't been arrested is already unsettling for many. Now He gets the protection of anonymity while his victim is portrayed as throwing up gang signs in the media. I think people want to know if this cop has a history of abusing his position, a history of complaints against him, etc. Unfortunately in a situation where the perception is that police are not doing their job fairly in this case, a lack of transparency is not going to be received well in an already tense situation.
This goes back to my earlier comments about why Ferguson City Hall needs a better PR team. I get not wanting to release the cop's info for fear of his safety, but dammit, y'all need to release some statement indicating that you're going to take this issue seriously. They need better PR because this is a disaster.
The fact that he hasn't been arrested is already unsettling for many. Now He gets the protection of anonymity while his victim is portrayed as throwing up gang signs in the media. I think people want to know if this cop has a history of abusing his position, a history of complaints against him, etc. Unfortunately in a situation where the perception is that police are not doing their job fairly in this case, a lack of transparency is not going to be received well in an already tense situation.
The investigation likely hasn't been completed yet, so they may not have enough evidence to charge him with a crime. I'm sure he also has the protection of a union contract and its provisions for justified deadly force, etc.
I realize, of course, that the average citizen doesn't get this kind of benefit of the doubt. So I understand why people are upset.
The fact that he hasn't been arrested is already unsettling for many. Now He gets the protection of anonymity while his victim is portrayed as throwing up gang signs in the media. I think people want to know if this cop has a history of abusing his position, a history of complaints against him, etc. Unfortunately in a situation where the perception is that police are not doing their job fairly in this case, a lack of transparency is not going to be received well in an already tense situation.
The investigation likely hasn't been completed yet, so they may not have enough evidence to charge him with a crime.
They also aren't trying. They have repeatedly declined interviewing the closest witness.
What's going to be accomplished by saying they will and then turning around and saying they won't? Other than pissing off a whole lot of already pissed off enough and making themselves look even sketchier???
I don't think they counted on the rioting and violence when they first said they would release his name. At this point, releasing his name would likely only put him and his family in danger (and probably anyone else who shares his name - see also the death threats that the 50 year old black male Casey Anthony got after the other Casey Anthony's acquittal).
I thought it was just recently (like in the past day) that they said they WOULD release the name, but maybe my timeline is off. If it's how you said it was, then I can understand that.
The fact that he hasn't been arrested is already unsettling for many. Now He gets the protection of anonymity while his victim is portrayed as throwing up gang signs in the media. I think people want to know if this cop has a history of abusing his position, a history of complaints against him, etc. Unfortunately in a situation where the perception is that police are not doing their job fairly in this case, a lack of transparency is not going to be received well in an already tense situation.
You just said it much more eloquently than I could have.
The investigation likely hasn't been completed yet, so they may not have enough evidence to charge him with a crime.
They also aren't trying. They have repeatedly declined interviewing the closest witness.
The Post-Dispatch link I posted a page or two back said they DO have video surveillance of the incident. I haven't read that anywhere else, but I hope it's true.
The ONLY reason I can think of to not seek the friend's testimony is that they have conclusive video footage. But even then, what would it hurt?