Ok, I'll say it. At this point, given all of the shady behavior of those in local law enforcement, I'm not at all inclined to believe this new report, which conflicts in part with the initial autopsy. I realize an in depth autopsy will obviously provide more information than the cursory one, but like I said, I have pretty much lost faith that they're being truthful about any of it.
Post by sparrowsong on Oct 22, 2014 21:16:08 GMT -5
I feel like initially defenders of Wilson were focused on the idea that MB was charging towards Wilson when he was killed. But then there are multiple witnesses, and that video of the repair men reacting to the shooting, saying his hands were up. And those witness all said they didn't have a view of the confrontation at the window, or said they saw them tussling but couldn't see details. So now the leaked details seem to have shifted to what happened there - blood on the gun, wound in hand made at close range... as if that was the moment that made Wilson afraid instead. It just smells shady.
I want to know if evidence is being presented about the distance from the cop car to MB's body being reported inaccurately (link earlier in this thread - not sure what page) And that the shop owner didn't actual call the police to report a robbery. And that Wilson filed no report on what happened. And that witnesses weren't even interviewed that same day. And who the hell is Josie - someone who actually exists?...
Post by iammalcolmx on Oct 23, 2014 11:14:17 GMT -5
OK I saw them read the report on the news yesterday which made me mad , I stomped away from my TV. MULTIPLE WITNESSES, including the two White contractors you saw on video reacting to the shooting, saw Brown had his hands up as the officer kept shooting him. This is fucking Bullshit and I don't blame the people of Ferguson for wanting to tear shit up. I feel like tearing shit up RIGHT NOW.
OK I saw them read the report on the news yesterday which made me mad , I stomped away from my TV. MULTIPLE WITNESSES, including the two White contractors you saw on video reacting to the shooting, saw Brown had his hands up as the officer kept shooting him. This is fucking Bullshit and I don't blame the people of Ferguson for wanting to tear shit up. I feel like tearing shit up RIGHT NOW.
^^^^^^^^^^^^this and what sparrowsong posted makes me almost positive that charges will not be brought against this officer and he will never be found of wrong doing.
esp. the part about Wilson receiving a call about a robbery. i call bullshit on that until i am blue in the face. check the 911 tapes.
It's incredibly frustrating. I've been following since the beginning and I could not imagine on day one that this cop would seriously get away with this. If there are nationwide protests, I will proudly stand and march in them myself. This corruption can not be allowed to continue.
Re the robbery: my understanding is that the store clerk/owner never called police about a theft, but that a citizen, like someone else in the store called about observing something. I don't know what that means, or what was said. But exactly - could someone maybe actual investigate and report about this instead of just casually blurring it all into "Oh MB is a dangerous thug who committed a "strong arm robbery" and Wilson knew this and acted accordingly."
Something that has been bugging me is the idea of this GJ deciding guilt or innocence in the case. Isn't a GJ suppossed to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to take a case to trial? This feels like the GJ is detmining if Wilson feared for his life or not and if that made the shooting justified. With what we know, there is enough gray area to take it to trial, but every commentator says there will be no indictment. Can someone with more knowledge of GJs and criminal cases weigh in?
From what I understand about GJ in general (not a lawyer, no law school), the GJ doesn't decide guilt or innocence. The goal is supposed to be to determine if there is enough evidence for a possibility of conviction (not a guarantee but a possibility).
Part of it is cost and part of it is opportunity. Big trails like this can be very expensive, especially with a change of venue or bringing in a jury from elsewhere like this case would require and the crazy media circus. If there is no possibility of conviction then they save money by not having a full trial. The other part is opportunity. If there isn't enough evidence now, the procescuter can re-group and present the evidence better next time to the GJ. You can present to the GJ more than once but with a trial, it is can be a one and done thing (ie-if found innocent, you cannot re-try due to double jeopardy).
Nothing monumental is happening. The felony drug case where Wilson was the arresting officer was dropped today because Wilson did not show up to give his testimony to the GJ. I still don't get how someone can be paid when the job suffers. I get the premise of paid leave, but there are 13 cases that may not go to trial if he doesn't show.
My officer friend mentioned that they are not to be on the streets this week. Their shifts will strictly be training for the upcoming GJ announcement. He feels they won't release anything until after Halloween and the elections, but this is just his opinion.
Nothing monumental is happening. The felony drug case where Wilson was the arresting officer was dropped today because Wilson did not show up to give his testimony to the GJ. I still don't get how someone can be paid when the job suffers. I get the premise of paid leave, but there are 13 cases that may not go to trial if he doesn't show.
My officer friend mentioned that they are not to be on the streets this week. Their shifts will strictly be training for the upcoming GJ announcement. He feels they won't release anything until after Halloween and the elections, but this is just his opinion.
so i wonder how wilson supports feel that criminals can just walk free.
From what I have read, that his safety is more important.
Post by sparrowsong on Oct 27, 2014 14:51:25 GMT -5
I can't imagine how he can ever go back to duty, indicted or not, at least not in the St Louis area. How would that work, unless he moves to an area other than patrolling?
I can't imagine how he can ever go back to duty, indicted or not, at least not in the St Louis area. How would that work, unless he moves to an area other than patrolling?
I don't think he will, not matter how this plays out.
CNN breaking news that Ferguson police chief will be stepping down. They have no other info at this time.
</div>And now, the chief is denying it. But this is coming from Christine Byers, the reporter who tweeted the 12 witnesses confirming Wilson's story, then tweeted how she was on maternity leave and not official journo report. So who knows?
If someone was to make a movie of all the shenannigans the police and other goverment leaders have pulled in Ferguson, no one would belive it.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. government agreed to a police request to restrict more than 37 square miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Missouri, for 12 days in August for safety, but audio recordings show that local authorities privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests.
On Aug. 12, the morning after the Federal Aviation Administration imposed the first flight restriction, FAA air traffic managers struggled to redefine the flight ban to let commercial flights operate at nearby Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and police helicopters fly through the area - but ban others.
"They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out," said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. "But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.
At another point, a manager at the FAA's Kansas City center said police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."
FAA procedures for defining a no-fly area did not have an option that would accommodate that.
"There is really ... no option for a TFR that says, you know, `OK, everybody but the media is OK,'" he said. The managers then worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic.
The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response.
Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter.
But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."
The AP obtained the recordings under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. They raise serious questions about whether police were trying to suppress aerial images of the demonstrations and the police response by violating the constitutional rights of journalists with tacit assistance by federal officials.
Such images would have offered an unvarnished view of one of the most serious episodes of civil violence in recent memory.
"Any evidence that a no-fly zone was put in place as a pretext to exclude the media from covering events in Ferguson is extraordinarily troubling and a blatant violation of the press's First Amendment rights," said Lee Rowland, an American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney specializing in First Amendment issues.
FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said in a statement Sunday his agency will always err on the side of safety. "FAA cannot and will never exclusively ban media from covering an event of national significance, and media was never banned from covering the ongoing events in Ferguson in this case."
Huerta also said that, to the best of the FAA's knowledge, "no media outlets objected to any of the restrictions" during the time they were in effect.
In the recordings, an FAA manager urged modifying the flight restriction so that planes landing at Lambert still could enter the airspace around Ferguson.
The less-restrictive change practically served the authorities' intended goal, an FAA official said: "A lot of the time the (lesser restriction) just keeps the press out, anyways. They don't understand the difference."
The Kansas City FAA manager then asked a St. Louis County police official if the restrictions could be lessened so nearby commercial flights wouldn't be affected. The new order allows "aircraft on final (approach) there at St. Louis. It will still keep news people out. ... The only way people will get in there is if they give them permission in there anyway so they, with the (lesser restriction), it still keeps all of them out."
"Yeah," replied the police official. "I have no problem with that whatsoever."
KMOV-TV News Director Brian Thouvenot told the AP that his station was prepared at first to legally challenge the flight restrictions, but was later advised that its pilot could fly over the area as long as the helicopter stayed above 3,000 feet. That kept the helicopter and its mounted camera outside the restricted zone, although filming from such a distance, he said, was "less than ideal."
None of the St. Louis stations was advised that media helicopters could enter the airspace even under the lesser restrictions, which under federal rules should not have applied to aircraft "carrying properly accredited news representatives." The FAA's no-fly notice indicated the area was closed to all aircraft except police and planes coming to and from the airport.
"Only relief aircraft operations under direction of St. Louis County Police Department are authorized in the airspace," it said. "Aircraft landing and departing St. Louis Lambert Airport are exempt."
The same day that notice was issued, a county police spokesman publicly denied the no-fly zone was to prevent news helicopters from covering the events. "We understand that that's the perception that's out there, but it truly is for the safety of pilots," Sgt. Brian Schellman told NBC News.
Ferguson police were widely criticized for their response following the death of Brown, who was shot by a city police officer, Darren Wilson, on Aug. 9. Later, under county police command, several reporters were arrested, a TV news crew was tear gassed and some demonstrators were told they weren't allowed to film officers. In early October, a federal judge said the police violated demonstrators' and news crews' constitutional rights.
"Here in the United States of America, police should not be bullying and arresting reporters who are just doing their jobs," President Barack Obama said Aug. 14, two days after police confided to federal officials the flight ban was secretly intended to keep media helicopters out of the area. "The local authorities, including police, have a responsibility to be transparent and open."
The restricted flight zone initially encompassed airspace in a 3.4-mile radius around Ferguson and up to 5,000 feet in altitude, but police agreed to reduce it to 3,000 feet after the FAA's command center in Warrenton, Virginia, complained to managers in Kansas City that it was impeding traffic into St. Louis.
The flight restrictions remained in place until Aug. 22, FAA records show. A police captain wanted it extended when officials were set to identify Wilson by name as the officer who shot Brown and because Brown's funeral would "bring out the emotions," the recordings show.
"We just don't know what to expect," he told the FAA. "We're monitoring that. So, last night we shot a lot of tear gas, we had a lot of shots fired into the air again. It did quiet down after midnight, but with that ... we don't know when that's going to erupt."
The recordings do not capture early conversations about the initial flight restriction imposed a day earlier, but they nonetheless show the FAA still approved and modified the flight restriction after the FAA was aware that its main intent was to keep the media away.
One FAA official at the agency's command center asked the Kansas City manager in charge whether the restrictions were really about safety. "So are (the police) protecting aircraft from small-arms fire or something?" he asked. "Or do they think they're just going to keep the press out of there, which they can't do."
It was fairly obvious when they put the ban in place what they were trying to do. I still can't believe it went into effect for even a short bit of time.
Post by sparrowsong on Nov 3, 2014 18:03:27 GMT -5
St. Louis police chief claims the FAA suggested the no-fly zone over ferguson. Says there was evidence lasers were being aimed at helicopters.
They do understand there is an actual recording of an official admitting the goal was to keep media away? Caught lying.... Wish this would make people realize if a police chief will lie about this how many other things have they lied about on this case.
2 hours ago • By Paul Hampel phampel@post-dispatch.com 314-340-810490
Chris Schaefer in a video he took of himself from a hospital room. The video was posted online.
Enlarge Photo
ST. LOUIS COUNTY • Some Ferguson protest strategists turned on one of their own Thursday night, allegedly beating a man they accused of sending out unauthorized video of a meeting at Greater St. Mark Missionary Church in unincorporated north St. Louis County.
County police confirmed that they are investigating.
The victim, identified as Chris Schaefer, an University of Missouri-St. Louis student, was chased from the church, at 9950 Glen Owen Drive, and beaten outside. He was treated for his injuries at a hospital.
Patricia Bynes, a stalwart of the protest movement who attended the meeting, blamed members of the protest group Lost Voices for the attack.
“If we're going to hold police accountable for beating us, we need to hold ourselves accountable for incidents like this,” Bynes said. “I'm not saying all the Lost Voices were involved, but those that weren't need to get their group under control because they have gotten increasingly violent lately.”
Bynes said the meeting at the church was intended to be confidential. Some in the crowd accused Schaefer of using his smartphone to “live stream” the proceedings to the internet.
“The meeting started at around 7:30 and I got there a little late and sat down front,” Bynes said Friday morning. “I was listening to what was going on and, all of a sudden, somebody yells out, 'There's a phone off the hook!'"
“Others started repeating it, and then I see some members of the Lost Voices moving towards this young man.”
Bynes said the group chased Schaefer outside.
“They got him up against the wall. I couldn't really see what was happening to him but I assumed he was getting beaten up,” she said.
Bynes said Schaefer ran in a panic onto Chambers Road, where he tried in vain to flag down passing vehicles for help. She said Schaefer was able to reach the relative security of the Walgreens pharmacy at Chambers and West Florissant roads in Dellwood.
County Police spokesman Brian Schellman said officers were called to the Walgreens.
“The victim told officers that five or six men had dragged him from St. Mark's Church and beat him in the head and body,” Schellman said Friday.
Schaefer, 24, was transported by ambulance to Christian Hospital Northeast on Dunn Road.
“We are seeking suspects,” Schellman said.
Bynes said that, before she got to the meeting, organizers had asked those in the crowd of about 30 people to turn off all recording devices in order to keep the proceedings confidential.
“Apparently, this young man did not get the message or chose to ignore it,” she said.
In a live stream that Schaefer sent out from the hospital emergency room, he discussed the incident and his injuries.
“I was not live streaming at this meeting," he says in the video, posted online. "I did nothing wrong. I have been a peaceful protester and live streaming, just trying to protect people from getting hurt who are protesting.”
"Maybe they thought I was a cop," he adds, "or they thought I was live streaming something that shouldn't have been live streamed."
At one point, he holds up his heavily-bandaged right hand.
“I got hit pretty badly in many different places — my head, my hands, my sides, my stomach, and my legs,” Schaefer says.
As to his alleged assailants, Schaefer said, "Unfortunately, there's always a few bad apples."
Bynes said Ferguson protesters are under heavy stress as they await the grand jury's ruling on whether police Officer Darren Wilson will face criminal charges in the fatal shooting Aug. 9 of Michael Brown.
“Everyone is feeling the strain,” she said. “A lot of people are really on edge right now.”
Bynes and another protester, who asked to remain anonymous, said Schaefer was fairly new to the movement.
“He had been live streaming for just the last couple of weeks,” said the protester, who asked not to be named. “Honestly, he struck me as kind of a naive college kid who is out of his element.”
so my white trash family is all aflutter on FB tonight waiting for the GJ decision and MORE THAN ONE MOTHERFUCKER posted that they have heard "them" say they will march into STL to "kill all the whites" and they "want to stop all whitey."
ive called them out for race baiting.
I am so tired of the media all but saying if you are black you will turn into a savage as soon as the decision comes out. Then I wonder why we have race issues in this town.
I just lurk here but I live in STL and people have lost their goddamned minds. Some of the things I've read and heard about this and the Shaw shooting have literally left me shaking with rage. I keep looking at people around me and thinking they are all racist, which isn't fair but seriously, WTF.
Post by sparrowsong on Nov 11, 2014 15:46:49 GMT -5
Sounds like gov Nixon just gave a disaster of a speech about the preparation for the annoncement of the gj. More or less justifying the excessive police state and sounding like they are ready for more warring against the populace.
Anyone watching? All I've got is twitter because in at work. People are pissed though.
And cnn's lead story for the last 24 hrs has been did Putin hit on China's First Lady? Wtf?
Post by sparrowsong on Nov 11, 2014 17:21:43 GMT -5
As the grand jury in the August 9 shooting death of Mike Brown at the hands of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson nears a decision, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon held a press conference today to discuss public safety. Below are five critical observations from the press conference.
1. Governor Nixon chose to have two African-American men stand in the middle behind him during the press conference, but neither answered questions of any sort during the extended Q & A. This lends itself to making the black men look more like optic props instead of substantive contributors to such an urgent conversation.
2. In his very first sentences, Nixon started the presser off talking about the "ugliness" of property damage and how it will not be tolerated. Typically, how a presser begins shows the primary issue of importance and it is disappointing to see potential property damage be the focus in light of the human rights abuses as documented by Amnesty International.
3. The entire tone, content, and trajectory of the press conference operated under the assumption that Darren Wilson would not be indicted and that an angry response would follow. This is troubling. Why is the governor operating under this assumption? What does he know?
4. As has been suggested for months, Nixon confirmed that the National Guard was on alert and has been training for thousands of hours on how it can respond after the grand jury announces its decision.
5. Two names were not mentioned in the 45-minute press conference: Mike Brown or Darren Wilson. Why not?
1. Governor Nixon chose to have two African-American men stand in the middle behind him during the press conference, but neither answered questions of any sort during the extended Q & A. This lends itself to making the black men look more like optic props instead of substantive contributors to such an urgent conversation.
2. In his very first sentences, Nixon started the presser off talking about the "ugliness" of property damage and how it will not be tolerated. Typically, how a presser begins shows the primary issue of importance and it is disappointing to see potential property damage be the focus in light of the human rights abuses as documented by Amnesty International.
As the grand jury in the August 9 shooting death of Mike Brown at the hands of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson nears a decision, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon held a press conference today to discuss public safety. Below are five critical observations from the press conference.
1. Governor Nixon chose to have two African-American men stand in the middle behind him during the press conference, but neither answered questions of any sort during the extended Q & A. This lends itself to making the black men look more like optic props instead of substantive contributors to such an urgent conversation. Captain Ron Johnson of the MO Highway Patroland Dan Isum, former St. Louis City Chief and now Director of Public Safety, they are not props for this presser.
2. In his very first sentences, Nixon started the presser off talking about the "ugliness" of property damage and how it will not be tolerated. Typically, how a presser begins shows the primary issue of importance and it is disappointing to see potential property damage be the focus in light of the human rights abuses as documented by Amnesty International.
3. The entire tone, content, and trajectory of the press conference operated under the assumption that Darren Wilson would not be indicted and that an angry response would follow. This is troubling. Why is the governor operating under this assumption? What does he know?
4. As has been suggested for months, Nixon confirmed that the National Guard was on alert and has been training for thousands of hours on how it can respond after the grand jury announces its decision.
5. Two names were not mentioned in the 45-minute press conference: Mike Brown or Darren Wilson. Why not?.
By @shaunking on twitter
I follow Shaun King, and am not too sure about him. He seems to be self serving at times and conveniently disregards certain facts to make his point. Nixon mentioned the shooting of MB inthe first couple minutes of the presser. This presser was about the emergency response, not about right or wrong in the case. King is in CA, not living here to hear all the rumors and panic that everyone is sharing. I think Nixon did a decent job of explaining the planning.
I, for one, want my police to be prepared for what may come. They have been training for weeks and some of it included civil rights training. Just as I am upset about people thinking all blacks will turn into savages, it is unfair to say the same about the police. There has been wrong on both sides and if either side brings the past wrongs into the protests that may follow a decision, we will have the same if not worse outcome.
I, for one, want my police to be prepared for what may come. They have been training for weeks and some of it included civil rights training. Just as I am upset about people thinking all blacks will turn into savages, it is unfair to say the same about the police. There has been wrong on both sides and if either side brings the past wrongs into the protests that may follow a decision, we will have the same if not worse outcome.
I hear you. I definitely wondered about his feed, being as he's not even in Mo. But he has a lot of articulate and accurate points to make, nonetheless. Thanks for clarifying that Nixon at least mentioned MB. Since I didn't see the press conference myself I was hoping there was someone on this board who could clarify stuff.
Nixon has called a state of emergency and activated the NG. Mind you, the decision is not expected until Sunday and no violence in STL. Also, 100+ Homeland Security vehicles spotted in a hotel garage in the suburbs over the weekend.
I am having trouble getting my iPad to copy links. I'll try to get them in here but have no clue what is going on with my iPad.