"Court orders state to release 911 transcript in police shooting in Windham."http://www.pressherald.com/2014/08/06/court-rules-state-must-release-911... ~charlie neville
From the article:
"In Tuesday’s decision, the court sided with the state on not releasing video and audio recordings from cruiser cameras, saying that making them public could influence the recollection of witnesses whom the Attorney General’s Office might want to interview again."
If you have the video and audio and they tell the truth, then why would you need witnesses? Aren't the video and audio MORE RELIABLE witnesses, ones not influenced by external factors since they are what actually happened?
Whatever happened to finding out the TRUTH? I guess that no longer matters since it's overshadowed by an agenda.
Or overshadowed by an agenda that has to be proven before any other are aspects determined .
Like what, Bruce? Care to explain how the truth should take a back seat to the agenda?
Oh it doesn't in end but getting to that end is the point.
If the truth is what is sought fine,if it is anything else not so.I
It never should take a back seat to any agenda
but it appears to do so at times.
When the cop screwed up and the camera shows it. It's like the story of the cop who shot the old guy with a cane. He didn't wait to see if there was a threat but instead presumed that there was one and shot the old guy anyway. Review ALWAYS states that the cop followed proper procedure even in acts of obvious wrongdoing. THAT agenda.
Have you ever researched findings that weren't justified ?
That is an individual agenda supported by your assumption that it is ALWAYS ,so everything has to support that !
The CBC has this interview with friend who was with Mike Brown just before he was shot 10 times by Missouri police officer:
I simply have not been able to find where an internal review has ever found an officer to have unjustifiably fired his weapon where it resulted in the death of an innocent person. If you have any further information, please share.
Shocking isn't it? I count three innocent Los Angelinos shot by cops in this story:
Rebecca, the John T. Williams case, posted here, resulted in a finding that the officer was not justified. Attorney General Michael Carpenter's review of the Katherine Hegarty case resulted in his personal recommendation that all the officers should be fired. However, no officer was fired, no officer was found liable even civilly, and the First Circuit court of appeals ruling that the officers were justified was not disturbed by the US Supreme Court.
In short, in the ONLY case in Maine where the AG sided with the deceased, he was wrong. If there is a bias, it is in favor of the deceased. Previous administrations (specifically, Carpenter's) used to refer to the deceased as "the victim", regardless of who else was shot, or in what order.
Finally, in the "Erik Scott" thread, I noted a case where a police officer was prosecuted for murder and convicted by the Clark County DA in Nevada. That's tantamount to a finding of naughtiness, isn't it?
While a case might be justified there is an assumption that everyones ends up free and clear.
There is probably untold number of cases where the officers involved careers ended due to other performance issues
related to the justified use of force event.
Swat Team Raids Innocent Woman's Home; Lawsuit Filed
The 68-year-old woman, Louise Milan was in the house with her 18 year old adopted daughter when police shattered a glass door and burst in after throwing flash grenades inside.
Police came up empty-handed in the search for evidence
So, an innocent person, not conducting any illegal activity was put at risk due to police incompetence.
City attorneys contend that the force used to execute the search warrant, was “objectively reasonable” and that officials are immune from liability.
Let's look at the 4th amendment, shall we?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
Warrant be damned. I don't think Ms. Milan was secure in her house against an unreasonable search.
Posted on August 12, 2014 by Wirecutter
A man who was carrying an air rifle in an Ohio Wal-Mart told the police officers that fatally shot him that the gun was “not real,” according to a family member.
John Crawford was shot by police Tuesday evening at a Beavercreek store. The Ohio attorney general’s office announced Thursday that he was merely carrying a brand of air rifle that Wal-Mart sells.
Another shopper, 37-year-old Angela Williams, collapsed and died as she scrambled to get away after police fired at Crawford.
“And the next thing I know, he said ‘It’s not real,’ and the police start shooting and they said ‘Get on the ground,’ but he was already on the ground because they had shot him.”
Johnson, who had not yet told Crawford that she was pregnant with their third child, said that she could hear him crying and screaming.
But an Internet search of Wal-Mart’s website shows that it does indeed sell Crosman MK-177 air rifles. The price is listed at $100.83.
So they killed him before he could get to the checkout counter with his item(s) and caused the death of another shopper because some idiots (including the cops) can't tell the difference between a real firearm and a Crossman bb gun. MY 5 yr old grandson can tell the difference. The person(s) who called the cops should be held just a liable or more so than the man who pulled the trigger.
That should be interesting. According to police he was "brandishing a realistic looking rifle" and "refused to follow police commands.
However, the witnesses tell a different story.
I wonder if the Wal-mart video will show up, or whether was it erased by the police like the Costco video was in the Eric Scott case?
Police: The quick response of officers was instrumental in containing this situation and minimizing the risk to customers.”
Beavercreek Walmart shooting case: As it happened
Hmm... Or the stupid overreaction by the police killed an innocent man - who died screaming in terror for his life - and also resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.
Sounds pretty risky to me.
I have never seen it explained why the police were inside the Toys R Us before they encountered Crawford, have you?
The number of brute squad incidents are staggering in this country.
When an incident such as the Brown shooting occurs, why would we believe what the LEOs state as their side, there are videos, but they can't release them blah blah. They can't release them because they show what the eyewitnesses relate and the LEOs are trying to keep a lid on it. Keep it a race riot and not a communities assault against a police state out of control.
Here are the cops using the race card for their own gain.
John Crawford III’s manner of death was listed as homicide, which means that the death was caused by another person. The term does not describe whether or not a killing was justified. Crawford’s time of death was listed as 9:23 p.m. at Miami Valley Hospital.
Why would I care that cops were inside Toys R Us? It is totally irrelevant.
What I wonder about is did the cops allow enough time for Crawford to hear them? Is it possible that there was too much ambient noise or they were too far away to be heard clearly? Did they shoot him in the back? Did they establish eye contact so that he would know that they were looking directly at and were talking to him? Can they tell the difference between a bb gun and a real gun? (apparently not).
Why; did someone call the police and not store security? Why have the initial callers not been identified. The cops have their cell number and name & address. Is it possible that there was animosity between the initial caller and the victim? By calling the cops did they think the police would shoot him on sight? THAT is entirely possible.
NO. I do not care where the cops were prior to killing the man. Only if it was absolutely necessary to preserve his own or another life. And that does not appear to be the case at this time, does it.
Come on Mike G. You were there?
This St Louis area riot incident bears a similarity to the MSM driven initial account of the Trayvon Martin "unarmed teenager" shooting.
Let's give the LEOs a break until all the facts and evidence are all in and not feed the Al Sharpton narrative. So far the burning and looting looks a lot like the 1967-1968 black race riots, not a peaceful protest about an over reacting militarized local PD.
It's another relatively rare white on black shooting in a dangerous area where most of the cops are white and most of the criminals are black. So the MSM take is that cops must be "racist" and guilty. Not necessarily so.
Why don't they release the video then? What would they have to lose releasing the video of the shoot? IF it was justified?
If it wasn't justified they wouldn't want to release the video, because then it would prove they were in the wrong.
Now with the blacks rioting, it gives the cops a shelter, see what we they have to contend with, black people riot, that is why we need the thin blue line. That is typical government manipulation of a situation.
Why wouldn't they release the video to help stop the rioting? Because they don't like what it will show, that is why. The purity of the investigation reason is BS.
Precisely, In re interviewing witnesses questions can be phrased to lead to the conclusion they'd like. Witnesses see what they'd like to see, or what they'er directed to see. Not so with dash cams or officer audio recordings. Cops are human too, they make mistakes that cost people their lives. They should be held accountable.
They didn't release all the head injuries to Zimmerman initially either. That didn't stop NBC News from doctoring a tape to make Z look suspicious or guilty.
As for the video...it may be the legal advice the LEOs are getting from legal counsel
during an investigation. Let's just wait and see and not rush to judgment.
In urban high crime areas their job is tough enough without convicting them in an adversarial liberal press that is more political than journalistic.
Under duress LEOs sometimes make grevious mistakes, but the narrative of "he be good boy" and is innocent of all wrong doing is often bogus BS by racial demgogues.
Don't bother telling people here to wait for non-media facts. It is like trying to dig a hole in the ocean. Some remember the Popkowski "gray area" shooting that turned out to be deranged, attempted murder, complete with emails to his mom the night before and signage known to the media. Others no doubt recall the "John T. Williams" shooting (found unjustified) involving a wood carver tottering drunkenly in front of a dash cam on a busy street with a closed carving knife.
Most people would rather reason from their biases that wait for real "facts". the Zimmerman case is an excellent example of same. Everybody hates the media -- until they propagate a meme that is consistent with the hearer's biases.
By the way, I don't think it is a matter of cutting anybody a break. It is more a matter of cold-blooded recognition of the limits of one's own knowledge, and the MSM's penchant for putting money before accuracy. Really, any kind of an incident "scene" can only be processed ONCE. It is an inherently destructive process. Where someone has done it right, nobody else will be able to do it again.
Interviewing witnesses is just the same. That is a MAJOR reason why video and audio is not released until it is really, really all done. If you have the real scene info, audio, video and forensics, you can sort out "wannabee" witnesses, Lead the biased liars down the garden path and expose them, and also figure out that "Jeez, this guy MUSTA been there." This comes up, interestingly, with people who claim to know NOTHING. If the vid/audio shows them ducking, running, looking over their shoulder and yelling a warning to their friends, you are left with the interesting task of unpacking why they say they know nothing -- an obvious lie, but only obvious if they don't know what you know in advance.
In this state, after the AG investigators are done, they really do release the investigation, photos, autopsy, reports, and so forth to the media, and any "Joe Schmoe" who ponies up the copying charges. That is the right way to do it. Anybody who wants to then can do a truly independent investigation. I know they do it, because I've made the request.
As always TJC well said.
The fellow shot by police in Ferguson had, minutes before, committed a strong arm robbery:
Police: Before Shooting, Brown Robbed Store - Teen was killed minutes after cops responded to strong-arm theft call
This lends strong credibility to the idea that he physically shoved the police officer. It doesn't necessarily resolve whether the officer was justified in shooting Brown.
It also points to Ben Crump as a defender of young aggressive african-american men.
The attorney representing Brown's family, Benjamin Crump, said Brown's parents are "incensed" by what he calls "the old game of smoke and mirrors." He says the family was blind-sided by Friday's announcement.
Ferguson police say Michael Brown was suspect in robbery
Really? Brilliant ben Crump was blindsided? You mean after having Brown's companion's testimony on the air 24/7... Crump never thought to ask him what they were doing that day?
Al Sharpton is planning on being in Ferguson on Sunday. What is that race-baiter going to say about this? Or, like in the Zimmerman/Martin case, they will just ignore the actual evidence.
I think this is a "teachable moment".
However, I don't think it teaches what Sharpton, Crump, Obama and Holder would like.
The cop that shot Mike Brown, Darren Wilson, did not stop Brown because of the alleged robbery because he didn't know he was a suspect at the time:
[Ferguson Police Chief Thomas] Jackson says the officer who stopped Brown did not stop him in connection with the alleged robbery. Brown was stopped, Jackson says, “Because he was walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. That was it.”
Jackson is asked: If the alleged robbery had nothing to do with Brown being stopped, then why would you release the video of the robbery?
“Because you [media] asked for it,” Jackson says.
Except that how could the media ask for a video which existence was not public knowledge? This is nothing more than the Ferguson Police Department trying to make the victim look bad. This is a common tactic used by defense lawyers in rape cases - attempt to portray the victim as deserving of the violent act committed against them.
This is nothing more than the Ferguson Police Department trying to make the victim look bad.
I don't think so. It is true that a tactic of police to slander the victims of their negligent killings - the Jose Guerena situation was a case study of that - the police slurred, slandered and outright lied in order to make the victim look bad. But Guerena really was an innocent citizen going about lawful business who didn't have a chance against the cops who murdered him.
However, in this case there is credible evidence that Brown was in the midst of an aggressive rage, and makes believable the police claim that he physically attacked the police officer. Brown coming back at the store clerk to intimidate him shows that Brown was having a hostile and violent criminal episode.
Now robbing the store, assaulting the clerk, and even assaulting the cop do not, by themselves, automatically justify the use of deadly force. However, it makes the police claim seem much more plausible.
The video shows how Brown was aggressive with the store clerk as he was leaving, but I wonder if another video will surface from the police cruiser? If there is indeed another one available, it would be interesting to see it... and maybe that would help Gerald see how a crime had actually just been committed by Brown.
The question is whether Brown deserved to be shot 10 times, not whether he was a boy scout like Travon.
The dash cam video isn't released but the store cam is. How interesting.
Guy steals some cigars off the counter, is walking down the street like Mr Cocksure of himself and winds up dead.
Well another punk off the streets, sounds about right, the justice system is overloaded and ineffectual, let's just shoot them all, let God sort them out..