Ferguson Mo problems

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a few questions that I have not seen answered. This questions will sound really bad and I am sorry to ask them BUT here goes.

1. If there was gunshot wounds to the victim then how many times was he shot?

2. Could it have been possible for the policeman to have fired the fatal round while being still in his car?

3. Could young Mr. Brown have either walked or ran the thirty feet with his hands in the air and then collapsed to the ground?

These are just a few questions that I would need to know before I could make any judgement on the actions of either.
 
Ferguson PD was FALSELY arresting journalists on scene for photographing and videoing them. That's both a crime and a civil tort. When you do that, you're either up to no good or plan to be.

Likewise the attempt by the DoJ to suppress the robbery video.

I wouldn't trust either side as far as I could throw Rosie O'Donnell and a boxcar full of bags of hammers.

According to the news articles, MSHP kept the journalists corralled at the QT parking lot. As for the video, everybody but the media wanted to suppress it. Ferguson only released it due to the media Sunshine Law requests.
 
I have a few questions that I have not seen answered. This questions will sound really bad and I am sorry to ask them BUT here goes.

1. If there was gunshot wounds to the victim then how many times was he shot?

2. Could it have been possible for the policeman to have fired the fatal round while being still in his car?

3. Could young Mr. Brown have either walked or ran the thirty feet with his hands in the air and then collapsed to the ground?

These are just a few questions that I would need to know before I could make any judgement on the actions of either.

All good questions. Since criminal charge/exoneration hangs in the balance of the answer to exactly those questions, plus a couple more, you won't know officially until the investigation is over.
 
Cop will sue and get enough to move his family out of an ungrateful area PLUS he'll get a partial pension. God bless him. Their apology is an admission of wrong-doing.

What would the grounds be for the civil suit? Truth is a defense for libel, and it wasn't slanderous. It wasn't a good idea, but actionable? Seems unlikely. After all, the news media garnered his address from publicly available information. The pictures of Wilson I've seen came from his dad's Facebook page. Nothing here to sue for . . .
 
Ferguson PD was falsely arresting, assaulting and harassing journalists at least a day BEFORE the Highway Patrol even got there.

Well, I'll just say that "falsely," "assaulting," and "harassing" are terms of art that a court will decide. I concur that journalists were arrested and that it happened in Ferguson. The arresting officers could have been a member of any one of the dozens of responding agencies, including the Highway Patrol, which sent troopers in on the initial response. The video I saw of the McD's arrest included an officer in green riot gear, worn by St. Louis County, MSHP, and many other agencies.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes wonder if we would be better off without "journalist"?
I'm sure Vladimir Putin feels the same way... and has means of making that happen.

It sounds as if you don't believe that what the police do should be known to the public.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'll just say that "falsely," "assaulting," and "harassing" are terms of art that a court will decide. I concur that journalists were arrested and that it happened in Ferguson. The arresting officers could have been a member of any one of the dozens of responding agencies, including the Highway Patrol, which sent troopers in on the initial response. The video I saw of the McD's arrest included an officer in green riot gear, worn by St. Louis County, MSHP, and many other agencies.
Which was the responsible agency at the time?

If it's Ferguson PD, then they and the individuals LEOs, regardless of agency, would be civilly responsible... probably the only recourse the victims would have.
 
Which was the responsible agency at the time?

If it's Ferguson PD, then they and the individuals LEOs, regardless of agency, would be civilly responsible... probably the only recourse the victims would have.

I am not an attorney; however, I'm pretty sure that Ferguson PD doesn't assume liability for officers responding in a mutual aid situation. Officers acting in their official capacity and acting within their agency policy would not be personally liable in their individual capacity in any event.
 
I feel bad for the owners of the store, especially the man that was a victim of strong armed robbery. He was forced to attempt to protect his business on his own when the powers decided that they wouldn't protect him because of political reasons.
So now his livelihood has been destroyed because one criminal decided to victimize him. They have basically torn it to the ground.
And a policeman's career is ruined because he ended up on the wrong side of politics while trying to do his sworn duty.
This shouldn't happen in America!!!
I see things like this and I am so glad I am out of that rat race!
 
I am not an attorney; however, I'm pretty sure that Ferguson PD doesn't assume liability for officers responding in a mutual aid situation. Officers acting in their official capacity and acting within their agency policy would not be personally liable in their individual capacity in any event.
SOMEBODY was in overall control. If not, that's evidence of failure to supervise, another civil tort.

It's called "qualified" immunity for a reason. You can forfeit it in a number of ways, including by acting outside of policy. Are you saying suppressing lawful journalistic activity is policy for these agencies...? Of course for the agency to admit as such would make it liable.
 
SOMEBODY was in overall control. If not, that's evidence of failure to supervise, another civil tort.

It's called "qualified" immunity for a reason. You can forfeit it in a number of ways, including by acting outside of policy. Are you saying suppressing lawful journalistic activity is policy for these agencies...? Of course for the agency to admit as such would make it liable.

Somebody was, but I suspect the decision to make the arrest was an officer decision and not a command decision. I'm not saying that what the journalists were doing was lawful or unlawful. That is for a court to decide. I'm not in the business of convicting or exonerating people before the trial.
 
I'm not in the business of convicting or exonerating people before the trial.
I'm in the "business" of speaking out when I see what I perceive as illegitimate use of governmental power and violations of people's constitutional rights.

Other people on the contrary don't appear to believe in the 1st Amendment or the right of citizens to know what public employees are doing on the job.
 
I'm sure this saintly do gooder college student wasn't a narcotics violator either. There aren't many 18 year olds that casually smoke cigars. Does anyone want to guess what purpose Swisher Sweets are used for when "purchased" or should I say obtained, by teenagers?
 
Somebody was, but I suspect the decision to make the arrest was an officer decision and not a command decision.
If it's contrary to policy, he can kiss his qualified immunity goodbye. That gets real expensive, real fast.

Of course that doesn't get the agency off the hook, since then they're open to a claim of failure to supervise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top