It provides perspective on why people are out on the streets for many nights in a row. And that the law enforcement in Ferguson is maybe not working in good faith?

What does good faith mean to you?

I'm glad that the courts shut the doors at the appointed time. Justice delayed is justice denied--goes both ways. The courts are overworked as it is. If you can't make it to your court appearance on time, then it is on you.

Well, we're assuming that link is accurate. Which we probably ought not to.

I may have spoken a bit too soon. The ArchCity Defenders seems to be a legit, if not entirely unbiased, law firm.

http://www.archcitydefenders.org/index.html

Good faith - hmm. I'll start. Not assuming black guys are guilty till proven innocent.

Good faith could also mean supporting the side of Civil Rights activists and Holocaust survivors and fighting against the side of Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

Two very good examples of bad faith arguments.

Asking the authorities to be legitimate authorities is now bad faith, apparently.

good faith wrt policing would mean presuming innocence until proven guilty, fairly administrating laws and not being uneven in their application. As I said, the chart I posted is but a small piece of evidence that points to them not working in such

"Two very good examples of bad faith arguments. "

I don't think you even understand what arguments made in good or bad faith are.

Some of this is the direct byproduct of police militarization.

Crime is down? Why militarize our police forces. It encourages poor behavior and poor police performance:

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140815/NEWS03/140819690/0/Today

Regardless of the real, difficult, and unresolved issues that triggered all of this, "Ferguson" is now a self-sustaining event, requiring only it's own consequences to keep itself going.

clear as day example of policing in bad faith from last night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFia3Uo0TQ&feature=youtu.be

Are you trying to sound deep or something? It's continuing because Jay Nixon decided to set a curfew for people who are protesting because they feel like they are all being unfairly punished. He activated the National Guard to ensure the safety of the officers when it's the protestors that need protection, when their own police force is turning their weapons against them - literally. Ferguson isn't self-sustaining, it would end in a heartbeat if a) the police began to dress for the job they have rather than the military job that they all apparently want, and b) the officer that murdered Mike Brown were indicted for his crimes.

Late night protests are not effective. Outsiders are inciting rioting. There is a clear and present danger to public safety. The curfew is a legitimate step toward restoring order. The national guard *is* the military, and they are acting like it, as they should.

Homicide does not necessarily mean murder. Our law enforcement system would be very different if every single officer involved homicide led to a murder indictment. Is it manslaughter? Is it justifiable homicide? How many different indictments do you think the public can handle? If he were indicted for a capital crime, what do you think the response would be if the charges were reduced prior to the trial? There is *no* way the government wants to screw this up further with a miscarriage of justice for anyone involved.

"Ferguson isn't self-sustaining, it would end in a heartbeat if a) the police began to dress for the job they have rather than the military job that they all apparently want, and b) the officer that murdered Mike Brown were indicted for his crimes."

Fair enough on the first point. Local police departments shouldn't be decked out like some Third World gendarmerie. Everyone agrees to that. You may even be right that sending the actual National Guard there is counter-productive. However, the burden is on you to prove how exactly you restore order to this city if you don't use law enforcement to crack down on people rioting.

As for the second point, the officer should only be indicted if there's probable cause that he committed a crime. That's a low bar and probably will happen in time. As I said earlier, the delay is probably the result of the prosecutor preparing the arguments he'll make before the grand jury. Legal work is hard work, and does take time.

While prosecutors only need probable cause to charge someone with a crime, in reality they almost always only charge when they're pretty confident they can win at trial. That requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Much, much harder to do. The delay could have a lot to do with the prosecutor making sure he could actually win at trial on what exact crime.

"There is a clear and present danger to public safety. The curfew is a legitimate step toward restoring order."

Yes, there is - the police forces. Tell me how that's not apparent by now. We're nearing the second week or protests and they're still throwing tear gas and pointing their weapons at people, blaring the sirens all night long in the protest sites, and still people are there protesting and still the media is there covering it all, even when they're supposed to leave. Do you really think that more excessive police activity is going to stop these protests? Is that actually something that's running through your mind?

Imprisoning people in their own house for simply being a member of a specific community is absurd. They are already feeling imprisoned. They are already watching their neighbors getting arrested for protesting their inadequate, pathetic police force. A curfew may prevent a few people from leaving their homes late at night but it is not going to restore order.

"As I said earlier, the delay is probably the result of the prosecutor preparing the arguments he'll make before the grand jury. Legal work is hard work, and does take time."

I don't disagree. I just find it appalling that the officer in New York that put a man in a chokehold and killed him on the street in the light of day are still walking free even when it has been repeatedly shown that a chokehold is expressly forbidden by NYPD policy. That officer is still free.

Here in Ferguson, Dr. Baden, arguably the most respected ME around, has already performed his own private autopsy and confirmed that Michael Brown was shot six times. Now, he made it clear that the information he found in no way condemns the officer or Brown and that he needs a lot more to definitively do so, but he also made it clear that the police have taken the wrong steps, particularly in that they haven't released information about the police car that Brown supposedly attacked, which, if there were close-range gunshots fired within the car, there would be residue in the car, and if Brown was hit with close-range shots, there would be residue on his clothes. As of right now, the police department hasn't given any information that would at all corroborate their side of the story, and that's particularly upsetting.

Regardless of an indictment or a verdict, can we all agree on two things about the way this is being handled - first of all, six shots? I'm no marksman but if I had to shoot someone that was on top of me, all that would be necessary would be one shot into the abdomen. The person shot would stumble backwards and potentially run if it didn't severely damage any organs, and at that point, you call in an ambulance. What was the need to fire six shots? Did he think he missed five times from close range? Second of all, regarding the apparent absence of an ambulance at the scene - Brown's body laid there, obviously dead, for hours. But, given that there were six shots fired, he probably wasn't dead after the first shot. So why then did Wilson continue shooting as opposed to calling in the medic and trying to save the guy?

It tells me that Wilson has no regard for the people that he's supposed to serve, and it tells me that, regardless of the typical legal runaround, Wilson could have acted in self defense initially but in the end this turned into an execution, whether Brown was innocent of all wrongdoing himself or not.

me: There is a clear and present danger to public safety...

bo_sox: Yes, there is - the police forces.

Yep, blame the cops for all the problems. Who started this anyway?

However, right now, *clear and presently*, order is the highest priority. Small town cops are certainly over their heads, but those with the monopoly on power can't just cede it to the thugs on the street. The difficulty is separating the good from bad apples, and that's why a curfew is being imposed.

But...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Legitimate question for Ferguson to answer, but not one that needs answering today.

@Jeff_Kuta
"Late night protests are not effective."

Do you have something to support this? What exactly are you saying here? What does effective mean? Do people not have a right to protest at night (considering many are probably working during the day)

"The curfew is a legitimate step toward restoring order."

No, it's very clear the curfew was intended to curtail protests specifically and provide precedent for harsher crackdowns. They knew people were going to be out against the curfew anyway. Something like this doesn't just go away because of a police order.

@Invictus
"However, the burden is on you to prove how exactly you restore order to this city if you don't use law enforcement to crack down on people rioting."

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/tensions-ease-ferguson-missouri-highway-patrol-chief-marches-protesters
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/captain-mike-brown-case-marches-protestors/

It's fairly obvious you haven't been paying attention to this situation at all and are just making catch-all defenses for police.

"While prosecutors only need probable cause to charge someone with a crime, in reality they almost always only charge when they're pretty confident they can win at trial. That requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Much, much harder to do. The delay could have a lot to do with the prosecutor making sure he could actually win at trial on what exact crime. "

That's IF he is arrested or charged at all, which he hasn't been

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/police-officers-arrested-for-murder-ferguson-bgsu

I didn't see you for a "thugs" kind of person, Jeff. I guess I was mistaken. Now we're resorting to that.

Yeah, I blame the cops for this. It's obvious, and I just laid out why. Care to read it?

@ Jeff: "Who started this anyway?"

Ummm.... the police did, when they killed an unarmed black man.

"Capt. Ronald S. Johnson, the highway patrol official appointed by the governor to take over the response, immediately signaled a change in approach. Captain Johnson told reporters he had ordered troopers to remove their tear-gas masks, and in the early evening he accompanied several groups of protesters through the streets, clasping hands, listening to stories and marching alongside them.

On Thursday night, the armored vehicles and police cars were gone, and the atmosphere was celebratory. A street barricaded on previous nights was filled with slow-moving cars blasting their horns. A man played a drum across the street from a convenience store that was looted this week. And there were few signs of police officers, let alone a forceful response.

Kimaly Diouf, co-owner of Rehoboth Pharmacy, said the reason for the difference was simple: “Because they’re not tear gassing us tonight.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/us/ferguson-missouri-police-shooting.html

it's almost as if you treat people with respect and not enemy combatants then they will return the respect in kind

What point are you trying to make about Dr. Baden?

As for the police department not cooperating, just because they don't release that information to the media does not mean the prosecutor doesn't get his hot little hands on it. Don't assume you know everything that's going on.


"I'm no marksman but if I had to shoot someone that was on top of me, all that would be necessary would be one shot into the abdomen. The person shot would stumble backwards and potentially run if it didn't severely damage any organs, and at that point, you call in an ambulance. What was the need to fire six shots?"

A gun should only be fired when the shooter intends to kill. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound." That's an invention of movies and TV. If the self-defense story is true, then the officer could reasonably have felt he needed six shots to stop the threat to his life. Just as easily, he could have acted wrongly and shot when he did not need to.


"Second of all, regarding the apparent absence of an ambulance at the scene - Brown's body laid there, obviously dead, for hours. But, given that there were six shots fired, he probably wasn't dead after the first shot. So why then did Wilson continue shooting as opposed to calling in the medic and trying to save the guy?"

This makes me really think there's no point talking to you any further. It does look bad that the body was left in the street for hours. But I at least don't know the circumstances. Was it roped off by police with that yellow tape while crime scene investigators were inspecting the area? The a dead body taking some time to be moved could have a perfectly reasonable explanation. Or it could be a really, really awful act of callousness. I simply don't know and nothing I've read has said anything more than that the body was outside for several hours. No context at all.

But it's this business about Wilson calling and Brown not being dead that makes me sure you are just willfully ignorant of the facts here. Dr. Baden, the guy whose every word you give such weigh, said that the shot to the top of the head killed Brown. And the shot was consistent with Brown's body falling forward as a result of the other shots. So Brown almost certainly was not lying near death on the street as you think, and Wilson certainly wasn't shooting Brown as he lay injured on the street. Nobody claims that happened at all. This are basic, basic facts that even casually following the case ought to show you.


If you're this uniformed, bo_sox48, just stop posting.

"That's IF he is arrested or charged at all, which he hasn't been"

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/grand-jury-hear-michael-brown-evidence-wednesday-n184486

Grand jury hearing Wednesday.

The grand jury is what determines whether someone should be charged with a criminal offense in jurisdictions that use grand juries. What I think you are really upset about is that Wilson is not in custody. At this point, that means police would need an arrest warrant. Which means going to a judge and proving probable cause. Which is what the prosecutor needs to do in front of the grand jury. So, since Wilson isn't a flight risk, what's the point of making the argument twice? If the grand jury issues an indictment (which they pretty much will do for anything, just ask Rick Perry), then Wilson will be arrested.

Not EVERYTHING in this case needs to make you mad.

Arresting or convicting Wilson would have gone a much longer way towards appeasing the community and settling the riots than their actual response did. The protests are largely fueled by feelings of injustice and letting this case float around for over a week before getting even to preliminaries.

And lets just say I'm not entirely optimistic about a secret grand jury hearing where only one side gets heard.and the prosecutor has close ties to the police.

I think that a large part of the problem, is a problem with most branches of the USG, where they have this gigantic problem with admitting that they're wrong.

Think about the Turkish-Armenian massacre of World War I. Why does everyone make a big deal about this? Didn't a lot of militaries do stupid/violent things during the Great War? The Turkish-Armenian massacre receives press largely because the Turks won't admit that the event actually took place. Their denial is what gets negative press for them.

Similar situation here. It's established as facts that a police officer shot an unarmed man. Rather than admit that this is inappropriate, suspend the police officer pending investigation, extend social services to the family and begin a public community outreach, instead the city is...

...denying that anything inappropriate took place, concealing facts, imposing a curfew, calling in the military and attempting to undermine the credibility of the victim.

Well, the other side would be the defense so I can't imagine you would want them there. You really don't seem to understand what a grand jury is yet. How has the case been "floating around" for a week? The autopsy was only a few days ago. How do you expect the prosecutor to make his argument before the grand jury before anyone even knew basic details about Brown's death? You expect the prosecutor to just grab the lab report from the examiner's hands and walk down the street to the courthouse? Things don't happen like that in ANY case.

Maybe Wilson should have been arrested right away. I don't know. But him not being arrested does not justify the rioting that's been going on in Ferguson at all.

@bo_sox48 By self-sustaining I wasn't implying it should stop. But it is now a cycle of journalists and protesters eliciting responses from law enforcement that produce more (often reasonable) causes for protest.

@Invictus

I don't expect any of this, but keep swinging. Like I said, Wilson should at least have been in custody to give people even the pretense that the police was concerned about justice in this case.