The dispatcher relayed the correct information as provided by the witness.
Why not? Just because your a first responder and It upsets you doesn't mean we can't call out the dispatcher.
If eye witnesses are considered unreliable then any info they give to the dispatcher needs to be taken with caution as all the dispatcher is doing is parroting the caller.
You remind me of the cop in this video. Make sure you watch the whole video that's how you sound .
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-18-2014 at 12:46 PM.
Why not? Just because your in law enforcement and It upsets you doesn't mean we can't call out the dispatcher.
If eye witnesses are considered unreliable then any info they give to the dispatcher needs to be taken with caution as all the dispatcher is doing is parroting the caller.
You remind me of the cop in this video. Make sure you watch the whole video that's how you sound .
Right.
A quote from the video,
"(referring to police)... you wanna go out there, you wanna kill kids and you wanna threaten us."
Seriously man? Come on. I'm all for putting forth intelligent arguments to support your position. But if that is the stuff you watch and believe, it is futile.
But, cops KNOW that witnesses are unreliable. If anyone knows that, it's the police. In fact, if anyone outside of law enforcement knows that, it is because law enforcement explained that to them. The law enforcement also therefore should understand and KNOW that their own 911 dispatchers are merely relaying info sent from those unreliable eyewitnesses. That's why police officers need to be sent, because they are supposed to check the scene out, determine what is happening, and act accordingly to defuse the situation, and ensure that justice is served through even handed application of the law. Otherwise, we could skip whole parts, and just send people to jail because of 911 calls.
But we can't, and we don't. Police officers are needed to ascertain what is happening, and then investigators and lawyers are necessary to provide checks and balances to the system after the fact. Which is why when police officers, either through poor training, poorly run and built systems, willful ignorance or disobedience, or unintentional errors, don't do the correct thing, the system fails.
Failure in the Justice System is not good, but people understand that it can and will happen. People are willing to work with and around those circumstances for the greater good. That isn't really a problem. But that's not what we have been seeing these last few years, and the last few months in particular.
We are seeing police officers in many places making willfully wrong statements for self serving reasons. We are seeing certain members of law enforcement using the public's willingness to work with an imperfect system for the greater good, and pervert that into something frankly thuggish. Not all officers, but enough to put into question the whole system.
I would applaud any officer who puts their own safety at risk to attempt to defuse a difficult situation. I cannot defend an officer that shoots first, because the situation may possibly be threatening.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Knalus For This Useful Post:
simply put even though I have had a very limited experience with police I still dont trust them because they seem to pull the "for my safety" crap to cuff, and search you when they had no reason to have contact with you anyways.
But we can't, and we don't. Police officers are needed to ascertain what is happening, and then investigators and lawyers are necessary to provide checks and balances to the system after the fact. Which is why when police officers, either through poor training, poorly run and built systems, willful ignorance or disobedience, or unintentional errors, don't do the correct thing, the system fails.
I generally agree with your post and wanted to make a comment that builds on this paragraph.
Having lived in 3 distinct geographical areas of the US over the last 20 years, I've noticed that the perspective towards what is and isn't an example of a failed process is very stark.
By that I mean that a non-trivial percentage of the US population does not consider a civilian death part of a system failing, and has a very acquiescent stance towards death as an outcome in civilian - police encounters. These people, for a variety of reasons, are very accepting of the fact that an unarmed civilian can lose his/her life even through the most routine of encounters with police. In effect, what many people would consider a system fail is regarded by many others as the natural order of law*. This attitude is in stark contrast to my general feel of Canadian society (from my experience through the mid 90s) and is also anathema to practically all of my foreign friends.
A significant number of americans still have very cavalier attitudes towards the well being of their fellow citizens. Until the population at large finds unanimous outrage over a 12 year old boy gunned down in under 3 seconds, I'm not sure anything can change.
* You can see this attitude manifest clearly in the Garner case. Pundit and citizen comments to the effect of "why didn't he just immediately shut up and submit to everything?" is the mental waiver people sign to wave Garner's life away.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,” The Smoking Gun has learned.
In interviews with police, FBI agents, and federal and state prosecutors--as well as during two separate appearances before the grand jury that ultimately declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson--the purported eyewitness delivered a preposterous and perjurious account of the fatal encounter in Ferguson.
Its a long article. The jist of it she was never in the area, she is well known has a racist,she is known to St.Louis police for coming forward in many other cases as a witness only to have been no where near the scene's of the crimes and she is bi- polar which is not a problem till you learn she does not take meds.
This witness was brought in by the Prosecutor!!! She was the witness that was collaborating Darren Wilson.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-18-2014 at 03:05 PM.
That's not good news. Is this whole thing going to blow up again?
Nah, it just adds further to the list of unreliable witnesses on either side. Which is why eyewitnesses are considered the "least" of the evidence one could have.
The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
Nah, it just adds further to the list of unreliable witnesses on either side. Which is why eyewitnesses are considered the "least" of the evidence one could have.
To be fair, this is adding to the list of unreliable witnesses on the Officer's side, not both.
Its a long article. The jist of it she was never in the area, she is well known has a racist,she is known to St.Louis police for coming forward in many other cases as a witness only to have been no where near the scene's of the crimes and she is bi- polar which is not a problem till you learn she does not take meds.
This witness was brought in by the Prosecutor!!! She was the witness that was collaborating Darren Wilson.
Ok first off this isn't a "major update"...even in this thread. This was being discussed in the past two pages when it was originaly posted.
Secondly, she wasn't "the witness" (ie. the only one) that was collaborating Darren Wilson. I forget the exact count, but it was pretty even for witnesses testifying at the grand jury to corroborate Wilson's story and those to refute/differ from it.
the problem is that they will take the state/cops side 90% of the time. it's like you have to have video of it to win, or in the case of NY that doesn't matter either.
Ok first off this isn't a "major update"...even in this thread. This was being discussed in the past two pages when it was originaly posted.
Secondly, she wasn't "the witness" (ie. the only one) that was collaborating Darren Wilson. I forget the exact count, but it was pretty even for witnesses testifying at the grand jury to corroborate Wilson's story and those to refute/differ from it.
Your right missed it earlier. Will edit. Really busy lately.
To your point she is not the only one but was considered a key witness that was suppose to have one of the "most complete" recollections .
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-18-2014 at 03:14 PM.
Does a grand jury decision have any sort of Double Jeopardy type protection or can they revisit this if the DA is embarrassed enough?
They can do a thousand grand juries if they want.
Double jeopardy laws in the state apply to those charged with a felony where a trial has taken place. Grand jury cases are not a trial where guilt must be established.
Social media is abuzz tonight--Berkeley, MO, a county over from Ferguson, police shot and killed another unarmed 18 year old black man tonight.
Here we go again.
I'll be curious to see how this unfolds and what the story was or wasn't this time around.
Edit: Here's the only link I can find in a quick glance, but the #AntonioMartin hashtag on Twitter is pretty interesting, lots of streaming video and vines happening.
Social media is abuzz tonight--Berkeley, MO, a county over from Ferguson, police shot and killed another unarmed 18 year old black man tonight.
Here we go again.
I'll be curious to see how this unfolds and what the story was or wasn't this time around.
Edit: Here's the only link I can find in a quick glance, but the #AntonioMartin hashtag on Twitter is pretty interesting, lots of streaming video and vines happening.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Social media is abuzz tonight--Berkeley, MO, a county over from Ferguson, police shot and killed another unarmed 18 year old black man tonight.
Here we go again.
I'll be curious to see how this unfolds and what the story was or wasn't this time around.
Edit: Here's the only link I can find in a quick glance, but the #AntonioMartin hashtag on Twitter is pretty interesting, lots of streaming video and vines happening.
A Berkeley police officer fired at least three shots at a suspect who pulled a gun on him, the St. Louis County Police chief said at a Wednesday morning news conference
