Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 75 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Yep, according to sources, always 'the sources'.

If you were the police chief of Ferguson in this situation and had proof of fight that so badly injured the officer in question (i.e. in this case there would be photos, medical reports, etc.) would you not have released at least a picture to back up that story?

And if not, why not?

No, it would violate HIPAA laws.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Yep, according to sources, always 'the sources'.

If you were the police chief of Ferguson in this situation and had proof of fight that so badly injured the officer in question (i.e. in this case there would be photos, medical reports, etc.) would you not have released at least a picture to back up that story?

And if not, why not?

It's clear who has controlled the media narrative so far, this explains some of the lack of information propagating about Wilson's version of events.

Unless i'm mistaken, they've been reporting a swollen face since the beginning. It hasn't gotten much press, but this follows the same pattern of railroading that happened to information indicating the severity of wounds GZ suffered to his face as well as treatment and representation in media of eye witness accounts. Though here with Wilson, there appears to be more reporting of information supporting Wilson's version of events (ie: injury, Brown Charging, other, scuffle in car).
 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,181
23
81

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
The bruise would take a while to show, and the report we do have does indicate swelling. Not seeing any recognizable injury in the low res video taken immediately after, does not allow any conclusions to be drawn.

Orbital fractures vary in their severity.

Again, this crap is silly. Evidence of injury will be presented to the GJ if it exists. If it doesn't exist, then it can't be presented. Whatever the records from the hospital show, is what they show, and that's what the GJ will see.

There have been no hospital records showing any of this, all we have had is the prosecutor saying this. You are absolutely wrong on the bruising showing up slowly, not on the face or especially the eye and nose area, it will be almost immediate, and if it is a fracture of that extent it will be most definitely immediate. I know what I am talking about. I had hit my eye not too long ago by accident and busted the actual eye, the whole eye within seconds turned into a hematoma and bruising appeared immediately with blood all in my eye. Here I will take a shot of an old pic of my eye and show you. Then link it. I took the shot within several minutes of just hitting my eye. I didn't even have a "orbital blow out fracture"...lol
 
Last edited:

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
There have been no hospital records showing any of this, all we have had is the prosecutor saying this.


Yea, there's been a kind of stubborn passivity to the clear need for non traditional thinking in a situation like this.

Lets just treat this case like all the others (holding of info), when the case clearly evolved well beyond any normal case almost immediately and to an extreme degree....

If there is a rigorous defense of Wilson now available or during the days leading to the riots, it's irresponsible to withhold it IMO. So it does question why would important information to Wilson's version of events be kept in the dark up to this point.
 
Last edited:

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Ok so here is a shot of my eye minutes after accidentally hitting it. I took a shot of it. It bled almost instantly and I didn't even have a orbital fracture of any kind just a plain ole hematoma of the eye. I was told by the doc that ANY major hit to the eye or surrounding eye tissues can cause instant bruising and blood pooling. This is due to all the network of blood vessels close to the surface of very thin skin in the face and lids.

7JsbdMf.jpg
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Yep, according to sources, always 'the sources'.

If you were the police chief of Ferguson in this situation and had proof of fight that so badly injured the officer in question (i.e. in this case there would be photos, medical reports, etc.) would you not have released at least a picture to back up that story?

And if not, why not?

(Not picking on you, but your post was the most convenient to quote for my point.)

Cases like this and others are not supposed to be tried in the 'court of public opinion', but rather in the court of law.

It seems over time we have become conditioned to accept trial in the court of public opinion when the when the media thinks it should be (for their own self-serving rating's purpose). We, as the citizenry, should stop complying as we've seen how unfair and lopsided these are.

As demonstrated by the GZ/TM example the media is neither constrained by a requirement to be accurate or compliance with privacy laws nor any effort to be unbiased and fair. Let a police chief or other govt official involved report inaccuracies like the media regularly does and watch holy hell rain down on his his/her head. Let a govt official (the governor in this case) appear to be biased and watch the sh!t storm.

The system of trial by public opinion is inherently unfair. This is the media's daily profession and they buy ink by the barrel. The police chief involved has likely never experienced anything like this before and is completely inexperienced. However, I'd bet he's quite capable of dealing with a trial in the court of law.

I don't know how this will ultimately turn out, but I've got a sick feeling it's going to be too much like the GZ/TM case for my liking.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,464
1,005
126
They can't due to HIPAA. Only the officer can release it.

Its not HIPPA thats causing the hold up. Its the fact that it is an ongoing investigation. Also, photographic evidence of his injuries taken during the course of a criminal investigation are not likely to be protected by HIPPA. Even if they did, even if the officer waived HIPPA, the photos still would not be released until the investigation is over.
 
Last edited:

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Its not HIPPA thats causing the hold up. Its the fact that it is an ongoing investigation.

Once the evidence is filed with the court its public record and accessible through FIOA because it is part of a criminal investigation. Even if the officer waived HIPPA the photos will not be released until the investigation is complete.

And what people don't realize is HIPPA is not the end all be all of medical privacy that many of you believe, especially when it involves a criminal investigation.

When you have a Governor declaring a state of emergency and calling out the National Guard it behooves him to go ahead and release this information to calm people down and regain control of the city. It makes no sense to hold onto this information and say "well its because of the investigation" at this point. Just like it makes no sense to continue with a prosecutor that these people in this city do not trust or have faith in.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Oldgamer, dayum at that pic!

Look just like my friend neighbor. Hmm. oldgamer?...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
If that proves to be true, it would seem to me to more or less eliminate the likelihood of Officer Wilson being charged (unless, and it doesn't sound like this is the case, all of the third-party witness information was damning to Wilson and accounted for his injury).

I find it frustrating that this case has become such a major national item, and that this "protesting" has continued and actually gotten worse over time. This is nothing but the media and black "leaders" like Al Sharpton getting people whipped up. In that sense they are no better than the opportunistic, anti-social assholes looting and throwing frozen water bottles at the police. I am actually glad the Chief of Police released the video of the robbery, as that took the wind out of the sails of the media's effort to paint this as a placid, innocent black teen being murdered in the street in broad daylight.

I still want to see the evidence before drawing any firm conclusions, but preliminarily this looks to me like a justified shooting or, at the very worst, an officer who got carried away under an intensely stressful situation (i.e., manslaughter). It certainly doesn't look like a murder.
I agree, but just to play Devil's advocate, let's look at it from Brown's point of view. All his cultural education has taught him that cops are not his friend and given half an excuse will shoot him dead. Nothing he's personally seen convinces him this is wrong. He knows he's assaulted a man, whether or not he actually stole some or all of the cigars. He knows that's wrong. And thus he suspects that the cops may well kill him. From that point of view, trying to get the officer's gun, then slugging him and running may well seem like his best chance of surviving this encounter. When the first bullet grazes his arm, turning and attempting to show that he is unarmed may well seem like his best chance of surviving this encounter. After another shot hits, dropping to the ground in a fetal position may well seem like his best chance of surviving this encounter. The cop and Michael Brown are operating from logical environments that through no fault of their own are 180 degrees out of sync. (I'm not saying that is what happened.)

Cause it's old news. We know he was injured from day 1, they probably wouldn't care unless they have photos to show.

What we need is to lock down and confirm the witnesses. I would be deeply offended if it required a trial before those come to light to exonerate the officer. Such information would be huge and needs to be at the forefront of public attention.

We need the authorities to answer as to the validity of the witness account from Christine Byers.
It's old news that there was a rumor that the officer was injured, that he was treated and released. I've seen nothing that convinces me he suffered a broken orbital socket, which would change the way I look at the case. At this stage both sides put out FUD designed to sway public opinion.

So how does this incident affect anyone's opinion on body cameras for LEOs?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...y-cameras-fort-lauderdale-police-police-video



*bolded emphasis added by poster.

The technology is available and exonerating or damning evidence from the a hypothetical camera might have stopped the civil unrest in the area.


I'm leaning toward such cameras being more of a benefit than a hindrance to law enforcement and the public.
,,,,
Seems like a damned good idea to me. Such cameras both protect the cops and would make them think about how everyone would view their actions, not just the guy in front of them.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,464
1,005
126
When you have a Governor declaring a state of emergency and calling out the National Guard it behooves him to go ahead and release this information to calm people down and regain control of the city. It makes no sense to hold onto this information and say "well its because of the investigation" at this point. Just like it makes no sense to continue with a prosecutor that these people in this city do not trust or have faith in.

The problem with the rioting issues is the police unnecessarily escalated the situation. No matter what happened originally. The police have made extremely poor decisions ever since.
 

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,395
277
136
When you have a Governor declaring a state of emergency and calling out the National Guard it behooves him to go ahead and release this information to calm people down and regain control of the city. It makes no sense to hold onto this information and say "well its because of the investigation" at this point. Just like it makes no sense to continue with a prosecutor that these people in this city do not trust or have faith in.



Nope, I trust him.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
They are not "above the law." They are given weapons and the legal authority to use them if circumstances justify it. They are also given some immunities, by law, that are not available to laypeople. These are necessities in order that they can do their jobs. I think cops who intentionally commit crimes should absolutely be prosecuted, and they are. Where a use of force involves a judgment call, and their judgment is not obviously faulty, I think they should get the benefit of the doubt, and they do.

Here, if it's true Wilson had a fractured orbital socket and there are third-party witnesses describing Brown (who had undisputedly, moments earlier, committed a violent robbery) rushing toward Wilson after punching him in the face, I don't think he should be charged.
Well said, although it may be difficult to truthfully ascertain whether Brown was charging as there will certainly be witnesses testifying to both versions.

Agreed. LEOs are put in extreme situations and I understand why they're trained in that way. It's just that we have far too many examples of not only criminals and suspects being killed unnecessarily but also of civilians being injured of killed by police gunfire.

My point being that being trained to retreat keeps unnecessary injuries or deaths to a minimum. Every officer-involved shooting pulls a LEO off of duty while the incident is investigated; retreating keeps more LEOs on duty.
If cops are trained to flee violence, then there isn't any point in having cops as any true threat will certainly always respond with violence. It's like banning high speed pursuits - sounds good, but simply multiplies the behavior you are trying to avoid by establishing a get out of jail free card.

I've never understood this line of thinking. If my worst enemy wanted to give me money I would happily take it and put it toward productive uses - probably to their ruin.
If they give you money and you accept it, then no one will believe you are enemies.

Probably the best case is for him to accept the money and then immediately and very publicly donate it to the United Negro College Fund.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
I saw a lot of signs of "Hand Up, Don't Shoot" but no signs of "Hands Up, Don't Loot".


Where are the Civil Rights of those small business owners? Where are the throughout investigations of blatant Civil Rights violations for those minority shops/businesses owners?
 
Last edited:

BeeBoop

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2013
1,677
0
0
“What do we want?” “Darren Wilson.” “How do we want him?” “Dead.”

I was reading some of the YouTube comments and someone said the sound is muffled because some are saying "dead" while others say "indicted". That probably explains it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I was not able to find anyone who'd been arrested for smoking on their porch.

I was able to find people who were smoking in their car in a driveway, who'd been arrested for breaking the curfew.

There was no threat to shoot the reporter with a firearm, imo. The threat was to shoot them with a less than lethal device, imo.
That's more debatable, but still to me does not meet the nature of a curfew violation if I'm not out on a public street or sidewalk. And the threat to shoot the journalist with anything was stupid, although if it was a taser it's more understandable.

I saw a lot of signs of "Hand Up, Don't Shoot" but no signs of "Hands Up, Don't Loot".

Where are the Civil Rights of those small business owners? Where are the throughout investigations of blatant Civil Rights violations for those minority shops/businesses owners?
lol Good point.