Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 89 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
This makes sense, but there's the question of if they have that evidence could they release it?

Should they is subjective, wondering what the objective reason for withholding that info (should it exist) be. HIPAA seems hit or miss as a reason.

Edit: In the TM case the injuries to GZ weren't released until long after there was speculation GZ was beaten severly by TM.

Firstly, hipaa only applies to covered entities and they are only those who provide care such as doctors and hospitals, insurance companies, or anyone who works for them such as clerks.

Next, there may be laws which protect privacy which apply but again it isn't hipaa.

Lastly no evidence will placate the community. What needs to happen is investigation, then release of pertinent facts but if there is further action to be taken against the officer it will be done, or at least should be done, according to established procedure. Providing fuel for irrational behavior is bad.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So far no official evidence has been released. None.

I believe you are correct.

---------

Looks like most here want this tried in the court of public opinion'. I don't think the police usually work that way, nor should they IMO.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't follow here. "Snitches get Stiches" doesn't discount testimony from my understanding (conflicting physical or other definitive evidence would), rather it would inhibit people from coming forward with any information not aligned with the cause. The cause being guilt of Wilson. Anything not supporting the cause or "party line" will get dealt with appropriately. In this way it might bias the aggregate of eyewitness accounts without necessarily discounting individual eyewitness accounts.

I'm working with the mindset that eyewitness accounts are truthful (from one perspective) but *not* necessarily the truth.

We should find out at some point some of these answers, as ballistics should tell a more detailed and definitive story of how shots took place.
That's true, but testimony against The Man is allowable when he kills a brother for any reason. However, my main point in that was that if we automatically discount testimony from some (or all) blacks because of that attitude, then that attitude becomes the only practical one for that group of people. Otherwise it's "you help me, and screw you". It's essentially the same policy as "Snitches get stitches", but with the rules on whom to help reversed.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Why would they risk their names and the lynch mob that would kill them? You're part of the lynch mob, just so you know racist.

Why?

Because there was no so called "lynch mob" the first few days, then those so called "eye witnesses" for the cop could have told their story. Now its just a convenient excuse.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Anyone know who this is? I'll give you a little time.
article-0-208E2D5100000578-902_634x816.jpg
 

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
Just a quick reminder, Zimmerman wasn't found to be guilty, he wasn't found to be not guilty. There is a difference.

The difference between the two cases is that we have eye witnesses that had a clear view of the situation.

Just to clarify, Zimmerman was found not guilty of both second degree murder and manslaughter. Here's a link with the jury reading the verdict:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty/2514163/

Additionally, even if you want to push the point that finding a person not guilty means only that the prosecutors could not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be willfully showing bias if you also do not acknowledge that the US legal system is based upon a presumption of innocence. Taken to its logical conclusion, a finding of not guilty means innocence in the eyes of the law. Anything else is just your disagreement with how a jury weighed the evidence (which is especially silly when it's a unanimous decision as opposed to a mistrial that is not tried again).

Basically, I feel that from this thread and the Wilson past misconduct thread that you're also participating in, that you're overly invested in this case. You really need to just let more facts come out before jumping to so many conclusions.
 

Druidx

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,971
0
76
If you want a look at uncovering a lot of the mischief Crump and Co has been upto on the Brown incident check out
http://theconservativetreehouse.com

those guys are pretty dedicated at exposing the fraud and presenting stuff the Main Stream narrative doesn't.
I'm willing to admit they brought up a few good points during the TM case but you have to wade through a lot of racial undertones especially in the comments posted there. I thought TalkLeft did a far superior job of unbiased and informative discussion.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
I believe you are correct.

---------

Looks like most here want this tried in the court of public opinion'. I don't think the police usually work that way, nor should they IMO.

Fern


I think a lot of us would not want it tried in court of public opinion, but when we have Crump and Co delivering cheap shot after cheap shot in the court of public opinion, while riots take place and he fuels that mindset with shocking statements like "Brown was Executed" and the results are dangerous riots, there has to be some pivot of procedure from the establishment. Not to shift responsibility from the looters, but the reality is hearing about a black child executed in the street while the murderer remains free is going to stir shit up. Problem is we don't know if that was even the case, yet Crump is crafty enough to make it sound like the only possibility on national TV in front of a huge audience.

Arguably the anser is disbar folks for the conduct of Crump and Co. or set some standard where they are not presenting their one sided case on the nightly news each night while a city is in crisis. It's a helluva thing to ask for peace, and then continue to instigate riots by continuing a tale that started the rioting and looting in the first place. Crump and Co have obviously found and exploited a weakness for getting what he wants in cases. Can't honestly blame him if it works and is tolerated.

There's an obvious danger here beyond what may or may not have occurred between Wilson and Brown.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
I'm willing to admit they brought up a few good points during the TM case but you have to wade through a lot of racial undertones especially in the comments posted there. I thought TalkLeft did a far superior job of unbiased and informative discussion.

Yes. They expose some unsettling tactics that are used. TalkLeft I'll keep an eye on, if it's most civil of the bunch perhaps they'll address some of the undertoe of what has created the havoc in Ferguson (both past police conduct and current procedure of the information and investigation efforts).
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Because there was no so called "lynch mob" the first few days, then those so called "eye witnesses" for the cop could have told their story. Now its just a convenient excuse.
There was a very small window. Brown was killed around noon on Saturday. By Sunday evening, widespread riots had erupted, including gunfire, looting and arson. Prior to that, no one would have been expecting any reason to immediately run out and publicly comment on the shooting.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/timeline-events-ferguson/

That doesn't really affect the probability of actual corroborating eyewitnesses existing either way, I think.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
"snitches get stiches"

Her motivation is to tell the same old story of big bad whitey gunning down an innocent black man. She would NEVER say Brown did anything wrong. No, she would absolutely say he wasn't doing nothing wrong. Because that would be snitching, and for that she would get beaten.

This in ingrained into the culture and cannot be broken.

If that was the case she could simply have said nothing at all.

Once more, pulling turds out of your ass and flinging them at the wall.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Just to clarify, Zimmerman was found not guilty of both second degree murder and manslaughter. Here's a link with the jury reading the verdict:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty/2514163/

Additionally, even if you want to push the point that finding a person not guilty means only that the prosecutors could not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be willfully showing bias if you also do not acknowledge that the US legal system is based upon a presumption of innocence. Taken to its logical conclusion, a finding of not guilty means innocence in the eyes of the law. Anything else is just your disagreement with how a jury weighed the evidence (which is especially silly when it's a unanimous decision as opposed to a mistrial that is not tried again).

Basically, I feel that from this thread and the Wilson past misconduct thread that you're also participating in, that you're overly invested in this case. You really need to just let more facts come out before jumping to so many conclusions.

What conclusions have I jumped to? Please post a link to said post.


My point with the Zimmerman post was to show a not guilty doesnt mean he didnt do it, it means as you pointed out, that the evidence to prove guilt wasnt enough in the juror eyes. I stated this because the person I was responding to indicated that zimmermans not guilty verdict meant he didn't commit a crime and that's simply not true. He may or may not have committed a crime, only he and Martin know. The law, of course, says he didnt.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
There was a very small window. Brown was killed around noon on Saturday. By Sunday evening, widespread riots had erupted, including gunfire, looting and arson. Prior to that, no one would have been expecting any reason to immediately run out and publicly comment on the shooting.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/timeline-events-ferguson/

That doesn't really affect the probability of actual corroborating eyewitnesses existing either way, I think.

I didn't recall seeing anything about riots until Tues but it looks like they started Sun-Mon.

But having said that what would have prevented any witness just walking into the police station and telling their story. No one would have known.
 

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
What conclusions have I jumped to? Please post a link to said post.


My point with the Zimmerman post was to show a not guilty doesnt mean he didnt do it, it means as you pointed out, that the evidence to prove guilt wasnt enough in the juror eyes. I stated this because the person I was responding to indicated that zimmermans not guilty verdict meant he didn't commit a crime and that's simply not true. He may or may not have committed a crime, only he and Martin know. The law, of course, says he didnt.

You are making conclusions based upon one side of the story. Yes, there are eyewitnesses supporting one side of the story but to believe that there won't be countervailing evidence against these eyewitnesses coming from the other side is silly. Why make any conclusions based upon a few eyewitnesses (without even mentioning the inherent inaccuracy of eyewitness accounts) when there's an entire side of the argument to even be presented?

Your posts 2105 and 2124 show your acknowledgement that there will likely be another side to the story, yet here we are, debating the guilt or innocence of a person with facts only presented by one side. It hints at bias when you're willing to make judgments when only one side of the argument has been presented.

Regarding your statement about the Zimmerman verdict, a presumption of innocence is exactly that, a presumption of innocence. Do you walk around all day presuming that everyone is a murderer that has skirted the law or do you more likely presume that people have not committed a crime. Creating this distinction that only under the law did Zimmerman not commit a crime is a subtle attempt at hinting that he did indeed commit a crime and merely got away with it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I didn't recall seeing anything about riots until Tues but it looks like they started Sun-Mon.

But having said that what would have prevented any witness just walking into the police station and telling their story. No one would have known.
Presumably that's what happened. (That or being interviewed at the scene.) Problem is it's in the police's best interests to give the impression that there are numerous credible witnesses who corroborate Wilson's story regardless of whether this is true, while there are certainly valid reasons for such witnesses to go public. The problem (as I see it) is if we let these valid reasons to stay anonymous be used as evidence of such witnesses. For example, I have every motivation not to go on television to tell how I saw the head of Mexico' largest drug cartel murder some young children with an axe. That has absolutely no bearing on the likelihood of me witnessing the head of Mexico' largest drug cartel murder some young children with an axe; it only affects the odds of me doing the mundane after the remarkable occurs.

I tend to be skeptical because people love to talk and to get on television or radio, and to my knowledge no one was interviewed by local media day of, when presumably most of us would not have expected this to lead to riots. Witnesses for example probably wouldn't know that Brown was unarmed; he could just as easily been public enemy #1 and his death the greatest thing since sliced bread. That makes me suspect (though admittedly I cannot know) that if there were multiple witnesses who could testify that Wilson was acting in pure defense of self and community, even one day would have been enough for at least one or two to surface and attempt to get an interview somewhere. It's still a shooting death by cop, a rare enough event for witnesses to make the news.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Sorry I'm fucking your narrative up. Must suck for you.

Doesn't bother me, I'm used to your stupidity, I was just thinking about everyone else that has to read your garbage.

Must suck for you to never be able to contribute anything worth while to a thread.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Doesn't bother me, I'm used to your stupidity, I was just thinking about everyone else that has to read your garbage.

Must suck for you to never be able to contribute anything worth while to a thread.
A psychologist could write an entire dissertation on your transference disorder.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Presumably that's what happened. (That or being interviewed at the scene.) Problem is it's in the police's best interests to give the impression that there are numerous credible witnesses who corroborate Wilson's story regardless of whether this is true, while there are certainly valid reasons for such witnesses to go public. The problem (as I see it) is if we let these valid reasons to stay anonymous be used as evidence of such witnesses. For example, I have every motivation not to go on television to tell how I saw the head of Mexico' largest drug cartel murder some young children with an axe. That has absolutely no bearing on the likelihood of me witnessing the head of Mexico' largest drug cartel murder some young children with an axe; it only affects the odds of me doing the mundane after the remarkable occurs.

I tend to be skeptical because people love to talk and to get on television or radio, and to my knowledge no one was interviewed by local media day of, when presumably most of us would not have expected this to lead to riots. Witnesses for example probably wouldn't know that Brown was unarmed; he could just as easily been public enemy #1 and his death the greatest thing since sliced bread. That makes me suspect (though admittedly I cannot know) that if there were multiple witnesses who could testify that Wilson was acting in pure defense of self and community, even one day would have been enough for at least one or two to surface and attempt to get an interview somewhere. It's still a shooting death by cop, a rare enough event for witnesses to make the news.

I saw Paiget interviewed either Mon or Tue. Thing that bothered me police failed to interview the closest eye witness (Jackson) for at least 5-6 days. CNN interviews witnesses and the police don't? I would think you want to get statements early while memories are freshest.

Tue Jackson offered himself up for an official statement but by Fri police hadn't talked to him.