tvc184

  On an interesting note (maybe), when the police are forced to give a statement for an internal investigation (such as a shooting), the officers normally types a notice on the statement that says the officer is being forced to give the statement for internal reasons only and he does not give up his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. It protects officers from being forced to give internal statements that may implicate them and being fired for invoking their constitutional rights.   The interesting part? It is called the "Garrity" warning.    [Hidden Content]

It has been said that starvation is a strong motivator.    I believe that is a very true statement. There has to be some motivation for people to do almost anything. When a person has a place to stay and has food in his stomach, he is less likely in my opinion to go the extra mile to find a job or other means of support. It is much easier to sit back when someone else is paying the bill.    The only point of this article was that the ending of many benefits motivated many more people to start working, maybe at lesser jobs than they left or would have taken if available. If you are not eating or have no roof over your head, how much will you struggle to make ends meet as opposed to having that means brought to your door free of effort or obligation?    The single time that Obama is mentioned in the article (and Democrats not at all) is that he it touting the decrease in the unemployment rate. The article said that no matter your politics, that is a good thing. It points out that it is possible that part of that decrease in unemployment is due to the ending of benefits.    I see that as nothing to do with Obama or politics except making a single point that unemployment benefits may tend to slow recovery rather than speed it up.    It poses this statement, "It’s worth wondering why".    The article appears to be me to be a statement of facts, that unemployment went down after some benefits ended and pondered whether the two are linked. I can't see that as inflammatory or very political and mainly states that it is a valid topic for debate. It certainly wasn't some hammering of Obama who is only mentioned once and the article agreed with him that it is good that unemployment went down no matter which party you support. 

    I would be willing to bet that all shots were fired in less than 2 seconds. 

When something sensational happens in the news or even when it happens on a personal level, people tend to make up or believe  their own statistics.    A few years ago a guy fled from one of our officers in a vehicle, a felony. He called a couple of hours later to complain on the officer and give his explanation of why he ran (he was still not in custody). The man said that he fled in fear of his life because that officer is well known for beating up and killing people. He followed up with a statement something like, "Everyone knows that". As part of my preliminary investigation as a supervisor, I asked him to name the people that he has killed and beaten up because to my knowledge our department had not gotten a single report or complaint of abuse by the officer and we hadn't been involved in a deadly force situation in several years.... the last being before that officer was hired. The caller then went on to say that I was twisting his words and taking up for the officer. I said quite to the contrary, I have not said a single thing to take up for the officer and ask for his information to start what sounded like a serious investigation. I then told him that to verify that what he said, our entire conversation was on a recorded phone line (and it was). The next thing I heard?   CLICK!!   While that is but a single incident and has no bearing on any other investigation, it shows what I see at work no so infrequently. It is easy to spit out lies, accusations or even believed to be true assumptions. It is quite different to have facts to back them up.     And what about valid abuse complaints? I witnessed abuse by an officer and he was terminated almost immediately and charges were submitted to the DA against the officer. 

So the preliminary autopsy results are released and all wounds to Brown were in the front. That kind of negates many of the witnesses that claim Brown was walking away with his hands in the air.   Then it shows the round entered near his right eyes but exited at the jaw showing that it was going downward and then it entered a shoulder. Since Brown was facing the officer and standing (according to witnesses), it tends to indicate that Brown's head was down as if he was leaning toward the officer.    The autopsy alone means nothing but now that facts are starting to come out it seems to look quite a bit different than the claimed "eye witnesses". Apparently some of them did not see what they stated and merely claimed to be witnesses or they outright lied.    It does not exonerate the officer as it still comes down to what the justifications were of using that amount of force but it sure shows another angle of the story. According to a report on CNN, Jesse Jackson calls the autopsy report "inflammatory". Why Jesse, because it might back up the officer's claim that Brown was coming back at him? 

Both have been used successfully many times. Some of those times have saved lives.

In about 1985-86 our entire department was trained in riot tactics after a lot of union unrest in the area back then. We carried the same equipment back then (riot batons, shields, helmets, rubber bullets, wooden rounds/knee knockers, tear gas, etc.). The difference between then and now is the uniforms.    We used to wear our regular duty gear is that it all we had. We had to wear the $35 dress shirts with the creases sewn in made for all the jewelry we hang on them and dress uniform pants. Today they wear over-the-counter BDU style uniforms. That is the difference, the cop wear utility gear instead of dress uniforms to riots. That for some reason offends the public and makes the same police officers now "militarized" because they took off their dress blues for riots. I am assuming that if they wore the blues again like in the 1968 Chicago riots, it would be okay. Even many of the helmets were blue.    Google 1968 Chicago Riots and click on images and see what the officers in a riot looked like back then. Almost nothing has changed except the training the officers receive and the uniforms. 

  In some instances I have seen the opposite of what some people might believe as far as the race of the officer.

  The police force has now been turned into a political force and doesn't want to offend anyone...... except maybe the store owners that they are no longer protecting.    At least quit using "military" tactics.    From the last military actions that I saw on the news, the military lobbed artillery rounds or rockets into the enemy and when they sent in troops, they tossed in fragmentation grenades into structures to try and take out any survivors and then went in shooting anyone that was left. I guess it is a good thing the police in MO quit doing that.    Hmmmm.... wait....... looking at the MO riots, I think the police mostly had riot batons and sidearms, gave many warnings over the loud speaker to move and gave people a long time to move away and then finally launched tear gas on those that refused a lawful order. Yeah, I guess that is the same as "military" tactics. These police are getting out of hand.  Just ask the store owners..................... 

  Again, the definition of "chaos". Chief Has Arrived On Scene   When they get to be chiefs, they are no longer cops and are politicians. That is the nature of the job but it is what it is. 

  Not exactly.    SWAT took a long time to get there. Once they arrived, they have a close in shootout between vehicles and one of them and the other was shot by an officer but also shot himself in the head, committing suicide when he saw he had no way out.    In any case, it took SWAT to be there and the 100 or so patrol officers that responded had no answer for two guys that shot several people including officers. That is the same SWAT that saved the day that people are now saying is too much policing.    A lot of people don't want the cops to have big guns or armored vehicles unless they are being held hostage, then they want the cops to have every tool available.    I spent 10 years on SWAT and they are no more military like today than they were 30 years ago. What we have today is 24 hour news and social media. 

  Looters are what looters always are. They are criminals looking for some incident to take advantage of. I am sure that some are from out of the area but just as sure that there are plenty of locals in the St. Louis County area that are just as low life as anyone else.

  Anyone can investigate it. It is concurrent jurisdiction. For example let's say there is an accusation of a crime happened in a city in Jefferson County and it had a possible federal violation also (all laws are not federal for example DWI). The city has jurisdiction, the county has jurisdiction, the state has jurisdiction and the federal government has jurisdiction. Any of those four could investigate a crime independently or work with any or all of the others in a joint investigation.   Under most circumstances crimes are investigated at the local level. In some high profile cases or under their jurisdiction, the federal government with its dozens of investigative law enforcement agencies might get involved such as this case. Rob a7-11 at gunpoint and you will have the local cops after you. Rob the local bank and you will likely see the FBI breathing down your neck as it is both a state law crime and a federal law crime.    I have no clue how they are investigating the shooting in Ferguson but the Ferguson PD, St. Louis County PD, the MO State Police (Highway Patrol) and the FBI could all look into it. I "think" right now at the state level it has been turned over to the MO Highway Patrol and probably the FBI at the federal level. 

Does who called 911 matter? These tweets are nothing but a smokescreen. There appears to be plenty of evidence that the officer made a lawful stop. That is of no consequence because what happened after the stop is what matters. Did the officer have a legal authority to use deadly force in what he did or was it unjustified? The rest is just fluff.

Let's play what if. What if the video is what the police were going out to when broadcasting a description? Looking at the video, there was only one suspect they push the clerk so all he wants us back in the robbery. Simply being with the person does not mean you're involved. If that was true a passenger could get a ticket for speeding when he is in the car.

  On a similar case, we had an officer's patrol vehicle shot one night in the windshield. I went to that area and was blocking a road and had stopped a vehicle for something entirely different. Other officers were at the scene a block or so away.    There was some radio traffic but I wasn't paying attention to it as I was dealing with three or four guys that I had detained. Then I saw police units heading my way and heard my badge number on the radio and an officer saying something like, "TVC has them stopped".   That is why the units were screaming in my direction. I had inadvertently stopped the suspects in an officer almost being shot. What if I had been in a shootout right there with suspects that may have fired at officers? I did not stop them for that reason. 

  Are both answers plausible? What if Brown was stopped for jaywalking and during that lawful detention, it turned into a robbery suspect that went out over the radio?    I stopped a guy one night for a headlight out and ended up arresting him for murder. I had no clue that he was a murder suspect but if you read the report, he was initially stopped for a minor traffic charge but ended up in jail for two counts of murder.    Therein lies the problem with speculation in such cases. What appears to be an outright falsification might actually be entirely correct. Everyone assumes that they know the answer when they know nothing. 

Or as some in the business say...   Definition of Chaos = Chief Has Arrived On Scene. 

  If the chief lied, he is stupid, period.    I understand refusing to give out information as much of it is legally protected and may do more harm than good. Giving false statements are a ticket to disaster and can rarely be hidden. It is just too easy to prove some things as a lie.    Which makes me wonder if the chief is lying, he is telling the truth and other people are spinning things to fit their agenda or he is a bumbling idiot. 

  That is not a typical photo however. I have lots of guns and a bit of cash. I have never been inclined to take such a photo and I doubt that many people reading this forum have done so either.    It means nothing by itself but it tends to show a bit less of the choir boy image that is being portrayed by some of Brown. In some ways it is the reverse of what is being done to the officer involved and to the police in general. It is taking something that in itself means nothing but one side or the other is using it as proof of guilt. 

Most of the tweets are gibberish from people that have no clue or are speculating.    I have addressed a couple above and could do so on many of them. I understand the questions but they are put forth as rhetorical statements of guilt on the part of the police and that does not always square with the law or procedure.    Merely saying someone was a suspect in a robbery that may have just happened means that he fits the general description. I have seen many people stopped and released on scene (and have done so myself) or at times arrested for something else other than the original intent of the stop. When a radio broadcast goes out that a small white car similar to a Honda or Toyota just left the scene, every small white car will likely be stopped in the immediate area. It doesn't mean that they are all guilty, it means they appear to be a possible suspect.    Michael Brown might have fit the description without being the person the police sought, if they were actually looking for someone. By saying that someone talked to a store clerk and having him say that Brown was not the person means almost nothing except that he wasn't the person. It does not negate Brown looking like a description given or the police having lawful justification to detain him.    None of that means that the police actually broadcast a description or if Brown generally fit that description but it is lawful for such a scenario to exist. The police should still release the tapes of the 911 call of the robbery, the radio broadcasts given to officers, etc. In fact the outside agencies looking into this incident probably already have it but it doesn't have to be immediately be released to the public. Not releasing it is seen by some as an admission of guilt which is incorrect. 

  That is almost never handed out and is privileged information and I believe in most states and under federal law, protected. 

    Actually it is the opposite unless there is some specific statute in MO that says otherwise. Strong Arm is a fast description of an unarmed robbery other than "strong arms".    The MO Penal Code defines it as "forcibly steals".    Gee.... you mean false information is put out to the public? 

  So do I.

I see the MO state police are taking over. I have a friend that is a homicide investigator with that agency. I wonder if he will be involved in any respect.    I think he just left on vacation this week so he may be spared.