Ferguson: Maybe time to start asking the most pertinent questions?

[s2a]

Unless you have been in Iceland the last week, or simply not a national news nerd like myself, you are likely aware of the tragic incidents that have transpired in Ferguson, MO. over the last week.

In short, the allegation that a (white) police officer (now known to be Officer Darren Wilson) shot in the back, an 18yo unarmed, (black) man (identified as Michael Brown) in the middle of the street at mid-day while his (the 18yo) arms were raised in a sign of surrender.

The white officer submitted his report that an attempt to seize his service gun, when shoved into his cruiser by the (eventual) victim, was the initial provocation leading to the eventual deadly result. The officer cited his rationale for stopping this 18yo and his friend/partner/cohort...essentially for jaywalking down the middle of a frequented thoroughfare at high noon.

Needless to say, the current and popular narrative within the local community (more than 2/3 black) is that a white cop gunned down, in broad daylight, at high noon, an unarmed black "teenager" with hands raised in surrender. If all true, an inexcusable outrage, of civil rights and liberties and evidence of an egregious abuse of power by the local police.

Hence protests and violence have ensued and demands for (immediate) justice have been expressed.

Regrettably, like so many other latent stories that explode unexpectedly at the feet of major and cable news outlets, the "story", once more is not about "what is known or knowable", but instead about coverage and "in-depth" reporting about the "outrage", anger, fear, and contempt towards the local police.

Some facts are reported and not in dispute. True that 2/3 of this community are black, even more are poor living below the poverty line, and yet the police force only has three black officers...and the overwhelming majority of elected officials and politicians there are white.

But what could, and should matter to professional journalists even more, if the face of all this deserved community outrage, is to ask the right questions of all the law officials involved.

1) Does it make any sense for an officer with a record of six years of a flawless record (4 years within the very own community in which he was raised); no complaints whatsoever of abusing his authority by anyone; never having discharged his duty weapon, ever....to just, for no apparent reason at all, fire upon an 18yo (shot 6 times by the latest autopsy), for "jaywalking"? Really? Shooting an 18yo, in the back, for raising his hands, falling to his knees in surrender for arrest..for jaywalking? That's the current narrative and accountants from the "dozens" of eyewitnesses. Michael Brown (the "teenager") was shot and killed for no explicable reason at all.

Was Officer Darren Wilson just having a bad day, snapped, and decided to shoot an unarmed man in broad daylight at mid-day, just because he felt like it?

2) Reputedly, there were reported as fact, literally "dozens" of eyewitnesses to the ongoing event or shooting. "Dozens". Yet not one eyewitness had the presence of mind to video this happening on this day's knowable and nearly ubiquitous cellphones? In 2014? No one? Not one? In broad daylight, middle of the day, in the middle of a traveled street. No one? Possible, but highly unlikely in 2014.

3) Is there any cruiser footage to publicly share that may be relevant? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But the question IS relevant if any footage actually exists. A simple "yes" or "no" would help here.

No doubt, the residents of Ferguson have a plethora of more than legitimate gripes regarding this tragedy, and the greater whole of inequality, biased treatment and arrests, general poverty and inequity, and so much more.

But to be fair to the desire for "justice" of a specific "alleged" crime of wanton murder, all citizens are (or should be aware) that all investigations of such matters take time to uncover ALL available facts and evidence first, before any arrest, prosecution, and verdict of a jury of peers takes place.

Otherwise, we may as well go back to the bad ole' days of "lynch mob" mentalities that only dictate an immediate "fair" trial, followed by a righteous hanging.

 

[psychoslice]

I think the low life take advantage of situations as the one in Fergusons, they ruin it for all, there is no excuse for stealing from shop and firing guns at innocent police and media.

 

[Alceste]

Unless you have been in Iceland the last week, or simply not a national news nerd like myself, you are likely aware of the tragic incidents that have transpired in Ferguson, MO. over the last week.

In short, the allegation that a (white) police officer (now known to be Officer Darren Wilson) shot in the back, an 18yo unarmed, (black) man (identified as Michael Brown) in the middle of the street at mid-day while his (the 18yo) arms were raised in a sign of surrender.

The white officer submitted his report that an attempt to seize his service gun, when shoved into his cruiser by the (eventual) victim, was the initial provocation leading to the eventual deadly result. The officer cited his rationale for stopping this 18yo and his friend/partner/cohort...essentially for jaywalking down the middle of a frequented thoroughfare at high noon.

Needless to say, the current and popular narrative within the local community (more than 2/3 black) is that a white cop gunned down, in broad daylight, at high noon, an unarmed black "teenager" with hands raised in surrender. If all true, an inexcusable outrage, of civil rights and liberties and evidence of an egregious abuse of power by the local police.

Hence protests and violence have ensued and demands for (immediate) justice have been expressed.

Regrettably, like so many other latent stories that explode unexpectedly at the feet of major and cable news outlets, the "story", once more is not about "what is known or knowable", but instead about coverage and "in-depth" reporting about the "outrage", anger, fear, and contempt towards the local police.

Some facts are reported and not in dispute. True that 2/3 of this community are black, even more are poor living below the poverty line, and yet the police force only has three black officers...and the overwhelming majority of elected officials and politicians there are white.

But what could, and should matter to professional journalists even more, if the face of all this deserved community outrage, is to ask the right questions of all the law officials involved.

1) Does it make any sense for an officer with a record of six years of a flawless record (4 years within the very own community in which he was raised); no complaints whatsoever of abusing his authority by anyone; never having discharged his duty weapon, ever....to just, for no apparent reason at all, fire upon an 18yo (shot 6 times by the latest autopsy), for "jaywalking"? Really? Shooting an 18yo, in the back, for raising his hands, falling to his knees in surrender for arrest..for jaywalking? That's the current narrative and accountants from the "dozens" of eyewitnesses. Michael Brown (the "teenager") was shot and killed for no explicable reason at all.

Was Officer Darren Wilson just having a bad day, snapped, and decided to shoot an unarmed man in broad daylight at mid-day, just because he felt like it?

2) Reputedly, there were reported as fact, literally "dozens" of eyewitnesses to the ongoing event or shooting. "Dozens". Yet not one eyewitness had the presence of mind to video this happening on this day's knowable and nearly ubiquitous cellphones? In 2014? No one? Not one? In broad daylight, middle of the day, in the middle of a traveled street. No one? Possible, but highly unlikely in 2014.

3) Is there any cruiser footage to publicly share that may be relevant? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But the question IS relevant if any footage actually exists. A simple "yes" or "no" would help here.

No doubt, the residents of Ferguson have a plethora of more than legitimate gripes regarding this tragedy, and the greater whole of inequality, biased treatment and arrests, general poverty and inequity, and so much more.

But to be fair to the desire for "justice" of a specific "alleged" crime of wanton murder, all citizens are (or should be aware) that all investigations of such matters take time to uncover ALL available facts and evidence first, before any arrest, prosecution, and verdict of a jury of peers takes place.

Otherwise, we may as well go back to the bad ole' days of "lynch mob" mentalities that only dictate an immediate "fair" trial, followed by a righteous hanging.

I gotta say, when you put teenager in scare quotes, you provoked in me an overwhelming disinterest in anything else you had to say on the subject.

Brown was literally a teenager. He was in his teens. 18, to be specific.

I've got a great idea. Let's get the cops to shoot all the teenagers who jaywalk!

 

[freethinker44]

1) Yes it does make sense for an officer with a clean record to do something like this. Every corrupt cop was once a "good" cop with a clean record at one point.
Also, I'm reminded of an article I read recently where a cop was involved in an incident and he was "good" cop who just made mistake in judgement and they didn't want to tarnish his clean record with an uncharacteristic mistake, so his superiors just gave him a verbal reprimand or something minor like that. In case anyone missed the obvious flaw in this logic, if their transgressions aren't recorded because they have a clean record they will always be "good" cops with clean records.
Also, power corrupts.

2) From what I understand the whole thing happened incredibly fast. I guess the cop just finished a call a couple minutes before noon and by a few minutes after noon Brown was dead. So it's understandable that no one got their phones out quick enough.

3) Cops don't like to be recorded. It's that simple. I think there should be a law about police having to record all their interactions with the public.

We don't actually need to speculate in order to judge this incident. We can go off of what we know for fact, and all sides agree, and that's that the cop was using lethal force, firing bullets at an unarmed man who was attempting to flee. People disagree about what happened before and after, but that moment is not in dispute, and this means the cop was attempting to kill an unarmed man who posed no threat to himself or others.

 

[s2a]

I gotta say, when you put teenager in scare quotes, you provoked in me an overwhelming disinterest in anything else you had to say on the subject.

Brown was literally a teenager. He was in his teens. 18, to be specific.

I've got a great idea. Let's get the cops to shoot all the teenagers who jaywalk!

You overemphasize that "scare quote" inference, which was not my mine, but which was implemented by the defense attorney (and others) hired on behalf of Michael Brown.

Let's try to maintain the legal perspective of the implications of an "age of majority" when 18 year old, versus a "teenager", which could just as well be 13 years old.

The use of the descriptive word "teenager" attempts to suggest that Michael Brown was the latter, not the former.

There are many issues and debates to be found and discussed whether an 18yo should be treated as an adult (criminally responsible for their actions; can vote; can join the military w/o parental consent; can purchase deadly tobacco products, legal guns, etc.), vs. the secondary considerations attached to a more "mature" 21yo simply buying beer/booze. That, is another discussion for another forum. But in this day and age, when even 13 yo kids are being charged as "adults" in specified heinous crimes and acts...it is at very least disingenuous and misdirecting at worst to label an 18 yo as just a "teenager". BY law, in every single aspect, unless it can be proved in court that any age of majority accused may be in fact so severely mentally challenged as to not possess any mental faculties even approaching that of an 18yo, then all should be held to shared standards under law.

Is there inequity within our systems of justice?
Of course.
Do guilty men go free while innocent men go to prison, or worse? Of course.

Is either fair justice?
No.

I know of no fair minded man or woman anywhere in the US that believes that anyone deserves an instantaneous death penalty for jaywalking, selling untaxed cigarettes, petty crime, robbery, or even kidnapping or rape, absent a fair hearing, trial, and conviction or acquittal.

It is regrettable that you missed the point.

 

[Alceste]

You overemphasize that "scare quote" inference, which was not my mine, but which was implemented by the defense attorney (and others) hired on behalf of Michael Brown.

Let's try to maintain the legal perspective of the implications of an "age of majority" when 18 year old, versus a "teenager", which could just as well be 13 years old.

The use of the descriptive word "teenager" attempts to suggest that Michael Brown was the latter, not the former.

There are many issues and debates to be found and discussed whether an 18yo should be treated as an adult (criminally responsible for their actions; can vote; can join the military w/o parental consent; can purchase deadly tobacco products, legal guns, etc.), vs. the secondary considerations attached to a more "mature" 21yo simply buying beer/booze. That, is another discussion for another forum. But in this day and age, when even 13 yo kids are being charged as "adults" in specified heinous crimes and acts...it is at very least disingenuous and misdirecting at worst to label an 18 yo as just a "teenager". BY law, in every single aspect, unless it can be proved in court that any age of majority accused may be in fact so severely mentally challenged as to not possess any mental faculties even approaching that of an 18yo, then all should be held to shared standards under law.

Is there inequity within our systems of justice?
Of course.
Do guilty men go free while innocent men go to prison, or worse? Of course.

Is either fair justice?
No.

I know of no fair minded man or woman anywhere in the US that believes that anyone deserves an instantaneous death penalty for jaywalking, selling untaxed cigarettes, petty crime, robbery, or even kidnapping or rape, absent a fair hearing, trial, and conviction or acquittal.

It is regrettable that you missed the point.

Meh. I can't even read your entire posts. EighTEEN is a teenager. End of story.

 

[s2a]

1) Yes it does make sense for an officer with a clean record to do something like this. Every corrupt cop was once a "good" cop with a clean record at one point.
Also, I'm reminded of an article I read recently where a cop was involved in an incident and he was "good" cop who just made mistake in judgement and they didn't want to tarnish his clean record with an uncharacteristic mistake, so his superiors just gave him a verbal reprimand or something minor like that. In case anyone missed the obvious flaw in this logic, if their transgressions aren't recorded because they have a clean record they will always be "good" cops with clean records.
Also, power corrupts.

As I alluded before, maybe a good cop had a bad day, and just decided to kill someone because he felt like it. Your unattributed points are noted, but it at least may be fair to say that EVERY case is different, and supposition alone is a poor standard to employ when seeking truth before imposed justice.

2) From what I understand the whole thing happened incredibly fast. I guess the cop just finished a call a couple minutes before noon and by a few minutes after noon Brown was dead. So it's understandable that no one got their phones out quick enough.

So, it's not even a fair question then? Don't even bother asking? It's just plain impossible? Really?

3) Cops don't like to be recorded. It's that simple. I think there should be a law about police having to record all their interactions with the public.

Just to be clear, even the ACLU approves of video taping of police incidents. Video can both answer many questions about an arrest, AND the behavior exhibited by the arresting officer. As the ACLU states, it's (a "win-win") for all involved.

We don't actually need to speculate in order to judge this incident. We can go off of what we know for fact, and all sides agree, and that's that the cop was using lethal force, firing bullets at an unarmed man who was attempting to flee.

Bear in mind that a large part of any prosecution (especially cases of murder), that "motive" (alongside opportunity and available weapon) are critical in securing a conviction with the available evidence in that prosecution. Is it just retribution we seek first, or all relevant facts, especially as may apply to motive? Again, is it rational that the attempted arrest that led to the fatal shooting had NO extenuating circumstances? Is it possible, sure. Is it not worth investigating first?

People disagree about what happened before and after, but that moment is not in dispute, and this means the cop was attempting to kill an unarmed man who posed no threat to himself or others.

Actually, it is not indisputable fact. It remains the popular narrative of the community at large, but whether or not the cop felt personally threatened, felt that the perp might pose a threat to others, or even if the cop felt the eventual victim was armed or not, much less seeking willing surrender with arms raised are NOT even close to be known facts...yet.

 

[Alceste]

If a "good cop had a bad day" and murdered somebody, he should go to jail. Just like any of the rest of us who "have a bad day" and murder somebody.

 

[LuisDantas]

2) Reputedly, there were reported as fact, literally "dozens" of eyewitnesses to the ongoing event or shooting. "Dozens". Yet not one eyewitness had the presence of mind to video this happening on this day's knowable and nearly ubiquitous cellphones? In 2014? No one? Not one? In broad daylight, middle of the day, in the middle of a traveled street. No one? Possible, but highly unlikely in 2014.

Hardly. A lot will of course depend on the circunstances of the event, which I am not aware of.

Still, it stands to reason that if there were dozens of witnesses and the shooting happened anyway, it had to be a fairly fast or fairly tense situation (probably both). Out of either surprise shock or understandable fear of the consequences, it is in fact very reasonable to expect that few if any of the witnesses would even remember drawing their cellphones out and attempt to record the event. How safe can it be to record evidence in such circunstances? What kind of mindset one has to have to produce a cellphone and direct it at a police officer that has just shot a young man with his hands raised in broad daylight? How certain can anyone be that they will not be shot next if they draw attention to themselves?

Let's assume for a moment that there was enough time to consider the risks and to think of using a cellphone camera. I don't know how the immediate environment was. But it is reasonable to guess that if it were wide open, there were few if any opportunities to find cover to attempt to record without being too obvious. On the other extreme, if there were lots of buildings with lots of windows and people inside, any potential recorder would have to consider whether there are other armed officers around and with which kind of attitude. The shooting officer is certainly not betraying any fear of being overpowered by his colleagues, so if they are around, odds are that they support him. For all anyone can know at that moment, we may be seconds away from a massacre or at least an ugly shootout.

 

[LuisDantas]

If a "good cop had a bad day" and murdered somebody, he should go to jail. Just like any of the rest of us who "have a bad day" and murder somebody.

It is really simple when you consider it like that, isn't it?

 

[s2a]

If a "good cop had a bad day" and murdered somebody, he should go to jail. Just like any of the rest of us who "have a bad day" and murder somebody.

Meh. I can't even read your entire posts. EighTEEN is a teenager. End of story.

So you really can read my posts when you really really want to.

And, if convicted fairly in a court of law. with a preponderance of evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think the low life take advantage of situations as the one in Fergusons, they ruin it for all, there is no excuse for stealing from shop and firing guns at innocent police and media.

Who was firing guns at the police and media?!

 

[freethinker44]

As I alluded before, maybe a good cop had a bad day, and just decided to kill someone because he felt like it. Your unattributed points are noted, but it at least may be fair to say that EVERY case is different, and supposition alone is a poor standard to employ when seeking truth before imposed justice.

Whether he was a "good" cop or not doesn't even matter. The law applies equally to good and bad people.

So, it's not even a fair question then? Don't even bother asking? It's just plain impossible? Really?

It's a good question and should be asked, but in this case I don't think it's too incredible that no one got there camera out in time to film or even thought that there would be a reason to since they were only being told to stop walking in the middle of the street. It's pretty unremarkable.

Just to be clear, even the ACLU approves of video taping of police incidents. Video can both answer many questions about an arrest, AND the behavior exhibited by the arresting officer. As the ACLU states, it's (a "win-win") for all involved.

I completely agree. Police should have to film all interactions with public.

Bear in mind that a large part of any prosecution (especially cases of murder), that "motive" (alongside opportunity and available weapon) are critical in securing a conviction with the available evidence in that prosecution. Is it just retribution we seek first, or all relevant facts, especially as may apply to motive? Again, is it rational that the attempted arrest that led to the fatal shooting had NO extenuating circumstances? Is it possible, sure. Is it not worth investigating first?

You don't have to have motive to convict someone. It helps to know why they did it, but you only need to be able to prove that they did it to secure a conviction. We know the officer shot and killed Michael Brown, in order to secure a conviction all that should be needed is for a jury to determine whether a reasonable person would have had a valid reason to fear for their life and use of deadly force was necessary.

Actually, it is not indisputable fact. It remains the popular narrative of the community at large, but whether or not the cop felt personally threatened, felt that the perp might pose a threat to others, or even if the cop felt the eventual victim was armed or not, much less seeking willing surrender with arms raised are NOT even close to be known facts...yet.

That element of the story is in both the police and civilian version of what happened. The police version is that Brown went for the gun in the car, the officer started shooting, Brown started to flee stopped some distance away and turned to rush the officer. Civilian version is the same except Brown didn't go for the gun and instead of charging the officer he put his hands up and turned to surrender. So in both the police and civilian accounts, at some point the officer was firing at an unarmed man who was fleeing, and posed no immediate threat. When Brown stopped resisting the officer and turned to flee, there should have been no more use of deadly force. Running from the police is not an executable offense.

 

[s2a]

Hardly. A lot will of course depend on the circunstances of the event, which I am not aware of.

Still, it stands to reason that if there were dozens of witnesses and the shooting happened anyway, it had to be a fairly fast or fairly tense situation (probably both). Out of either surprise shock or understandable fear of the consequences, it is in fact very reasonable to expect that few if any of the witnesses would even remember drawing their cellphones out and attempt to record the event. How safe can it be to record evidence in such circunstances? What kind of mindset one has to have to produce a cellphone and direct it at a police officer that has just shot a young man with his hands raised in broad daylight? How certain can anyone be that they will not be shot next if they draw attention to themselves?

Let's assume for a moment that there was enough time to consider the risks and to think of using a cellphone camera. I don't know how the immediate environment was. But it is reasonable to guess that if it were wide open, there were few if any opportunities to find cover to attempt to record without being too obvious. On the other extreme, if there were lots of buildings with lots of windows and people inside, any potential recorder would have to consider whether there are other armed officers around and with which kind of attitude. The shooting officer is certainly not betraying any fear of being overpowered by his colleagues, so if they are around, odds are that they support him. For all anyone can know at that moment, we may be seconds away from a massacre or at least an ugly shootout.

Again, let's keep in mind the premise of the specific circumstance. Is it unfathomable to expect that even one of dozens might have captured the fleeting moments on video? Is is unfair or unreasonable to even interview eyewitnesses in this case? As you suggest, under the alleged circumstances, perhaps NOBODY as witness can offer any video testimony of value. Even as unlikely as that may be in 2014, is it therefore pointless to just ask? Especially when the insistent allegations of unprovoked and senseless murder is involved?

I'm just saying that inquiry and investigation should not take a back seat to popularized narrative. Ever.

All I've seen over the past few days is a progressive and disturbing sequence of events from: "what's the officer's name?", to "what's the officer's face/picture look like", to ...what's next?
Where does he live?
What does his (possible) wife look like?
Where do his (possible) kids go to school?
What does his daily schedule look like, time and date?
Why hasn't he been arrested yet?
Why is he still on paid leave?

Again, just as contrast, none of those questions bear any relevance to the shooting. None.

No more than convenience store security video of a strong arm robbery (verified by witness cohort), or still pictures of the victim flashing gang signs have any bearing or relevance to the tragedy to follow.

I just think it is relevant for major media and cable news to ask all pertinent questions of the authorities at large, whenever possible.

 

[Alceste]

It is really simple when you consider it like that, isn't it?

Of course it is. I met an ex-convict once who told me his life story. He "had a bad day" and murdered his wife and her lover. He was a soldier, probably suffering from PTSD at the time. He wasn't given any special consideration for his role as a representative of the state. He served his time, then lived on the street after his release, filled with remorse for his "bad day", which completely ruined his life and the life of his children.

I might have issues with the way we process crime, but to the extent that we punish people who "have a bad day" that results in someone else's death, we have an obligation to be consistent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just for clarity, I completely agree.

 

[LuisDantas]

Again, let's keep in mind the premise of the specific circumstance. Is it unfathomable to expect that even one of dozens might have captured the fleeting moments on video?

It is a reasonable expectation, but also a weak one IMO. It would not surprise me at all to learn that there was indeed no attempt made at that moment.

Is is unfair or unreasonable to even interview eyewitnesses in this case?

Hardly. I would however expect at least some to be too scared of the possible backlash to say much.

As you suggest, under the alleged circumstances, perhaps NOBODY as witness can offer any video testimony of value. Even as unlikely as that may be in 2014, is it therefore pointless to just ask? Especially when the insistent allegations of unprovoked and senseless murder is involved?

I assumed the witnesses were asked, as is probably standard procedure.

 

[s2a]

Whether he was a "good" cop or not doesn't even matter. The law applies equally to good and bad people.

Yep, and agreed.

It's a good question and should be asked, but in this case I don't think it's too incredible that no one got there camera out in time to film or even thought that there would be a reason to since they were only being told to stop walking in the middle of the street. It's pretty unremarkable.

Unremarkable, but no less implausible or impossible. I still believe the inquiry is more than relevant. The stated fact that most of the community is reticent to aid any police or FBI investigations is noted, but you always have to ask anyway.

You don't have to have motive to convict someone.

This is true, but the best prosecutions, to best insure a conviction, clearly provide and demonstrate a clear motive that establishes the (quality?) severity of the crime as charged, and the appropriate punishment involved. If the defendant in any murder trial can successfully demonstrate they were in fear of their own safety, mortality, or just had a "mental breakdown"...but the prosecution can instead demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the accused exhibited a clear motive to just kill somebody, just because...that's an entirely different charge and level of prospective punishment.

Therefore motive is not requisite, but it does matter, as you noted.

That element of the story is in both the police and civilian version of what happened. The police version is that Brown went for the gun in the car, the officer started shooting, Brown started to flee stopped some distance away and turned to rush the officer. Civilian version is the same except Brown didn't go for the gun and instead of charging the officer he put his hands up and turned to surrender. So in both the police and civilian accounts, at some point the officer was firing at an unarmed man who was fleeing, and posed no immediate threat. When Brown stopped resisting the officer and turned to flee, there should have been no more use of deadly force. Running from the police is not an executable offense.

Agreed, if current and available accounts are all that can ever be known or discovered.

I believe we can all agree that virtually no person under any circumstances can ever be shot/"executed" for the simple crime of "jaywalking".

If we can accept this maxim of civilization as true, then we are compelled to examine, investigate, and inquire why a 6 year "on the job" cop (with hometown community ties) with no prior history of community complaints or abuse/violence would suddenly and inexplicably gun down a surrendering unarmed man in cold blood in broad daylight for no apparent reason whatsoever. Why would he? Does it even make sense? The cop is alive, so lets ask him, and those he has worked aside...first.

That's my point. Perhaps there is video evidence that may lend greater insight well beyond individual testimony in a cop's "incident" report. Perhaps there is forensic evidence that may very well corroborate one side or the other, perhaps not. Gawd knows, the major press doesn't know, and worse, isn't even asking.

I just find it disappointing (?) that over the same exact time frame, 26(!) shootings occurred in Chicago, but "reporters" were there in Ferguson to cover the ongoing riots, fires, looting, and (yes) outrageous "militarized" police provocations and responses, abetted by the impotent and useless declarations of (albeit justified and righteous) outrage expressed by the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton and other "celebrities", but not one peep or coverage of the senseless murders and killings in just one major city?

Justice of any sort, no matter how legitimate the claims of unfairness, prejudice, lacking representation, mistrust, or outright communal anger may be in a heated moment... should never be sought as ideal or justified over or beyond law, or a system of justice that has yet even begun to investigate a prospective crime.

 

[s2a]

It is a reasonable expectation, but also a weak one IMO. It would not surprise me at all to learn that there was indeed no attempt made at that moment.

I assumed the witnesses were asked, as is probably standard procedure.

A fair assumption, but at this point in time, inaccurate and incorrect.

The FBI did not begin questioning "eyewitnesses" until Sat. Aug 16th.

 

[Alceste]

A fair assumption, but at this point in time, inaccurate and incorrect.

The FBI did not begin questioning "eyewitnesses" until Sat. Aug 16th.

Odd, then, that I had read of several eye witness accounts days before.