Question: Do you think that Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson deliberately incited violence?

a reply to: Bilk22

Yep. Especially if Perez of CNN was correct in stating that it was done against DoJ wishes. Who would take a town that had been having a militarized police force overtake it for days and had finally been settled down to a fairly happy peace and then, throw a hornet's nest at it?

The day that Ferguson was quiet and peacefully protesting, there were similar peaceful protests all over. Including NYC where previously large scale protests looked more like a mosh pit. Nobody got beaten. Very few got arrested. It was refreshing. In my city, never saw the police crop up once on the stream. In fact, two police officers were spotted but they quickly went into a building according to the protesters. Then Jackson and the press conference. Mud in the face?

Another possible contender could be this one. Officer involved in the shooting was a member. I imagine the chief was, too, in that case. A broader "department" since there was pressure to release the name? thehill.com...

And another thing.

They keep pointing out that the incident and the robbery were not connected.

Not technically maybe but they certainly were because the guys knew they did the crime and when the police rolled up it most likely influenced how they acted.

The were going to be told to get out of the road......But they thought I'm sure that the police were there because of the robbery....

a reply to: mwood

I agree that the officer who shot may not have known but the victim certainly did and it most likely affected his choices. However, that isn't relating to what I'm asking still and that is whether, if it was known that the release of that information would be very likely to inflame the newly calmed situation, why it was released. Plenty of threads on the subject of whether that part mattered and I'm on the fence on that one for the above reasons.

What do you think about a release of information that you have been told will inflame a very recently calmed situation? Should they have done it or should they have waited until things were more stabilized in the area?

a reply to: xuenchen

His claimed rationale was that he didn't want the department to get sued. He wasn't worried about law suits when he failed to release dispatch records or 911 call, also requested.

He was pissed that the FPD was removed from enforcing the law in Ferguson so made damn sure the agency that was subsequently tasked with it - MHP - had hell to pay and, as an added bonus, he also deflected and distracted from the release of the officer's name. It may as well have been a move straight out of Game of Thrones. LoL!

Technically its up to the DA to carry the ball now. The police suspended the cop with pay. He is now on a luxry vacation with his family on taxpayer's dime due to death threats. However, the police and DA are usually in cahoots. The DA in STL has been there for 23 years so you know he is corrupt as all get out.

No not at all. To much crazy weird stuff coming out from the police. This is definitely something staged from some agency way up there somewhere.

Yes...a reply to: WhiteAlice

a reply to: WhiteAlice

A lot of people felt it incited violence by trying to justify the killing of Michael Brown. If you look at it from the perspective of this case going to trial, the defense would use that video to try to prove that Michael Brown had used intimidation before and was involved in a strong armed robbery earlier in the day. It would give credence to the shooting officer's assertion that he was using his size to try to wrestle the police officer's revolver away from him.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think the intimidation Michael Brown used on the clerk, and how he used his size to ignore and push the clerk after an attempt to stop him from leaving the store, shows his defiance and his tendency to use his physical size to force his will. If the officer feared for his life and acted out of desperation, a jury could understand the fear the officer was experiencing at the moment.

However, it certainly doesn't justify shooting the victim if Michael Brown was running away, or turning around holding up his hands. Shooting him 8 times and not calling an ambulance is pretty damning on the part of the officer. Combine that with a military type crack down on protesters, the refusal by the police to release information and inform the public, the attacks and arrests of journalists, doesn't bode well for the officer, the police chief and the entire police force of Ferguson.

If half of what I’ve read so far is accurate, then I think Ferguson was a ticking time bomb from the get-go. Apparently this isn’t the first racially charged incident for that city. It’s just the one that finally lit the fuse. Racial animosity, tension and distrust apparently ran high before the shooting. I mean c’mon, a lily-white city/county government/police force serving a predominantly black town? You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out.

First of all, I don’t think Tom Jackson is the brightest star in the sky. He has mishandled this incident every step along the way. Being stupid and making bad, racially biased decisions may have been “acceptable” up to this point in his career, but he’s under the spotlight now. It’s hard to say exactly what his motivation might have been for releasing that convenience store video, since it had zero relevance to the shooting in question. I think maybe it was a desperation attempt to deflect attention from the real issues, and from the fact that he and his department are sinking like the Titanic. According to Jackson, the officer/shooter wasn’t aware of it anyway. And even if he was, the crime still didn’t warrant a death sentence. Every eye witness account I’ve heard/read so far indicated that Michael Brown was surrendering, with his hands in the air, while the officer continued shooting. If that’s the case, then I can’t think of any valid justification for what happened.

Michael Brown may have been a nasty guy and a small-time hood, but that doesn’t justify his execution. In my opinion, the most appalling thing about this is that while it’s an obvious, blatant, in-your-face case of racial injustice, there are still an awful lot of people out there (mostly white, I’m sure) who rationalize it as a righteous shoot; like the kid had it coming.

I think it’s time for Ferguson officials to consider a different approach and to make some needed changes....

a reply to: netbound

Not sure of the accuracy but I heard it was somewhere around 74 (or 54) white cops to 5-7 black in a community upwards of 70% black. You're just asking for problems.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: netbound

Not sure of the accuracy but I heard it was somewhere around 74 (or 54) white cops to 5-7 black in a community upwards of 70% black. You're just asking for problems.

55 cops in total, 3 of whom are black in total is what I recall for a town that is roughly 66% black 33% white. And agreed!

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Very broad statement but the general gist of it is whether or not the social value of what is being uttered is clearly outweighed by the social interest in maintaining order. The Supreme Court ruled that maintaining order is the greater goal.

And that`s why I believe a curfew is constitutional and necessary at this time,your right to assemble is a form of free speech and is protected by the first amendment,but back to the topic.

That video was going to come out eventually and then people would have accused the police of withholding evidence.
It doesn`t matter what the police do or don`t do at this point there are people who will try to demonize them no matter what.Anything the police say or do at this point is going to inflame the situation because the people don`t trust the police right now.
If I was the police chief I would error on the side of caution and I wouldn`t release any information now that i wasn`t legally obligated to release.
Everyone including the press needs to just wait until the investigation is completed before jumping to conclusions and casting stones.
It`s very possible that the autopsy report will conclusively prove who is telling the truth,and then all of this he said she said and the looting and rioting will have been for nothing.

a reply to: Tardacus

That video was going to come out eventually and then people would have accused the police of withholding evidence.

The police chief is listening to the DA and police union lawyers. They are putting this on trial by media. Huge mistake. Should have saved all their evidence for a jury. Probably would have been acquited by only showing that video at trial to a jury. They really blew it ImHO. Or maybe the DA has already promised that its not going to trial.

Oh yeah, speaking of character assasinations:

Mother of policeman who shot dead Michael Brown was 'a serial con artist who defrauded thousands of dollars from neighbors in stolen credit card scheme'

originally posted by: netbound
I think maybe it was a desperation attempt to deflect attention from the real issues, and from the fact that he and his department are sinking like the Titanic.

Sorry for the brutal snip quote but this right here really struck a chord for me. Jackson released the surveillance video and documents at the same time as revealing the police officer's name. A desperate attempt to deflect and recast the officer in question into a new light, I could buy, as you're right. Jackson doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

The short answer. Yes. The Long answer....OHHHHHH YES. This is a tactic used by most defense attorneys or anyone else in a bad position...it's called turning the victim into the criminal. It works all the time in sexual assault cases..."Oh look what she did to make him assault her". Or "Lets pull up a video of him pushing someone, that's enough to prove the office had to kill him". They are doing everything except doing what is right. Waging a PR War in hopes to start a real war or riot to prove that these people are ungovernable. It's sickening but when you give idiots power, expect them to do idiotic things. Like shooting someone multiple times in broad day light with their hands up in front of witnesses. They want a full scale riot so they don't have to interview the witnesses.

a reply to: ltheghost

That's a really good point. Trial by public opinion is what sticks longer than the actual outcome of the trial, right? And the media, as has been brought up here a couple times, will pick it right on up because it creates controversy and titillates. And yep to inciting to show how justified those condemned actions were. I could see that as well.

I think there was looting and violence before he got involved so no he did not create it. That being said, I think he could've done a better job of reducing the violence. But in a situation they don't really have a lot of personal experience in, just probably a manual "Section 32.16.c How to Deal with Rioting after an Officer Involved a Shooting" I am not sure I am going to throw the book at him for suboptimal results.

He tried to calm the anger by marching with the protesters and showing that some officers were on their side. It didn't work. Back to the drawing board. Now we try a curfew.

I can't speak to the motives of the man who released the robbery tape but all things that are true should be made public.

Sal

a reply to: WhiteAlice

JHC, let's just nitpick the s*** out of this incident. This thread is a waste of space.

Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, I do think that the Ferguson Police Department's reputation for corruption, poor procedures and horrible public relations has totally screwed this poor Officer. I really hope he gets the best legal aid possible. His life will be hell, no matter findings.