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

Soon after Police Chief Jackson made the release of the robbery footage of Michael Brown, there was a bit of a furor in the press in why he did that so soon after things had actually finally settled down in Ferguson. A few articles actually questioned whether or not Jackson had deliberately incited renewed violence.

Captain Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol – who does command police authority over protest events ongoing in Ferguson, Missouri, as of Thursday afternoon – was not informed in advance that Chief Jackson would release this video, he later told media. CNN reported on Saturday that U.S. Department of Justice officials warned Chief Jackson against releasing it. He ignored them.

The video immediately inflamed the local residents who had started a protest movement that is spreading throughout the region and nation. The reason for their anger has been widely expressed in social and other media.

Source: www.stlamerican.com...

The St. Louis American wasn't the only one to report on the tidbit about Jackson actually being discouraged from releasing the surveillance video and utilizing CNN as a reference either. Huffington Post also remarked on it:

CNN revealed on Saturday that the Department of Justice found out about the video earlier this week and asked police not to make it public. According to CNN, the DOJ was worried that the footage would spark more violence in Ferguson.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Now interestingly enough, the sourced CNN article no longer has that particular bit of information still in the source article. However, one bit of it does still exist in the form of a tweet from Evan Perez, CNN's Justice and National Security reporter.

DoJ opposed #Ferguson cops releasing robbery video, citing concern of inflaming tensions, law enf ofcl says; cops did it anyway

Source: twitter.com...

Outside of the mystery as to why CNN would remove this portion of their article, it's pretty clear that their reporter, Evan Perez was both upset at what Jackson had done and stated that it was in contradiction to what the Department of Justice had advised to avoid inflaming the situation. So why did Jackson do it?

[quote[Mr. Jackson said the decision to release information on the alleged robbery came in response to numerous media requests under freedom-of-information laws. He said it was determined the department was required to release the material and couldn't hold on to it any longer.
Source: fox2now.com...

So Jackson's claim that he released the video based on numerous media requests under the FOIA and "couldn't hold on to it any longer". However, if the Department of Justice had advised against releasing the surveillance video for fears that it would inflame the situation, then is his fulfillment of those FOI requests from media actually a sound rationale? Just what department determined he was required to release it? His own? Secondly, according to FOIA.gov, FOI requests work like this:

This is a written request in which you describe the information you want, and the format you want it in, in as much detail as possible. You should be aware that the FOIA does not require agencies to do research for you, analyze data, answer written questions, or create records in response to your request.

Source: www.foia.gov...

In other words, a FOI request isn't a carte blanche request for them to dig up anything and everything they've got. It's fairly specific. Considering that the majority of the public and media at large did not seem to have any inkling that the footage existed as it was roundly reported that Michael Brown had no criminal record, then it opens up yet another question--whether any media specifically requested the surveillance footage in the first place. Additionally, Jackson admitted that the surveillance video did not, in fact, have any relevance in the shooting of Michael Brown:

Jackson said he released both pieces of evidence at the same time because the media had asked for both. However, he did say the robbery and the shooting of Michael Brown were not connected.

“All I did was release the video tape because I had to, ” Jackson said.

Source: fox2now.com...

Again, Jackson claimed that the media had asked for both, referencing the documents and surveillance video released, which is a strange request for the "Michael Brown had no criminal record" reporting. And it wasn't even connected to the shooting by his own admission. The officer involved in the shooting was totally unaware of Brown having been involved in a robbery. Brown's only crime that instigated the incident that resulted in Brown's death was jaywalking.

So those are the questions in my mind about Chief Jackson releasing the surveillance video and documents so soon after peace finally returned to Ferguson. Jackson has been coming under a lot of fire about what had been occurring in Ferguson over the last week and had been removed from command over the protests. The entire string of events is now under investigation by the Dept. of Justice and the FBI and roundly condemned by even Holder and Obama. Did Jackson have a sour grapes moment and deliberately provoke the crowd? Or was he merely trying to clear his department's name by showing that it wasn't black or white as being depicted but shades of grey?

What do you think? Incite to violence? Poorly executed self defense gone wrong? Or ???

a reply to: WhiteAlice

pretty sure the media is also inciting violence when they do this.


www.thegatewaypundit.com...

they pretty much draw a map to the officers' house.

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

No not in the least bit.

Jackson is a scapegoat and is taking orders from higher up.

Be leery of anybody saying what "should not have been done".

Sometimes the guilty hide among the victims.

This entire Ferguson thing has an agenda.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

You mean by telling the truth? That pesky truth, so inconvenient, so insensitive, so politically incorrect. Violent criminal robs honest businessman, cop doles out some justice. If the people of Ferguson can't handle the truth that's too bad.

I guess they'd rather items be free at the local stores. That's how they've been behaving anyway. Maybe they're all just like that angel Michael Brown.

a reply to: hammanderr

it's not a cops job to "dole out some justice ".

a reply to: thishereguy

Yeah, ordinarily I agree with you. But after seeing what a predator Brown was, I'm not surprised what happened to him. He was a bad person. Anyone who's that bad at 18 is not gonna make a turnaround.

a reply to: thishereguy

Technically, though, the media isn't under oath to protect and serve the public though you raise a good point, which could be a whole other thread of when media goes too far and endangers an individual and potentially their family. However, this one is about Jackson, whose press conference with the release of that surveillance video and documents, immediately provoked anger from the residents of Ferguson in attendance. He angered them at the press conference itself.

"They (Ferguson Police) gave a press conference and one of the first things they did was read about this man's history," he said. "It inflamed this community. All you heard people say was that they didn't like that. I think it's very disrespectful, insensitive and callous."

Source: www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: WhiteAlice

yeah sorry, i had this also but it doesn't show in my comment, don't know why.


"yes , they are inciting violence , but "

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: WhiteAlice

You mean by telling the truth? That pesky truth, so inconvenient, so insensitive, so politically incorrect. Violent criminal robs honest businessman, cop doles out some justice. If the people of Ferguson can't handle the truth that's too bad.

I guess they'd rather items be free at the local stores. That's how they've been behaving anyway. Maybe they're all just like that angel Michael Brown.

Well, when even the truth has the effect of "fighting words" that threatens a breach of peace, then yes, it should be considered. Especially when the Department of Justice warned that it could inflame the situation. "Fighting words" are not protected free speech.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court ruled this:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

en.wikipedia.org...

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. Jackson was warned that the things he released would likely inflame the residents of Ferguson and it did.

Now for you, clearly, the social value of truth outweighed the need for maintaining order. Would those business owners whose businesses were looted feel the same way? And btw, it was the protesters that defended those businesses from looters--not the police--and also helped those owners clean up their shops this morning.

a reply to: xuenchen

Don't just say so. Prove it. If Jackson is a mere victim, then see what you can find that indicates that he is a victim in this.

It's all being used as a distraction. Of course he enflamed the situation on orders.

originally posted by: Bilk22
It's all being used as a distraction. Of course he enflamed the situation on orders.

He did state that "the department" determined that he had to release the videos but which department was left ambiguous. That's one of the questions I have, considering Jackson seemed to have gone against DoJ advisement. Who suggested it? I also noted that he seemed nervous as heck up there doing it, too.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: Bilk22
It's all being used as a distraction. Of course he enflamed the situation on orders.

He did state that "the department" determined that he had to release the videos but which department was left ambiguous. That's one of the questions I have, considering Jackson seemed to have gone against DoJ advisement. Who suggested it? I also noted that he seemed nervous as heck up there doing it, too.

There's some of the "proof" ^^^^

And the DHS ruse is window dressing.

All part of the psy-ops.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's not necessarily proof. It's circumstantial evidence at best. If Jackson did get told to release information, maybe Governor Jay Nixon?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I don't think he deliberately did anything...

I think he is woefully out of his depth.. .and completely incompetent at his job..

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I feel like it's a dangerous precedent to set. So now public officials and media have to treat certain groups with kid gloves? The fact of Michael Browns violent, criminal behavior is an important detail for the public to be made aware of. The police officer was being accused of executing some harmless little lamb.

That video of his thuggery certainly was eye opening, certainly didn't fit the description we'd all been hearing.

Telling the truth is what everyone is constantly angry at the government for not doing, it's nice to see them do it in this case. I guess the people of Ferguson would prefer a government that perpetuates a lie, perhaps that's what they deserve.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: xuenchen

It's not necessarily proof. It's circumstantial evidence at best. If Jackson did get told to release information, maybe Governor Jay Nixon?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

That could be.

But I think DHS is running this operation.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: xuenchen

It's not necessarily proof. It's circumstantial evidence at best. If Jackson did get told to release information, maybe Governor Jay Nixon?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

It's known that the cigar store event had nothing to do with the shooting - well not from the officer's perspective that shot Brown. It may have had something to do with how Brown reacted to the cop when approached in the street, but that would be brought up as some type of evidence at trial, in an attempt to show Brown's state of mind and his possible aggressive behavior toward when encountering the cop on the street. The video footage, at this point in time, has nothing to do with the case. So why was it released?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I don't think he deliberately did anything...

I think he is woefully out of his depth.. .and completely incompetent at his job..

No he stated he was instructed to release it by some entity. He didn't make the decision on his own.

No.

I think people who jump to assumptions without having the facts incite violence

I think The Media who loved to escalate things so they have crap to report on are the major player in escalating violence and turning people against each other.

Everyone out there is an attention whore and a drama queen.