Skip to main content

So the Ferguson Police Chief, Thomas Jackson, has spent over 10 days now hedging and fidgeting and doing everything in the world except tell the truth.

The reason that no Incident Report filed by Officer Darren Wilson has been produced for the public to view or at least acknowledged as existing, by Chief Jackson?

Because Officer Darren Wilson never filed one.

Because the Ferguson PD turned the investigation over to the St Louis County Police, the day of or the day after the incident, it's not yet clear.

What is clear?

The FOIA the ACLU of Missouri filed to obtain that "missing" Incident Report?

They finally received the report, read carefully.

The file is available by the ACLU of Missouri online in original format here

Follows is a .jpg version of the file. It is not altered in any fashion other than conversion from .pdf online to a .jpg via screenshot grab

UPDATE: Comments indicate that the charge of Homicide is a normal case of any death brought about at the hands of another person. Only when a specific charge of Murder, Manslaughter or any other variation of a killing which is not justified should this be of any note.
The first thing which should grab your eye is the charge, right up top of page 1:

The reporting Officer? 3403 Wilson

The Victim? Michael Brown

The ONLY other information entered on this "Incident Report" on the Homicide of the victim, Michael Brown? The date, time and location of his homicide death.

It also notes that:
Unit #4412 from SLCPD (St Louis County PD) in COGIS (geographic location) 2160 was dispatched at 12:43 and arrived at the scene at 13:30.

But the reporting Officer is listed as 3403-Wilson. If the Incident Report was made by the SLCPD and SOMEONE was dispatched and arrived, why is Wilson listed as the Reporting Officer? Unless this is not Darren Wilson, the officer involved, but some other Officer Wilson at the SLCPD?

THAT is the sum total of the information contained on the report.

Other than the report notes that it was filed on August 19, 2014 at 9:46.

10 days after the death of Michael Brown.

10 days in which the Ferguson PD Chief COULD have told the nation that St. Louis County was doing the investigation and that Officer Wilson had filed a report, but that it was up to St Louis County PD to release that Incident Report, as they were the investigating police department.

No information as to why a serving Officer in his department was involved in an incident in which he discharged his firearm in the line of Duty and then failed to report the details of the event to anyone.

UPDATE - as noted above, this is likely a standard notation when a death occurs at the hand of another person.
But if you just read the thinly populated form itself, it's rather apparent why the Ferguson PD hasn't said anything.

Offense: HOMICIDE.

I still think that the release of the Incident Report, the keeping of the information about the change of venue of the investigating Police force and the fact that there is to date no information being provided about the manner in which Michael Brown died and that the officer involved in the shooting is reported as "in hiding" will make the balance of the diary still true.
I thought that the small town of Ferguson was about to get the normal brushoff by the Media, after all it's been nearly two weeks.

I don't think that anymore, not after finding this in my Twitter timeline tonight just after 10 pm PST.

I think it's maybe just begun.

Page one of a two page Incident report obtained by the ACLU of Missouri via a FOIA regarding the killing of Michael Brown in the town of Ferguson, Missouri on August  9, 2014.
Pg 1 of Incident report obtained by ACLU of Missouri
re: killing of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.
Pg 2 of Incident report obtained by ACLU of Missouri re: killing of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.
Pg 2 of Incident report obtained by ACLU of Missouri
re: killing of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  #omg Jar (176+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, glitterscale, emal, PeterHug, Bob Love, eeff, hubcap, Creosote, shanikka, samddobermann, rjnerd, kharma, figbash, kj in missouri, dkmich, Vyan, rapala, reflectionsv37, Overseas, kaliope, Tool, rb608, redcedar, BlueInARedState, MTmofo, StrayCat, Lashe, gooderservice, bumbi, EastcoastChick, markthshark, Cat Whisperer, TX Freethinker, OleHippieChick, Cassandra Waites, hwmnbn, BYw, ZhenRen, Purple Priestess, Denise Oliver Velez, Little Flower, Tommymac, Vita Brevis, Just Bob, parse this, NJpeach, jakedog42, Polly Syllabic, NM Ray, ericlewis0, Airmid, Susipsych, BarackStarObama, DRo, yawnimawke, DeadHead, IndieGuy, Joieau, a2nite, 2thanks, Horace Boothroyd III, wasatch, Lily O Lad, TomP, CTPatriot, limulus curmudgeon, bbctooman, TracieLynn, LarisaW, tdor66, hopeful, aitchdee, thenekkidtruth, zerelda, shesaid, boadicea, MKinTN, GeorgeXVIII, science nerd, hester, Wreck Smurfy, AJayne, TexDem, Empower Ink, FarWestGirl, peregrine kate, ginimck, GrannyRedBird, dmhlt 66, Hesiod, gizmo59, psnyder, Onomastic, Sylv, middleagedhousewife, BlueJessamine, Catte Nappe, eru, warprof, AllanTBG, dandy lion, TheDuckManCometh, DEMonrat ankle biter, Rejoinder, jrooth, rasbobbo, blackjackal, urnumbersix, mconvente, leeleedee, Eagles92, Hayate Yagami, Tinfoil Hat, TruthFreedomKindness, mrkvica, Glen The Plumber, WisVoter, bethann, lunachickie, cablecargal, NoBlueSkies, peacestpete, whenwego, 4CasandChlo, Shotput8, dcnblues, kevinpdx, Tim DeLaney, ctsteve, tegrat, concernedamerican, Damnit Janet, Tommy Aces, HeyMikey, Sassy, Robynhood too, Bluefin, Dem, davidincleveland, Ice Blue, No one gets out alive, America Jones, bnasley, hotheadCA, Shippo1776, Caneel, Sapere aude, sawgrass727, Sunnyhorse, NewtC, BMScott, TheOldIslander, Ranina, fredswisher, Sojourns, merrily1000, RightHeaded, George3, mightymo05, eagleray, snwflk, Teenygozer, Eric Nelson, Wagymfan, ARS

    Because tomorrow morning, when the media starts running with this?

    It's gonna be #omg all damned day long.

    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

    by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:33:18 AM PDT

    •  I heard that Wilson didn't fill out the requisite. (50+ / 0-)

      incident report due to 5th Amendment issues.

      But I don't understand how in the hell a cop is allowed to keep the pertinent details of a CRIME hidden for the express reason of protecting him/her from their own potential guilt in the incident.

      This is bullshit

      "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

      by markthshark on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:30:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do you think the 5th amendment (14+ / 0-)

        protection against self-incrimination means if it's not being allowed to keep the pertinent details of a crime hidden to protect one's guilt? What would be the point of it otherwise?

        •  and by "hidden" I only mean (10+ / 0-)

          not offering my own testimony about it, not destroying evidence, etc., of course.

        •  I really don't see how that applies to police... (48+ / 0-)

          action when it was an officer doing the duties of his job. If what you say is true, then we have just entered the dark days of policing. Never again will we see an incident report, or hear any details on any incident where a police officer may be at risk of prosecution.

          He isn't on trial here, He hasn't been charged, hasn't been arrested. He's simply being expected to report his action on the job to his employers. Those employers are the taxpayers. I don't really see how he can claim the 5th, assuming he's done so, when he hasn't been charged with a crime.

          •  y'know that whole Miranda thing (25+ / 0-)

            about the right to remain silent? You don't have to be charged with a crime to merit a Miranda warning. They're questioning you to get evidence out of your mouth to justify charging you with a crime. You don't have to incriminate yourself, period, full stop, regardless of whether you're a cop or a drug dealer (or both!). And the department doesn't have to keep employing you if you don't cooperate with investigations and file appropriate reports, or if you lose control and shoot people because you're pissed they sassed you (to take a random example). But that's their remedy -- discharge, not forced testimony against yourself.

            I don't know what else to say. Maybe a more awake lawyer will come by and explain it better.

            •  I understand that, but they read you your... (6+ / 0-)

              Miranda rights after the handcuffs are on and you're under arrest. I have never heard of a police officer walking up to someone question them and reading them their Miranda Rights before asking them a question.

              •  Not so (10+ / 0-)

                A cop gives the Miranda warnings when one believes that the individual may be a suspect in a crime and the cop believes that whatever is said would be useful in a prosecution.  There is no requirement that the individual be under physical arrest.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 04:20:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So maybe Wilson Mirandized himself? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lunachickie, snwflk

                  Wasn't there another officer on the scene pretty quickly? Seems like someone should have written up a report.

                  I'll tell you right out, I am a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk. - Kasper Gutman

                  by rasbobbo on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:30:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The police are not required to Mirandize (5+ / 0-)

                  unless the subject is in custody, i.e., not free to leave.  the reason is that only if a subject is in custody is there an overriding concern that his confession could be the product of coercion.

                  But whether a subject is given the Miranda warning or not, he can always refuse to make a statement that might incriminate him. You see witnesses in Congressional hearings do it, and they're not in custody.

                  Wilson could in fact refuse to file an incident report and cite his Fifth Amendment rights. However, he'd have to resign or be fired as a result, because he's required by the terms of his employment to file report. At least most police departments work that way. Who can say, w/r/t Ferguson.

              •  reflectionsv - your Miranda rights are inclusive (12+ / 0-)

                and perpetual and don't begin when they are read to you by a police officer. There is never a time when you have to say or write anything that incriminates you, regardless of any recitation of a Miranda warning.  

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:20:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ok, I follow all this but my question is (9+ / 0-)

                  Can a police officer refuse to file an incident report if he's worried his actions during the incident could incriminate him?

                  •  yes, that is the question (18+ / 0-)

                    that's not being addressed.

                    also, WHEN are police required to file an incident report?  meaning, in what amount of time following an incident?

                    based on the report that was released, either Wilson or another office immediately on the scene (or communicating with Wilson) recognized immediately that this was going to be...bad.  because the 'homicide' happened at 12:02 and at 12:43, they put in the call to the SLCPD to turn the case over.

                    rather like they stood around and discussed what needed to happen and who to contact next and how to play this out, at least internally, immediately after the "incident."  instead of, you know, other minor duties like...calling for an ambulance.

                    so they IMMEDIATELY turned this over to the SLCPD, hence Wilson becomes a...player (can't think of the term...a player in the event) and is relieved of all police duties.  is that how it works?

                    regardless, if it's true that police can simply not write up an incident report any time they feel/worry/think that they may, at some point, have to answer for their actions...well, then, there aren't going to be very many incident reports written any more, are there?

                    •  nope, hardly ever (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                      by Sybil Liberty on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:10:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I believe the process goes like this.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I think if they are ordered to produce a full report - and they are supposed to be ordered to make that report any time there is substantial force used against a suspect - that information then becomes "Garrity Rights" (named after a famous case).

                      The information in that file - the officer's personal file - then cannot be used against them in criminal court as testimony in violation of their 5th Amendment rights. If there are other witnesses or if the facts stand for themselves, that officer can be prosecuted just like anyone else. But the evidence from the officer's own report is said to "protect their Garrity Rights" if they are ordered to make it.

                      At least that is my non-expert understanding, others here may know more.

                      Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick: The "party of Jesus" wouldn't invite him to their convention - fearing his "platform."

                      by 4CasandChlo on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:34:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually, (0+ / 0-)

                        Garrity does not require the officer to file his/her report. In fact, it says that the officer cannot be subjected to discipline for refusal to answer.


                        •  But an officer can be disciplined (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          But an officer can be disciplined for failing to due their job.

                          Not providing an incident report is failing to do the job.

                          Not following protocol after a shooting is failure to do the job.

                          Officer Wilson may not be compelled to provide an incident report that might implicate him in a crime, but he cannot be allowed to keep his job if he fails to do his job - that includes providing an incident report.

                          In other words, Officer Wilson would not be terminated for refusing to incriminate himself (Sanitation Workers vs Commissioner, 1968), he would be terminated for failing to perform his job - providing an incident report and following the protocols after discharging his weapon and killing someone.

                          The fact that providing the incident report would implicate Officer Wilson is something he has to weigh.  Either he provides an incident report in order to keep his job (like any LEO would have to do to keep their job), or he can decide to not file the incident report and be fired for cause - failing to do his job.

                  •  shades at midnight - yes, they can refuse (5+ / 0-)

                    but I would think at that point they could be terminated, or at least put on unpaid leave and turn in their service weapon and badge until the legal issues are resolved.

                    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                    by VClib on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 07:16:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Garrity v New Jersey (1967) (7+ / 0-)

                      and maybe I need to do a diary about this because I am seeing a lot of misinformation/misconceptions in these threads..

                      Garrity Rights

                      In brief:

                      Some argue that Garrity Rights are an example of public employees being afforded "special" rights not enjoyed by others.  This is a false argument.  All citizens have the constitutional right not to be compelled by the government to incriminate themselves.  This does not change simply because one is employed by the government itself.  If public employees did not have Garrity protection, they would have fewer rights than other citizens.
                      You can not be fired, even as a police officer, for not giving a statement against your interests.

                      Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway. -Unknown

                      by dawgflyer13 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:27:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  dawgflyer - please do a diary on this topic (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Angie in WA State, jdld, Dem, BMScott

                        It would be timely and much appreciated.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:38:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't believe Garrity rights apply here. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lunachickie, eyeswideopen

                        Assuming he's required to file an incident report as part of his job, he's either got to file one, or resign or be disciplined, even fired, when he doesn't.

                        I think Garrity rights only protect the employee if he's being questioned in a criminal investigation, which is not part of his regular job duties.

                        The BART cop who shot the young black man in Oakland (Fruitville Station movie) immediately resigned, on advice of counsel, so he wouldn't have to be debriefed/file a report as he'd be otherwise required to.

                        •  No, he doesn't (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Angie in WA State, Dem, BMScott

                          I don't know the circumstances of that officer, I will have to look it up.

                          You can refuse to write a report if you feel it will incriminate you.  That is your 5th Amendment right.  You can not be fired, as a police officer, for refusing to violate your 5th Amendment rights.

                          The Majority Opinion, written by Douglas, found that the officers were compelled to testify against themselves under threat of removal from office. This constitutes coercion and violates the Fourteenth Amendment Right due process clause as well as Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Their convictions were subsequently overturned.
                          This is what a typical Garrity Warning looks like
                          You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. This is a voluntary interview and you do not have to answer questions if your answers would tend to implicate you in a crime. No disciplinary action will be taken against you solely for refusing to answer questions. However, the evidentiary value of your silence may be considered in administrative proceedings as part of the facts surrounding your case. Any statement you do choose to provide may be used as evidence in criminal and/or administrative proceedings.

                          Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway. -Unknown

                          by dawgflyer13 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:09:19 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  But you can be fired for failing to do your job. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Officer Wilson can weigh the benefits of not providing an incident report against not self-incriminating.

                        Failing to provide an incident report is failing to do his job.

                        Failing to do his job is grounds for termination.

                        I'll quote majority opinion (Uniformed Sanitation vs Commissioner, 1968):

                        As we stated in Gardner v. Broderick, supra, if New York had demanded that petitioners answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of their official duties on pain of dismissal from public employment without requiring relinquishment of the benefits of the constitutional privilege, and if they had refused to do so, this case would be entirely different. In such a case, the employee's right to immunity as a result of his compelled testimony would not be at stake. But here the precise and plain impact of the proceedings against petitioners as well as of 1123 of the New York Charter was to present them with a choice between surrendering their constitutional rights or their jobs. Petitioners as public employees are entitled, like all other persons, to the benefit of the Constitution, [392 U.S. 280, 285]   including the privilege against self-incrimination. Gardner v. Broderick, supra; Garrity v. New Jersey, supra. Cf. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 , at 79 (1964). At the same time, petitioners, being public employees, subject themselves to dismissal if they refuse to account for their performance of their public trust, after proper proceedings, which do not involve an attempt to coerce them to relinquish their constitutional rights.
                        Bolding added by me.

                        And here's the rub.

                        Officer Wilson is at the same time 'refusing to account for his performance' with the very document that would otherwise incriminate him - the incident report.

                        I'm sorry, but no lawyer, other than Officer Wilson's, should be able to claim that failing to provide an incident report of a shooting a man dead - accounting for his performance at the furthest reach of the public trust - is the same as providing evidence of theft as in the case of the Sanitation Workers.

                        Officer Wilson should not be compelled to testify or lose his job - as outlined in cited case.  However, I believe that Officer Wilson should lose his job for failing to do his job - providing an incident report.

                        Officer Wilson has a dilemma, he can chose to exercise his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination or he can complete the duties he was sworn to uphold - provide an incident report to account for his performance in the public trust.  This is not compelling his testimony.

                        Moreover, the justified use of deadly force has a hurdle - Officer Wilson must demonstrate that he or others were in immediate danger.  In this instance, that cannot be accomplished without Officer Wilson providing testimony in his own defense.  The civil case against both Officer Wilson and the Ferguson PD by the Brown family is a slam-dunk if Officer Wilson choses to remain silent - because he would not be able to demonstrate he was justified in his use of force without testimony.

                        •  No, that is not the case (0+ / 0-)

                          Ofc. Wilson can not be fired for refusing to incriminate himself.  That was settled by Garrity.  He can't be threatened with it and it can't happen.  SCOTUS was very clear on that, they called it "coercion".  He can be fired for not cooperating with the IA investigation, but no one has claimed that he is not.

                          Officer Wilson has a dilemma, he can chose to exercise his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination or he can complete the duties he was sworn to uphold - provide an incident report to account for his performance in the public trust.  This is not compelling his testimony.
                          That is the very definition of coercion. He can not be forced to write a report that could be held against him in a court of law. Police officers have 5th Amendment rights, too.

                          Additionally, people are using a generic term, "incident report".  Based on departmental policy, Ofc. Wilson may have very well complied with the procedure by writing a "use of force" report, which can be classified as administrative.  That means it would only be used in an IA investigation, would satisfy Garrity, and could not be used as evidence against him in a criminal case. It is also not subject to discovery, and can't be subpoenaed. There was no arrest report needed, as it appears that Ofc. Wilson was not able to detain, and made no attempt to arrest, Brown.  It's a technicality, yes - but it is an important one. Arrest reports are part of the investigation, and would be subject to discovery.  The arrest report lays out probable cause, and outlines the elements of the crime the offender is thought to have committed.  

                          I think the problem around here lately is that people are using a whole lot of generic terms and jumping to conclusions without understanding the laws, and case laws, that are on point in regards to use of force.  Additionally, it seems to me that very few people have an understanding of the nuances of the administration of a law enforcement agency.

                          For example, most officers will write a very generic arrest report.  They will lay out their probable cause and the elements of the crime in a supplemental report.  Why? Because the arrest report is subject to discovery and FOIA, the supplemental report may, or may not, be. Additionally, the DA can use proceedings to keep the supplemental reports from getting into the hands of the defense attorney. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Now, most lawyers are smart enough to know this, and so the supplemental reports are included in the discovery requests. However, you occasionally have a lawyer who is new, or inexperienced, and those supplemental reports fall through the cracks.   This phenomenon was discovered here on the DK the other day, when the incident report about the robbery was released. People were complaining that it contained very little information and was very generic.  There was a purposeful reason for that.  

                          What people here want to see is the "use of force" report.  I am almost 100% certain that has been written, but it is not accessible to the media, or to the public because it is classified as "administrative".  

                          Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway. -Unknown

                          by dawgflyer13 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:42:40 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Fair enough. (0+ / 0-)

                            Thank you for the education in Garrity.  Frankly, I am not certain that what you have outlined is what the Supreme Court intended.

                            I agree that I do not fully appreciate the nuances of the administrative aspects of law enforcement, but providing no details in an arrest report seems to be at odds with what was written in Garrity:

                            At the same time, petitioners, being public employees, subject themselves to dismissal if they refuse to account for their performance of their public trust, after proper proceedings, which do not involve an attempt to coerce them to relinquish their constitutional rights.
                            By your accounting, Officer Wilson, or any LEO who participates in a crime, can simply get away with both refusing to account for their performance and stand behind the 5th Amendment for protection.  Seemingly, in your estimation, Officer Wilson, or any public servant, has no public obligation to account for their actions if the public servant believes they committed a crime.

                            Officer Wilson may be able to say nothing and provide no testimony what so ever, however, he can still be charged with a crime in the shooting death of Michael Brown.  We know Michael Brown was unarmed and more than 30 feet away from Officer Wilson at the time Michael Brown was repeatedly struck with bullets.  We also know from a coroners report that Michael Brown was struck on the inside of his arms - indicating a pose of surrender.  In the absence of testimony by Officer Wilson explaining what preceded these events and why he was justified in using deadly force, it is hard to imagine why he is not guilty of an execution.

                            So I guess it's only coercion when the job of the person is at stake, not their ability to stay out of jail.  

                            I'm back to square one - I do not believe that is what the Supreme Court intended when they provided their opinion in Garrity.

                            I wonder your thoughts on the civil case that will be brought against Officer Wilson.  Will he be able to say nothing while at the same time be able to demonstrate why he was justified in his use of deadly force?  Will he be able to whisk away the civil case simply because he will be granted qualified immunity for being a police officer?  Will he be able to point to police reports that have no details, because he refused to provide any, that will indicate he is a public servant who should be granted qualified immunity?

                            LEO's have obligations under the Garner ruling to indicate how they were justified in the use of deadly force.  How will that square with 5th Amendment right to remain silent?  Or would this also be coercion?

                          •  thanks for your input on this! (0+ / 0-)

                            You know far more than most of us, about the details and nuances and standard practices!

                            Why is it that the supplemental/administrative/"use of force" reports are not subject to discovery, subpoena, and usable as evidence? (I've never heard of Garrity before, and haven't yet looked it up, so that may answer my question...)

                •  On the contrary (0+ / 0-)

                  the Supremes recently held that Miranda rights don't exist until the detainee explicitly asks for them.

            •  It is the responsibility of the PD (37+ / 0-)

              It is the responsibility of the PD to file complete reports.

              If Wilson refused to complete the report, then others in the PD are required to fill it in as completely as possible. That includes recording the fact that Wilson refused to fill in the report, and most importantly why he refused to fill it in. That is, the report should detail whether Wilson invoked the 5th.

              The fact that specific question wasn't even asked by Ferguson PD makes two things clear: 1. they knew it was out-and-out murder, and 2. they chose to become accessory-after-the-fact.

              •  i should have read one more comment (9+ / 0-)

                before i wrote mine.

                thank you for this info.  it helps my understanding.

                and that's an excellent point--you have to INVOKE the 5th.  right??  you don't just get to....walk away from the police without answering a question.  or....step down from the witness stand and walk out of the courtroom.  without saying ANYTHING.

                that plays right into my question/observation that if any cop can just not file an incident report because they think/worry/feel they may have to answer for it at some point, then there won't be many incident reports filed.

                but to know that someone ELSE in the PD MUST file an incident report, and MUST NOTE that the officer involved refused to file it (and, possibly, the reason for the refusal) makes more sense than just "a cop doesn't have to file a report if he/she is afraid of incriminating themselves" and that's the end of it.

                so....where is the Ferguson PD incident report?  because this wasn't it.

                •  I wonder then (0+ / 0-)

                  ...if nobody ever has to answer questions about their actions that might incriminate themselves, not answering cop questions should never be seen as insolence or sassing but merely the citizen exercising their constitutional rights...

                  Don't just fight the powers that be, become the powers that be.

                  by eyeswideopen on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 11:23:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  In other words, Miranda does not apply to (10+ / 0-)

              In other words, Miranda does not apply to the PD as a whole.

              (Unless the whole PD is pleading the 5th for conspiracy)

              •  I'm not sure what that means, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                but my SOLE reason for mentioning Miranda was to counter this statement

                I don't really see how he can claim the 5th, assuming he's done so, when he hasn't been charged with a crime.
                with what I thought would be an obvious counterexample.

                I should have known things would head off in a Miranda sidethread.

            •  Question: Has he been arrested? (12+ / 0-)

              Not to public knowledge, so he would not have been read his Miranda rights, would he?

              Oh, maybe there is a special law in MO to read Cops Miranda before they files incident reports, you could check the case law on that and provide us citations, LOL.

              Certainly he could have consulted an attorney, who would have told him to shut the fuck up and not put anything in writing, but then:

              (a) he would be on unpaid leave instead of paid administrative leave
              (b) we would expect another officer from the scene to file a report

              Neither of which was done.

              Smells more like obstruction of justice than someone not under arrest asserting Miranda rights.

              •  Yet, didn't it look like (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...Wilson was talking to the second cop while he was pacing back and forth near Brown's body? That guy needs to be questioned. Wilson was probably telling him what happened.

                Don't just fight the powers that be, become the powers that be.

                by eyeswideopen on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 11:25:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Watching a few episodes of Law and Order (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Villanova Rhodes

              has introduced most of us to the phrase "Don't talk to anyone 'til your rep gets here". Which is heard whenever one of the characters has shot (killed) someone.

              Ingratitude is the essence of vileness. Immanuel Kant

              by TexDem on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 07:35:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Fine. But then SOMEONE ELSE should have been (15+ / 0-)

              responsible for filing a report on the incident.
              But no one apparently could, because Wilson left the scene, and it was not treated as a crime scene where evidence would be carefully and systematically gathered.
              If that is not a total collapse, even evisceration, of the idea of due process, I don't know what is.

              Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

              by peregrine kate on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 07:43:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Isn't it Wilson's job to fill out the report? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cablecargal, happymisanthropy, snwflk

                Sure, he has the right to take the 5th, but he also isn't doing his job which should make him subject to punishment or losing his job, particularly given the international furor that this incident has caused.  

                Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

                by Kayakbiker on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:32:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  No reason you'd be following my (0+ / 0-)

                comments, but if you were, you'd know I don't believe the underlying story. I believe there have been reports in both FPD and St Louis County. I've posted the report numbers. We've seen portions of them. "Redacted" does not mean the report is "blank" and it sure doesn't mean that a report "wasn't filed" whatever that turns out to mean in any given jurisdiction. There are all kinds of semantic games or confusion going on. "Incident report? No, no Incident Report was filed. Event Report? Oh yeah, of course we've got that, but that's not what you asked for." Haven't we seen this movie before?

                I do not know what Wilson has said, to whom, or under what circumstances. I DO know that whatever that turns out to be, the county is not required to release it at this time. And I know that a whole lot of what people are saying absolutely positively had to be done and in what timeframe they are pulling out of their own asses jurisdiction-specific experience.

                And I have no reason to believe the "not treated as a crime scene" statement at this point. Every related statement I've seen, such as "he drove away in the vehicle" appears to have been false. I'm waiting for actual evidence. YMMV.

            •  Then another officer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              should have filed an incident report. If Wilson can't write his own due to 5th amendment, the next officer arriving at the scene should be writing a report. I can't believe that there's any possible justification that officer-involved killings should just not be described in any kind of report by anyone because 5th amendment.

              If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century. --PBO

              by kismet on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:03:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  A report by the 1st responding officer? (0+ / 0-)

              From witness reports, it seems the first responding officer arrived within one or two minutes.  For whatever reason Wilson didn't do the report, it would seem the other officer woulda / coulda done it.

              •  And why do you think it (0+ / 0-)

                wasn't done? I still haven't seen the O'Donnell segment, so it's possible I'm missing something.

                I've seen FPD records (incomplete) that relate to the shooting. I've seen St. Lous County records (incomplete) that relate to the shooting. Why do you think such records don't exist? Did someone show them to be forgeries? (I've seen no news today; could be.)

        •  Well if cops didn't shoot and kill so many people (60+ / 0-)

          and keep being found justified for such acts, I doubt so many of us would be so upset about what's been going on in the case of Michael Brown.

          The nation and local communities need police forces.

          But how are we supposed to have any faith in them if they can kill with impunity?

          How are we supposed to maintain Law and Order if police officers are legally allowed to (and forgive me and tell me if there is some other way to say this) get away with murder?

          I've read recently that the FBI hasn't found any of it's agents guilty of unjustified use of deadly force in like 20 years. Zero.

          I watched today, the video of the man shot and killed in St Louis just a few days after Michael Brown was shot and killed. I watched the Mayor of St Louis on television two days ago telling the public that the man shot and killed was a danger to the 2 officers involved, that he came at them with a knife and they feared for their lives. That it was a justified killing, sad but necessary on the part of the two officers.

          His statement was complete bullshit.

          The video is available from any number of sources. It was taken by a bystander who is walking down the street and sees the (now dead) man putting pop cans on the sidewalk. The person continues to film for about 6-7 minutes, right through the shooting and a few minutes afterwards.

          The two cops show up at the scene and the man is dead in about 15 seconds. They don't make any attempt to talk with him or use a taser to put him down. He MAY have had a knife in one of his hands but it must have been pretty small, because in the video it doesn't look like he has one. Also the bystander filming and couple of other people who are there SAY he doesn't have any weapon as they watch the cops exit their car with guns up and pointed at the man - and then commence to shoot him. They fire at least two shot AFTER the man is already on the ground and likely dead, as he doesn't move one iota after falling to the ground.

          Just prior to the cops opening fire, the man IS moving around, but quite slowly. He does move a couple of steps back, then turns slightly and and turns back to the two cops - again, the entire episode takes only 15 to 17 seconds from the time the police car arrives until the man is still and on the ground.

          Are we to just live with the fact that the cops can pretty much shoot and kill anyone, anytime, anywhere for no reason and continue to face no consequences?

          That's just insane.

          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 02:23:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with the vast majority of that (18+ / 0-)

            comment, but in my experience in California, the very biggest problem is that juries do not want to convict cops and will hardly ever do so. I don't even know why the cops bother lying -- and boy, do they -- because they hardly need to.

            I think that's probably due to both deep psychological and sociological reasons -- almost a Stockholm syndrome -- and to unceasing propaganda, but until our fellow citizens are willing to say "no more" I have very little hope for a change.

          •  Angie, this is wrong (4+ / 0-)
            They don't make any attempt to talk with him or use a taser to put him down. He MAY have had a knife in one of his hands but it must have been pretty small, because in the video it doesn't look like he has one. Also the bystander filming and couple of other people who are there SAY he doesn't have any weapon as they watch the cops exit their car with guns up and pointed at the man - and then commence to shoot him.
            Listen to the 911 calls and the subsequent radio traffic between the dispatcher and the police car (#634 IIRC)

            The first call from the convenience store was simply a shoplifting (two separate incidents by the same guy), the second was from the woman who ran the barber shop next door, and who said that the guy was pacing back and forth, acting weird, and had two knives - one in his hand and one in his pocket. She had locked the door to her shop to keep him out. Both items of information were relayed to the responding car.

            The cops arrived and told him to put down the knife.  He kept coming in their direction while the cops continued to tell him to put down the knife.  

            15 seconds (that's less time than it has taken you to read this post) after the cops pulled up, they shot him as he was approaching them and was less than 6-8 feet from the cop on the passenger's side  A knife was recovered from the guy - doesn't matter that the witnesses later claim that he was unarmed. He was not shot until he made a very deliberate turn toward the cops.

            People can Monday morning quarterback these things to death, but the bottom line is that this guy was an imminent threat to the officers involved, and the situation erupted very, very quickly.

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 04:35:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Watch the video carefully. He moved away from (10+ / 0-)

              cops onto a ledge just before he was killed.  There was no need for this shooting.  Remember the cops are encased in kevlar.

              Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

              by StrayCat on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:13:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No he wasn't, they could go behind the door (7+ / 0-)

              of the car, tase or shoot him in the leg to take him down

              these cops are lazy cowards with no respect for life

              "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

              by merrywidow on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:52:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Or he could have stayed (0+ / 0-)

                where he was - maybe 30 feet away - and put down the knife.

                He might well still be alive and getting psychological help if he had done so.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:03:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yup, all the fault of the mentally ill person. (12+ / 0-)

                  how could anyone here not agree?

                  good grief

                  "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

                  by merrywidow on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:50:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You never answered (0+ / 0-)

                    Would you take the chance?  Do you honestly expect that police officers are required to submit to a possible stabbing rather than protect themselves?

                    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                    by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:53:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That was not the choice, get stabbed or kill him. (10+ / 0-)

                      get away and shoot to wound was another choice

                      and I would never be a cop, as I am not brave
                      but if I did, killing someone would not be my first choice

                      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

                      by merrywidow on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 07:33:31 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I expect an officer to work through the options (13+ / 0-)

                      (And yes, this is Monday morning quarterbacking, and we weren't on-site facing the officer's situation, but...)

                      I live in a town with a lot of homeless, mentally unstable, often on drugs men, and our officers will set a perimeter around the man and try to talk him down off the ledge. They know that someone unstable is a danger to himself as much as anyone else, and they work through the options. We have mental health specialists available to respond on-site to situations just like this.

                      From watching the video, the officers have a number of choices before resorting to deadly force:
                      -Stay behind their vehicle's doors as the obviously (and reported, IIRC) mentally unstable man goes through his internal mental drama.

                      -Set up a situation where both officers are spread apart, both with tasers, working to see what the mentally unbalanced man does, prepared to shoot the taser with a partner backing them up. If one taser misses or doesn't attach, the other is there to use his, while the first then has the backup of his weapon.

                      -What often happens in my town is that the first responding police officers will work the situation, staying out of reach, while waiting for backup officers to arrive, so there is less chance of officer danger when moving in. Two or three officers with nightsticks can easily take down a single unbalanced man with a steak knife.  

                      The point is there is a LOT a responding officer can do to stall for time and see if this situation, again with a person who is obviously mentally unstable, can be resolved in some way that treats the man with the respect due to a citizen and not resort to deadly force as the first response.

                      It takes more than 15 seconds to analyze the situation and see what the options are. I did not see a direct attack on the officers by the man, I saw a classic mental breakdown moment where it's clear the man is living in a paranoid mental environment, clearly crying out from his mental illness in his "Shoot me now" cries.

                    •  That's disingenuous at best (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Angie in WA State, snwflk

                      Both officer's were armed with Tazers. So from my vantage point, yes, I would have taken the chance and so should they. The dead man wasn't even given one, considering the officer's had their guns drawn from the moment they step out of their vehicles.

                •  When the guy opens up with "Shoot me" you can (9+ / 0-)

                  pretty much assume that he's unlikely to respond positively to instructions. However, as we have seen from other police forces (UK and Germany recently) where police have confronted individuals armed with a knife (actually machetes) the police disabled the suspects with shots to the leg. It's not hard to do when the individual is moving slowly - and it effectively neutralizes the threat.

                  What many of us are reacting to in the Micheal Brown case and this one is the clear sense that the life of a black person simply is not worth the trouble of trying for a non-lethal opening gambit. Maybe its time to replace the US police force with one that can take a bit more effort to NOT kill its clients.

                •  He may have needed help, but... (20+ / 0-)

                  ...but the police didn't approach him as a troubled citizen, they approached him as an enemy combatant. They had their guns out and POINTED AT HIM the moment they opened their doors. Rather than try to police the situation, they immediately raised the confrontation level to DefCon 5. As a military veteran explained earlier this week, you don't point your gun unless you're intending to use it. Until that moment, it should be pointed down, both for they safety of everyone involved and to not take a completely aggressive stance. This is what we're talking about -- they aren't practicing basic police principles, they aren't policing fellow citizens, they are treating blacks as an occupied force, as enemies.

                  Did you watch the whole video? After the man has been shot repeatedly and is either dying or dead, a cop STILL HAS HIS GUN POINTED AT THE MAN. Worse, they then roll him over and handcuff the non-responsive (and likely dead) man. Worst of all, all the witnesses are silent. Instead of screaming "WHAT DID YOU JUST DO?!", which might have been my first response, everyone is quiet, as if they've seen this movie enough times to know, hey, keep quiet and keep living.

                  He may have needed help, but our society has gone so awry that some people consider this justifiable police behavior. IT IS NOT.

            •  You and I are seeing two very different courses of (16+ / 0-)

              action. I know what dispatch has radioed. As acting weird with a knife. Takes two cans of soda from a small market store. Not money, no threats, 2 cans of soda. All of this adds up to a person with mental issues. IF I am a properly train officer I start with talking and prepare mentally to use a taser on the subject if necessary. The other thing that I Request from dispatch is an ambulance back up. Tasers while theoretically are non lethal, can be lethal so having proper medical back up would be prudent as I am protecting the public and that includes the man I am supposed to arrest. You have to know what to do before you arrive on site!
              What I saw on video was two officers roll up open doors and hands immediately went to guns. Their mouths may have made the required sounds and words, but their intent was apparent from the moment they opened the doors of that cruiser. When walking towards an officer becomes a "life threatening" for the officer, well words just fail here.
              The police showed up and a man died who didn't have to because the police were in shoot first and make excuses later mode. The last time I checked you are supposed to ask questions before you shoot. You have to think and assess before you get there, when you get there, and while you are there right up to the time the incident is over. This was murder. Again.

              Give blood. Play hockey.

              by flycaster on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:45:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What you've written here (0+ / 0-)

              is deliberate fiction.

              And for that, you should be ashamed.

              "We forward in this generation, triumphantly."

              by Grizzard on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:01:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  how so? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Angie in WA State, snwflk

                i don't disbelieve you, but what exactly about the post was false?

                in most of WWwinds comments here, he/she seems to be doing the Monday morning losing coach interview--making excuses.

                EVEN IF the victim had quickly approached them (no one else seems to have seen that in the video [i haven't found the video yet, so haven't seen it])...
                EVEN IF the victim had a small-to-medium-sized knife (or two)...
                EVEN IF the victim yelled out, "shoot me"...
                EVEN IF the dispatcher had warned the police (actually, if there was such a warning, the police should have behaved differently from the first moment they turned onto that street AND before that too)...

                there was NO CALL for shooting to kill.
                as others have noted -- taser?  surround and disarm?
                how about a warning shot??  (not the best idea either in a scene with lots of people, but...)
                and finally, how about shooting to disable/disarm??  they were fairly close, and how many shots did they initially fire?  if they couldn't hit a non-vital area, from that range, with multiple shots....then they shouldn't be cops.

            •  Well fuck, I watched the video more than once (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tim DeLaney, amsterdam, Nannyberry, snwflk

              and I watched exactly how fast it happened.

              You telling me that a guy moving like a turtle, barely a step or so with his arms down at his sides doesn't deserve MORE THAN 15 seconds of two police officers with guns up and pointed at him from the second they open their squad car doors to be assessed for danger?

              You say the guy "kept coming in their direction", I say he was not. He barely moved a step towards them, in fact he barely moved at all.

              Again the Mayor of St Louis said he came at them with a knife in an 'overhand' motion and they feared for their lives.

              Is that reason to unload at a minimum 8 shots into the guy from less than 15 feet away - and at least 2 of them WHILE HE IS ON THE GROUND AND NOT MOVING?

              I don't think he was an imminent threat TO THEIR LIVES - and if he was merely a danger and not a threat to their lives - then even the Law that we have says they cannot kill him.

              Police aren't legally allowed to use deadly force unless the person they kill was a danger to their lives, which is reasonable.

              But in all of these cases now that have video from bystanders, it looks like the police are in danger - but certainly not in such danger that their lives are at risk.

              You know what this past week and the past two days have taught me, a 53 year old white woman?

              The cops can kill anyone, anyplace, anytime, for no goddamned reason at all - and get away with it by saying "I feared for my life".

              Tell that to Eric Garner. You think THAT killing was justified because the cops were fearful that he was going to kill him?


              "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

              by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:15:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How can you claim this? (0+ / 0-)
                You say the guy "kept coming in their direction", I say he was not. He barely moved a step towards them, in fact he barely moved at all.
                When the cops pull up and exit the vehicle, the guy is closer to the camera guy than the cops - perhaps 30 feet from the officers.  He is ultimately shot at a distance which looks like about 6 feet from the cop on the passenger side of the car, and falls forward right in front of the cop, who never changed his position from the moment of arrival.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:28:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Suppose for the sake of argument (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Angie in WA State

              That the two officers had said to one another "How can we save this man's life?"

              Instead of getting out of their squad car, guns in hand, suppose they simply called for backup. Or suppose they decided to use mace or pepper spray or a taser to subdue him? We have developed many forms of non-lethal weapons. Why not even consider non-lethal means? Why is their FIRST inclination, in about 10-15 seconds, to shoot him dead?

              Without question, the officers involved were legally justified, at least in the sense that they could not be successfully prosecuted for killing him. But will their superiors hold them accountable for lousy police work that resulted in the death of a citizen? Will these two be fired for incompetence? If not, why not?

              Primo pro nummata vini [First of all it is to the wine-merchant] (-7.25, -6.21)

              by Tim DeLaney on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:25:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I hate to be blunt -but this will be stopped (25+ / 0-)

            only if and when cops start shooting down lots of white people in cold blood.

            The way that police respond to calls dealing with people who are " emotionally disturbed" also seems to be ignored by the public - though families have won major lawsuits.

            See this piece:

            Police face lawsuits in shootings of three emotionally disturbed people

            The lawsuits don't bring back the dead though.

            "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

            by Denise Oliver Velez on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 04:58:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, yeah, don't file taxes (12+ / 0-)

          if you're cheating the government because that violates your Fifth Amendment rights. Jeebus, by that metric, I can fail to submit my proof-of-insurance to the DMV if I don't have it for the same reason. Making a police report is a mandatory part of your job if you're law enforcement and overrides your personal protections, just as filing tax returns or any other mandated report.

        •  But he shouldn't be able to keep his job... (16+ / 0-)

          Of course his lawyer is going to tell him to shut up. They want to keep his story fluid. But how does he keep his job if he is deliberately delinquent in his job duties -- especially when it resulted in him taking a life. He should at least be suspended indefinitely. Instead, he's on administrative duty.

          In other words, he's on paid vacation.

          That's one helluva job perk.

          "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

          by markthshark on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 02:43:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wilson's 5th Amendment Claim does not extend (11+ / 0-)

          To any other responding officer.  Every other responding officer had DUTY as a Police Officer to file a Supplemental Report.  Where are the Supplemental Reports?  Who were the other Reporting officers?  

          If Money is Speech, Speech isn't Free! I wonder what it is about that that Antonin Scalia cannot understand?

          by NM Ray on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 06:48:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's tricky, a slippery slope. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          colbey, Angie in WA State

          There is a constitutional protection, but it becomes dangerous if we apply it prospectively, i.e. if it's not about avoiding self-incrimination in the context of legal proceedings, but prospectively—avoiding self-incrimination ever, including far down the line.

          If we pre-emptively posit that nothing that may in the future be self-incriminating need ever be entered into an incident report, on 5th amendment grounds, then what safeguards can we have against police misconduct?

          Carrying a video camera may certainly be self-incriminating in the future. Thus, they need not carry it—constitutional protection.

          In fact, what about any form of police record-keeping at all? Answering to the media in any public forum? Taking oaths? All of these could in some future context, depending on what happens, lead to a situation in which someone may create evidence that is then used against them. Does the 5th amendment apply to all of society at any time?

          Every time I fill out my taxes, I could make a mistake that would lead me to become a tax avoider, unwittingly. Since my tax return would be documentation of this avoidance, should I be able to refuse to file on 5th amendment grounds?

          When the incident occurred, there was no legal issue, no accusation, no proceeding against the officer. In that context, he's not incriminating himself, but accurately describing circumstances that played out on duty.

          Does 5th amendment protection apply even though someone is not charged with a crime? I understand the pragmatics of the issue and it may well be good advice from the defense counsel standpoint, but it seems to me (and I'm not a layer, so take this for what it's worth, maybe nothing) that if 5th amendment protections can be used to justify any behavior (or lack thereof) at any time, even when one faces no legal proceedings of any kind, then the 5th amendment becomes a cover for all kinds of misbehavior.

          Don't force them to incriminate themselves, sure, but do hold them accountable for violating behaviors that occurred outside the context of any immediate prosecution, such as not completing an incident report.

          -9.63, 0.00
          "Liberty" is deaf, dumb, and useless without life itself.

          by nobody at all on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:13:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  OK (19+ / 0-)

        So if Officer Wilson is unwilling to complete the requisite police report in order to retain his rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, then I can only assume that Officer Wilson will not be exercising his right and the protection of 'qualified immunity' afforded to law enforcement officials.

        Officer Wilson cannot have it both ways.

        Either he was acting in his official capacity and deserves the protection of qualified immunity or he was acting as a 'private' citizen that can stand behind his Constitutional right against self-incrimination.

        If Officer Wilson is not able to show an incident report that he was acting in his official capacity and cannot show that he had any knowledge of Michael Brown being involved in an alleged robbery, then all the jury will hear is that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown while his arms were opened in a pose of surrender.

        Again, Officer Wilson cannot have it both ways - he cannot point to one police report about a robbery as evidence that he should be exonerated, while at the same time hide what occurred at the shooting.

        For my money, let the lack of incident report be the outcome.  This will make it far more easy to convict Mr. Wilson of murdering Michael Brown.

        •  FRtB - Wilson can be terminated for not (3+ / 0-)

          completing his incident report, and should be, but he was not acting as a private citizen at the time he shot Brown. You can't compel Wilson to write an incriminating report by threatening to remove whatever immunity he is entitled to as a LEO. No legislature or court would accept that as Constitutional.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:29:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If Officer Wilson does not (0+ / 0-)

            If Officer Wilson does not complete an incident report, then he will also be unable to provide testimony that he was in fear for his life (or that of others) to justify the use of deadly force.

            Officer Wilson will not be able to pick and chose which testimony or evidence he can use to justify his usurping the 4th Amendment right of Michael Brown.

            There is a legal-bar that must be reached for Officer Wilson to be found 'justified' in his use of deadly force and his testimony alone is what can jump that evidentiary hurdle.

            He will not be able to convince a jury that, on the one hand, he should be granted the qualified immunity given to law enforcement that can justify the use of deadly force, while, on the other hand, state that he has a legal right to withhold official documentation (and effectively evidence) in the death of Michael Brown.

            Officer Wilson, by not providing an incident report, is impeaching his own credibility as a witness should he ever testify on his own behalf.  Therefore, his testimony would effectively be worthless.  Of course, the result would be he is convicted of killing Michael Brown and provides a slam-dunk wrongful death suit for the Brown family against both Officer Wilson and the Ferguson PD who participated in the conspiracy after the fact.

            •  See my response to your other comment to me (0+ / 0-)

              However, I will make one more comment regarding the evidence in this case. What we have is four eye-witnesses who have spoken to the media. My guess is that represents about 10% of the total evidence in this case. There are likely other eye-witnesses who intelligently decided not to talk to the media, but who have given statements to the DA and FBI. Add to that all the physical evidence and statements of the LEO and technicians who came to the scene after the shooting. There is lots of evidence to review. The other evidence may or may not have corroborated those witnesses who have spoken to the media. We will have to wait until the case is filed before we know much more.

              "let's talk about that" uid 92953

              by VClib on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 11:45:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Both of your replies have been enlightening.

                I truly appreciate that.

                But I think you've missed my essential point:  Officer Wilson may have a right to stand behind the 5th Amendment for protection, but he will not then also be able to claim to be protected by qualified immunity and/or claim he used justified deadly forced as outlined by Tennessee v Garner.

                In other words, I agree that he has a 5th Amendment right, but he then abrogates his right to qualified immunity and/or his right to use deadly force while in the line of duty.

                Matter of fact, Garner may be on point.  And the only way Officer Wilson can demonstrate he feared for his life before violating the 4th Amendment rights of Michael Brown is if he testifies.  

                Of course, then the proverbial Pandora's Box will open and Officer Wilson would then be compelled to tell the entire story.  A jury will be asked to decide, whether in a criminal and/or civil case, how much Officer Wilson conforms to letter of the law and police procedure.  Granted, this may not come to a criminal trial, but the civil case should put fear in every LEO who may have participated in the cover-up of the death of Michael Brown.

                Even though we know, as you put it, only about 10% of the evidence, are you of the mind to believe that Officer Wilson, did not violate protocols in handling the crime scene, including, but not limited to:
                -- the handling of the body of Michael Brown,
                -- limiting access to the crime scene,
                -- taking 45 minutes to call in the shooting,
                -- not allowing Michael Brown to receive medical attention,
                -- removing the car (evidence) where the first bullet was allegedly fired,
                -- and not filing an incident report for fear of violating his 5th Amendment rights.

                The only person who benefitted from the mishandling and omissions would be Officer Wilson.  Frankly, Missouri may not prosecute, but the Feds may - violation of Michael Browns 4th Amendment right.  Of course, a civil case becomes a slam-dunk if Officer Wilson stays silent.  And a civil case will happen as long as Officer Wilson refuses to justify and defend his use of deadly force.

        •  There we go, someone more awake to offer (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          colbey, Angie in WA State

          perspective and expertise. Thank you.

          Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
          ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

          by FarWestGirl on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 07:44:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This whole discussion is a red herring (5+ / 0-)

        The question is not so much why Wilson did not file an incident report.  I have no idea what SOP is there; I await a discussion, in its own diary, about how normal or abnormal, justified or unjustified, that might be.

        What needs to be kept in mind here is not why Wilson didn't file a report; it's why NOBODY did.

      •  As Lawrence O'Donnell said on last night's show, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's fine that Wilson refused to fill out a report under his 5th Amendment right. It isn't exactly like he can be compelled to fill out a report that would likely incriminate himself.

         However, he needs to be FIRED immediately due to his refusal to follow proper department protocol and fill out the report.

        I also firmly believe that the entire leadership of the Ferguson PD needs to be fired for not filling out an incident report. Actually, once all the facts are in, I believe it's likely the entire Ferguson PD will need to be disbanded and reformed due to what, even this early on, appears to be an intentional attempt to cover up what actually happened on August 9th.

      •  The officer has a 5th amendment right (0+ / 0-)

        but then it is sure consistent with having commited a crime.

    •  That's a nice little incident report you got there (12+ / 0-)

      Too bad all of the important information is missing! Could you please explain that Chief Jackson?

      Maybe this is the just the short form incident report. You know, the one they fill out when the victim has a high Melanin content. No need for the long form version since the victim wasn't white.

      Nope, this will not play well in the media. Of course, I can already hear the follow-up questions.

      "Do you have any additional information you'd like to add to the report?"

      "Nope, the report speaks for itself."

    •  Classic... (0+ / 0-)

      Classic Friday afternoon news dump...

  •  This is a coverup. How many people knew (24+ / 0-)

    there was no incident report and tried to keep the information from being made public?

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:47:42 AM PDT

    •  While I considered including that in the diary (24+ / 0-)

      I think it may not actually BE a coverup.

      The Ferguson PD Chief, Thomas Jackson, the way he kept hedging, well now we know why. But it doesn't look like anything was covered up so much as put off as long as possible. The ACLU of Missouri FOIA put paid to that holding back the truth about this.

      But what I can't wait to find out is how Officer Wilson was allowed to fail to file a DETAILED report about the discharge of his weapon while he was on Duty.

      I think most states have laws covering the requirement of such reports each and every time there is an incident of Discharge of Service firearm in the performance of their Duty.

      I read a comment here on DKos tonight in a diary by someone who was a LEO (law enforcement officer) for some time, and HE said it's the law so far as he knows.

      He ALSO said that an officer who may be found not justified for the shooting is NOT shielded by any Fifth Amendment Right to refuse to incriminate themselves...

      because at the time of the incident report there is no criminal charge pending AND it wouldn't matter, because it's a requirement of the Job to report each time a firearm is discharged while on Duty, no matter whether it might otherwise implicate the Officer in a crime.

      It's part and parcel of electing to be a police officer.

      So yeah, can't wait to hear the hullabaloo about THAT tomorrow.

      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:56:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is wrong (11+ / 0-)
        He ALSO said that an officer who may be found not justified for the shooting is NOT shielded by any Fifth Amendment Right to refuse to incriminate themselves...
        No one gives up their Fifth Amendment rights by virtue of employment.

        Officers are required to give a sworn statement to Internal Affairs; if they refuse, they can and likely will be terminated.  If they do give a statement it is, at least in most states that I am familiar with, barred by state law from use in any subsequent criminal trial.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:01:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would internal affairs hold a separate statement (7+ / 0-)

          other than the official incident report?

          Otherwise, this is the sole document relating to the incident which resulted in the death of Michael Brown.

          It contains absolutely zero details about the manner in which the death occurred.

          Are you saying that if he refused to file any details in the official report that IA would have required him to give a detailed report BUT THEN he would be absolved of any legal consequences if the report he gave IA indicated that the shooting was not justified?

          That leaves no way to hold a police officer responsible for a shooting while on duty which results in the death of someone.

          How could that possibly be the case?

          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:06:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just a guess (4+ / 0-)

            but I think when Wilson (or the backup officer who arrived on the scene quickly) called in about the shooting, a case was opened and assigned a case number, likely by someone in the communications end of things.  Very shortly thereafter (it appears that this call was made within 45 minutes), the Ferguson PD called in the St Louis County Police to handle the investigation.

            At that point, the role of the Ferguson PD in investigating the shooting ended - all the responsibility lies with the SLCPD, so there was no real need for a Ferguson PD Incident Report, other than one which would reference the handover to SLCPD.

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:12:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the Incident Report I include here, which the (12+ / 0-)

              ACLU of Missouri received in response to it's FOIA request is a St Louis County Incident Report on the event in question.

              It's not from the Ferguson PD.

              Why would it remain without details of the manner of death or at least the actions of the Officer involved?

              Why would it not be filed for 10 days after the event?

              These things don't appear to make any sort of coherent sense.

              "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

              by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:17:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As I explained in the other diary (10+ / 0-)

                on this topic, the info you're looking for wouldn't be in an incident report. It would be in investigative reports that are not open records while the investigation is ongoing. The incident report is pretty much unhelpful to understanding what happened, other than who showed up where and when, and how/when the incident was reported.

                •  Do you agree with Wayward Wind in the comment (6+ / 0-)

                  above in this thread, regarding the ability of a police officer to only give details to IA, which would then be unable to be used in any future prosecution of the officer reporting the information?

                  I'm completely confused about how what Wayward Wind posted could be possible, as I noted, that process would immunize any officer from the consequences of a bad act.

                  "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                  by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:29:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Angie, he is not immunized (8+ / 0-)

                    If he doesn't give a statement, he may well be fired, but a criminal investigation would continue.

                    If he does give a statement, the criminal investigation would continue, but his statement cannot be used - except in very narrow circumstances and even that is debatable - in any subsequent criminal trial.

                    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                    by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:39:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I have no specific knowledge of MO law (10+ / 0-)

                    or procedure, let alone Ferguson. However, when and how an officer reports on his or her own officer-involved shooting is typically a matter negotiated between union and management. (And yes, there can be consequences for failing to cooperate, but the right against self-incrimination does not disappear when you're a cop.)

                    Here's some background:

                    Statements may be voluntarily given by the involved officer shortly after the incident or may be delayed on the advice of counsel. In those incidents in which officers do not voluntarily offer statements, they may be ordered by the department to give a statement. A compelled statement cannot be used in criminal proceedings, but may be used for internal review. It is important that the agency have ban [sic] agreed-upon policy with the union pertaining to the release of statements to avoid media and citizen scrutiny. This policy should require that the officer be subject to an interview within 72 hours of the shooting. This provides ample time for securing representation, sleep, rest, and reflection by the officer. The officer still retains the right to not provide a statement if the investigation focuses on potential criminal conduct.
                    "Make him write/talk immediately" is not helpful. Ideally, you want the crisis to pass and memory to solidify, but not allow other influences to create memories or ass-covering stories. But there is no ideal way to do this. I understand that 48-72 hours is pretty common, but I'm no expert.

                    As an abstract policy matter, making his statement inadmissible makes sense -- it's like the morbidity/mortality review in hospitals: we really, really need to get to the truth of police shootings and medical accidents, and we want people to be candid. That doesn't immunize him; the witnesses will say what they say, and if his only defense is "I was scared" or "he hit me" -- well, that probably means he'll have to testify. At that point, it's open season, just not using his "compelled statement" to impeach his testimony.

                    Hope that makes sense.

                    •  I've never been aware of any of this, and I have (8+ / 0-)

                      to tell you, it concerns me greatly.

                      That police officers who are given a great deal of leeway when it comes to the use of deadly force by dint of a SCOTUS finding in which the guidelines are that an officer may by found justified if they THINK the suspect may be a danger to the officer or another person.

                      With that, to also allow the Officer to only give a detailed statement of their actions which results in the death of someone in such as fashion as to prevent the information from being used to prosecute them?

                      It means basically that police officers are free to kill practically anyone and never be held accountable.

                      Unless I am just being stupid and completely misunderstanding what I'm being told.

                      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                      by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 02:01:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Wow! Frightening! (9+ / 0-)

                      If this is true, and I've no reason to doubt you, we have a serious problem here. It's little wonder we see so many police shootings. They basically have nothing to fear. Even when there is video evidence.

                      I do disagree with one part of what you wrote:

                      ...the witnesses will say what they say, and if his only defense is "I was scared" or "he hit me" -- well, that probably means he'll have to testify. At that point, it's open season...
                      It may be open season but the only answer we'd hearing at that point is "I refuse to answer on grounds that it might tend to incriminate me". Sounding more and more like a badge gives one a near complete exemption from following the law.
                      •  I think being human... (0+ / 0-)

                        gives one a near complete exemption to following the law in certain cases. If you are a priest or a teacher and molest a child, you are not required to report yourself - even though that is what the law requires in many if not most states. You know the abuse happened because you did it, but your 5th protections make it that you cannot be prosecuted for not making the report. Of course, you are going to probably get nailed after an investigation because of other evidence, but you can't be charged for violation of the reporting requirement.

                    •  The memory to solidify stuff is bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                      by StrayCat on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:19:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Well in that case, this incident report is STILL (6+ / 0-)


                  It notes only that Unit 4412 from Central County Precinct location COGIS 2160 (the geographic location of that unit at time of dispatch) was dispatched at 12:43 pm and arrived at 13:30 at the scene of the incident.

                  So it took the St Louis PD 47 mins to arrive at the scene.

                  Nothing else. No note that the person was dead at the scene on arrival, that there were only two persons involved.

                  Plus, it notes the reporting officer is Wilson. Not some other Officer from the SLCPD (St Louis County PD).

                  "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                  by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:47:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've got no expertise in what must (6+ / 0-)

                    be included in an incident report in that county, and as I've mentioned, there can be information redacted from incident reports as well.

                    I think the usual urgent homicide call implies the presence of a dead body. Wilson may have been the officer who reported it to SLCPD. I speculated elsewhere that there might be a protocol in place for this, because that was an awfully fast transfer to another jurisdiction if a higher-up actually had to make a "can we investigate our own" decision.

                    I'm not trying to defend anyone. I just suspect that there's really nothing to the "missing report" brouhaha and that it's filling media time that they expected to fill with tear gas and similar outrages. Bureaucracies, report categories, and even the computer systems entering dates on documents are impenetrable sometimes until you've got a translator. I just have a hunch that -- unlike the shooting itself -- there's no there there on this particular OMG. I could be wrong.

              •  The SLCPD investigation (7+ / 0-)

                consists of much more than the bare bones report that has been releases - witness statements, crime scene technician reports, measurements, and photos, autopsy results, etc., etc.

                All of this is in the possession of the prosecutor, and he isn't releasing anything, likely will not until after the Grand Jury rises. Example - no evidence - autopsy results, witness statements, etc - have been officially released.  Yes, people including Dr. Baden have given their versions to the media, but those are not official releases. Wilson could theoretically follow suit and hold a press conference, but I think that such would be pouring gasoline on the embers in Ferguson, and his lawyer would likely strangle him as well.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:27:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Were there any crime scene techs at this scene? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kj in missouri

                  Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                  by StrayCat on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:20:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Answer: we don't know. (0+ / 0-)

                    Ferguson PD chief Jackson claims that there were shots fired in the vicinity of Brown's dead body lying in the street and that for this reason there were delays.  That's not a verbatim quote, BTW.  

                    What it may be however is the start of a larger excuse for a question he's not been directly asked.

                    I saw ONE paltry little traffic cone in a cell phone video that may or may not have been an evidence marker, and I;ve seen a person on the scene with a tackle box near the body and I've seen a person who looked like maybe they were taking a photo of the body.  

                    What I haven't seen is any video that shows the relationship of Wilson's SUV as it stood when he exited it, to the location of Michael Brown's body.  I suspect the SUV was moved rather  soon after the killing, but why and where I know not.  This sad situation means a decent investigation is probably not possible.  

          •  It leaves no way to ever hold a police officer... (3+ / 0-)

            guilty of anything he does while on duty.

            This can't possibly be right. And if it is, then it's time for some legislation to change it.

            Officer Criminal Cop, are you going to write a report up on that marijuana bust you just made?

            "No I'm not. Now help me load these bails from the squad car into my garage."

            This just doesn't make any sense. If true, my instinct of fear when I see a police officer, just went up by a factor of 10.

        •  Basketball Players give up their 1st Amendment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angie in WA State

          Rights by joining the NBA, they can be fined, censured and fired for saying something - anything - the league doesn't agree with.

          •  I don't think Wilson is looking to join the NBA (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Angie in WA State, VClib

            nor would any NBA player be forced to give a statement in pending criminal investigation. Players might well be sanctioned as you say (I have no idea if that is accurate) but they cannot be forced to give any statement to a police agency or prosecutor.

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:36:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  NBA is a private entity, the first amendment.... (6+ / 0-)

            only applies to the government: "Congress shall make no law..... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

            The worst thing about St. Louis is Missouri.

            by duckhunter on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:37:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The NBA is not the government. (0+ / 0-)

            Employers are not bound by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  "The government shall make no law..."  My employer can drug test me, discipline me without due cause, etc.  

            You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

            by rb608 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:56:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure of that. (0+ / 0-)

          Law enforcement have the extra protection of qualified immunity.

          It is difficult for me to imagine they receive the extra protection of being shielded by qualified immunity, while at the same time they can chose to exercise their 5th Amendment rights.

          This does not seem appropriate to me.

          Either Law Enforcement have qualified immunity or they can exercise 5th Amendment rights - they should not be able to do both.

          In other words, if Mr. Wilson want to stand behind his 5th Amendment rights, then this matter should be an investigation about the murder of Michael Brown, not an incident involving a suspect shot by an officer in the line of duty.

          Plainly and simply, if Officer Wilson fails to do his job and produce an incident report, he cannot be afforded the protection of qualified immunity for performing his job.

          •  I honestly never thought (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that I would ever see someone on Daily Kos argue that the Fifth Amendment protections should not apply to every person in the country.


            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:47:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Qualified Immunity is Extraconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

              Do you understand what qualified immunity grants law enforcement?

              Qualified Immunity grants rights above and beyond the Constitutional rights of 'ordinary' citizens.  This is sad.

              By your logic, a police officer could never be charged with murdering anyone if they can both stand behind their 5th Amendment rights to not self-incriminate, while at the same time, be granted qualified immunity for simply claiming they were acting in their professional capacity when they kill.

              Further, Constitutional rights are not absolute.  If they were, you'd likely be OK with 'open-carry' in the public square and/or the right to yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater.

              Constitutional rights are not absolute.  Your suggesting otherwise is what's sad.

              •  Five years as a cop (0+ / 0-)

                and more than three decades as a lawyer with significant criminal defense experience in the early decade, so yes, I have a pretty decent understanding of both qualified immunity (the overwhelming parts of which deal with civil cases, not criminal) and the Fifth Amendment.

                Do you really honestly believe that there is an exception to the Fifth Amendment whereby police officers can be forced to incriminate themselves? If so, then we really have nothing to discuss because you are dead wrong.

                And where does it say that the evidence in a police shooting is wholly dependent on what the officer says?  If he refuses to speak, then the case goes on, based on all the other evidence - exactly the same as any other criminal case.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:20:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  It was my understanding (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              that one's 5th amendment right to refrain from self-incrimination applied to being questioned in specific capacity by investigators and/or lawyers during a trial. A report required to be filed to the PD on any on-duty gun use is not the same thing at all. This guy is not on trial or even under arrest, but he's not on unpaid leave either.

              Certainly looks for all the world like a coordinated coverup.

              There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

              by Joieau on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:53:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Sometimes you can't tell if you are on.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wayward Wind

              a very conservative or a very liberal web site. We demand Constitution protections for everyone...right now....well.....except that guy over there (pointing)...we don't like him at all!

              •  You are missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                Officer Wilson can certainly stand behind his Constitutional right against self-incrimination, but I have a difficult time imagining that he can then also be shielded by qualified immunity in a civil case and/or the justified use of force exception granted to a law enforcement officer.

                In other words, Officer Wilson may find better protection by standing behind the 5th Amendment, but he may not also be given the Extraconstitutional protections of qualified immunity and/or justifiable use of deadly force if he is unwilling to act like a law enforcement officer who would typically be granted such Extraconstitutional rights.

                Plainly and simply, Officer Wilson's 5th Amendment right does not trump the 4th Amendment right of Michael Brown.  The use of justified lethal force (seizing Michael Brown's life) requires Officer Wilson demonstrate he was justified.  He cannot do so unless he testifies or provides a sworn incident report.  His very silence will cause his own conviction, at least in the civil case to be brought by the Brown family for wrongful death.

                •  5th amendment rights.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wayward Wind

                  always trump everything else. I can't think of any case where they would. The criminal case and the civil case for money are two different entities requiring two different trials and standards of proof. If Wilson is acquitted of all charges during the criminal case, then he could certainly stand behind his civil immunity rights as a police officer for the second case (whatever they might be in his jurisdiction). Why couldn't he? He is the defendant. He has those rights, doesn't he. We might not like the fact that he does, but it is important that he has them.

                  •  Justified force must be justified (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    How will Officer Wilson be able to justify the use of deadly force in the absence of providing testimony?

                    Michael Brown had rights too and the only way for Officer Wilson to justify the usurping of those rights is by providing sworn testimony… justify the use of deadly force for fear of harm coming to himself or others.  Of course, this assumes that a criminal case is filed against him.  I believe that if not by the State of MO, then by Federal prosecutors.

                    Regardless, even if as you suggest, he is found not guilty in a criminal case, the wrongful death case has a lower bar for his losing (as demonstrated in the OJ vs. Nicole Brown Family matter).  The only way, in my opinion, that Officer Wilson can stand behind his civil immunity rights is if he completes his obligations as a civil employee.  Not testifying and/or not providing even an incident report is not completing his obligations as a civil employee.  Moreover, the inability of Officer Wilson to follow any proper procedure after the shooting will likely call his credibility into play in any legal proceedings - whether or not he testifies.

                    So to answer your question - No, I do not believe that civil employees can both exercise their 5th Amendment right while at the same time exercise their Extraconstitutional rights as a civil servant unless they dutifully act as a civil servant.  Officer Wilson is not doing that - he wants it both ways and you believe that he can get away with murder simply because he has more rights than the Constitution provides.

                    Civil servants are protected by qualified immunity from unwarranted law suits - unless Officer Wilson can justify his actions (either in writing or in sworn written testimony), then each and every lawsuit against him will be warranted.

                    •  There is a really good diary... (0+ / 0-)

                      on Garrity rights that was just posted that covers this very well.

                      •  I have read about Garrity Rights today (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        So what?

                        I am not suggesting that Officer Wilson be compelled to testify and breach his 5th Amendment rights.

                        To the contrary, I am suggesting that Officer Wilson can keep his 5th Amendment rights intact, but not be able to also then shield himself with the Extraconstitutional protections of justified use of deadly force and/or qualified immunity.

                        He either does his job in full accordance with his obligations as a civil servant to obtain his Extraconstitutional protections OR he can stand behind the protections of the 5th Amendment.

                        •  That's fine.... (0+ / 0-)

                          and I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but apparently it will require a change to either the law or the Constitution to accomplish that. I'm getting that that is the gist of what the legals are saying...

                          •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            The lawyers are pointing to Garrity and 'compelled' testimony.

                            I am not suggesting that Officer Wilson be compelled to testify.

                            But what he is doing is withholding information that he is otherwise obliged to provide - an incident report.

                            I doubt very much that in some of the Garrity scenarios, had the officers who were asked about fixing parking tickets subsequently destroyed those parking tickets - they could not hide behind their immunity nor the 5th Amendment once it became known that they destroyed evidence.

                            The case in Ferguson is effectively the same - Officer Wilson is being allowed to withhold the documents requisite to his job in order to protect himself.  He is destroying evidence by omission - an incident report that would be customary in any criminal proceedings.

                            In other words, he would not be fired for being compelled to testify against himself, he would be fired for failing to due his duty and file an incident report in accordance with his job responsibilities.

                            The fact that the incident report might also implicate Officer Wilson in a crime would not be the reason for his termination, but his failure to provide an incident report should be.  Of course all of this completely ignores that Officer Wilson likely did not follow any standard protocols after the shooting of Michael Brown.

                          •  I went back and read some sections, again... (0+ / 0-)

                            Garrity was the Supremes so that is the law until it no longer is...There seemed to be agreement from the legals that I respect here that procedure since Garrity would mean that in order to both keep his job and keep his mouth shut, all Wilson would have to do is tell IA what happened for an administrative report and he is them home free. He can continue to assert his 5th rights and say no more and what he did say in the IA administrative report can never be used against him. Some did say they thought the IA info could be subpoenaed for a civil case, but others weren't so sure.

                            If he is not convicted in the criminal case, I would assume he could then assert his immunity as a police officer because he had never been convicted of any wrong doing so all of his actions were carried out in the normal course of his job duties. Might not seem right, but that seems to be how it goes these days. Kind of a mess, but our legal system does seem to be pretty skewed toward a defendant's rights - especially the right not to incriminate yourself. For better or worse...

          •  FRtB - your point has no basis in law (0+ / 0-)

            and would never be accepted as Constitutional. See my longer comment upstream.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:51:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Prove it. (0+ / 0-)

              Show the case law when a law enforcement official has been granted the right to withhold information about a case they were working in order to exercise their 5th Amendment right.

              And if there is case law on the subject, I bet just about anything that those law enforcement officials were either or both fired and/or convicted of crimes.

              Michael Brown was shot and killed.  The evidence clearly shows he was unarmed and standing in a pose of surrender.  Unless Officer Wilson is willing to testify that he was in fear for his life (or that of others), he is guilty of murder, plain and simple.  Nobody else can make the claim that Officer Wilson was in fear for his life or that of others.

              And should Officer Wilson testify that he was in fear for his life and, therefore, justified in the use of deadly force, he cannot pick and chose what other information he will be willing to share with the jury.

              So, either Officer Wilson can stand behind his right to not provide evidence of self-incrimination and provide zero testimony or Officer Wilson will be found guilty of murder instead of being granted qualified immunity.   He cannot have it both ways.

              The use of deadly force is a seizure under the 4th Amendment.  Officer Wilson cannot stand behind the 5th Amendment while at the same time not be guilty of violating the rights of Michael Brown.  They only way this matter can find Officer Wilson not guilty (or grant him qualified immunity) is if Officer Wilson testifies.

              If there is any consolation from Officer Wilson successfully standing behind his rights granted by the 5th Amendment, it will the family of Michael Brown having a slam-dunk wrongful death case against Wilson and the Ferguson PD for what will look like a conspiracy after the fact in the murder of Michael Brown.  

              Regardless, I'd also bet they'd rather have Michael still alive than the money.

      •  It can amount to a cover-up and still be legal. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FarWestGirl, happymisanthropy

        Just a conspiracy to keep the public in the dark.

        Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

        by Bob Love on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:11:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You can bet that there is much, much more (6+ / 0-)

      but it is in the hands of the DA and he is not releasing anything. He likely won't until after the Grand Jury rises.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:57:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was just told by a friend that all incidents (5+ / 0-)

    that involve one person killing another are called a "homicide" on police reports.

    Anyone in law enforcement here know about this?

    Check out my progressive tshirts, stickers, and gifts at Dem Swag featuring top selling bumper sticker Hate Socialism? Get off the road!

    by Eileen B on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:57:02 AM PDT

    •  I would be happy to update diary with this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, Eileen B

      if anyone can confirm it for me.

      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 12:58:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Homicide (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angie in WA State, DeadHead, rb608

      A person is authorized to kill another person in self-defense or in the defense of others, but only if the person reasonably believes that the killing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent serious harm or death to himself or herself or to others. If the threatened harm can be avoided with reasonable safety, some states require the person to retreat before using Deadly Force. Most states do not require retreat if the individual is attacked or threatened in his or her home, place of employment, or place of business. In addition, some states do not require a person to retreat unless that person in some way provoked the threat of harm. Finally, police officers may use deadly force to stop or apprehend a fleeing felon, but only if the suspect is armed or has committed a crime that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious injury or death. A police officer may not use deadly force to apprehend or stop an individual who has committed, or is committing, a misdemeanor offense. Only certain felonies are considered in determining whether deadly force may be used to apprehend or stop a suspect. For instance, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the commission of Larceny unless other circumstances threaten him or other persons with imminent serious injury or death.

      I would love to see the transcripts of the radio communications between Wilson's squad car and dispatch, I'm sure it describes exactly what happened on that day.

      "There is nary a fool so idiotic as to discourage other fools from paying heed!" >>>>> Walter Pidgeon "Sufficient for each day is its own badness!" >>>>> Jesus Christ

      by jonnybullet on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:14:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Anonymous posted a transcript of the radio calls (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608, FarWestGirl, Catte Nappe

        of the Ferguson PD on August 9, 2014, prior to the shooting of Michael Brown until about two hours post shooting, iirc.

        I didn't find anything from Officer Wilson in there.

        Is it possible that after the shooting he had an "omg what did I do" moment and used a private, personal cell phone to contact someone, such as Police Union Rep?

        "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

        by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:25:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe. Or maybe he heard sirens (5+ / 0-)

          approaching and didn't have to bother. The incident had already been called in, and other officers arrived very quickly - 12:02.

        •  There may be an explanation for that (8+ / 0-)

          Most police departments have multiple radio channels - one or more for general dispatch use, and one or more additional bands for specific purposes, to include sensitive information. There were 10 different channels in the department I worked for.

          Folks can get scanners and chips for the general use channels, but never for the sensitive channels.

          Additionally, some departments are now using computers in the cars, which assign communicate using encrypted text.  I saw one in use in my son's car when I was back on the US a few years back. Technology marches on.

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:54:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm pretty sure Anonymous took the data directly (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StrayCat, rb608, FarWestGirl, jonnybullet

            from the PD database.

            There is a piece about this in the paper online

            The computer hackers' collective posted two hours of the 911 calls online on Wednesday from St Louis police dispatch

            On the tape, reportedly between 12.05-12.35pm on Saturday, dispatcher said: 'Ferguson is asking for assistance with crowd control'

            A St Louis dispatcher, believed to be referring to the shooting then says: 'We just got information from the news... we called Ferguson back again but they don't know anything about it'

            "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

            by Angie in WA State on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 03:05:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can't access Daily Mail from Thailand (5+ / 0-)

              so I can't access the article.  Thailand blocks sites which are critical of the government here, and the Daily Mail is intermittently one of them. Rolling Stone too, which is a real pain.

              From the little in your post, it sounds like they grabbed either the St Louis City Police Department, or the St Louis County Police Department - not Ferguson PD, which would be an entirely different radio channel.

              One of the things that has been very confusing in all of this is the unbelievable array of police agencies in the area - some 85 different ones according to one article that I read, so it can be very frustrating when someone says something and one tries to figure out who and what's involved.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 04:09:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Excellent point (0+ / 0-)

                If it wasn't specifically the Ferguson Police Department then there would be very little radio chatter during the initial stages of this incident i.e., homicide. Wilson would've had to have called in for backup and considering the circumstances you would think there would be some sort of play-by-play going on before his backup arrived. If there was anything going on in the squad car. It seems to me, he would've got on the radio and said something. It's also a possibility those transcripts might not ever see the light of day because the radio recordings have been tampered with or even worse, deleted.

                "There is nary a fool so idiotic as to discourage other fools from paying heed!" >>>>> Walter Pidgeon "Sufficient for each day is its own badness!" >>>>> Jesus Christ

                by jonnybullet on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  I would suspect that is true (13+ / 0-)

    There really are only a few categories in a death investigation: Natural Causes, Accidental Death, Suicide, and Homicide, which is the generic category when death occurs at the hands of another person.

    Whether criminal charges - murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, etc - are brought abides the outcome of the investigation.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:04:55 AM PDT

  •  I got one thing to say about this.... (9+ / 0-)


    That is all, thank you.

  •  So Here's What We Know..... (18+ / 0-)

    The deceased, Michael Brown, had an incident in a cigar store before his death @ the hands of Officer Wilson.  The video of the "strong arm robbery" was released lickety split.

    And.....Michael Brown smoked marijuana.  Another rumor is that he punched the police officer & broke his eye socket & almost beat him unconscious.

    We aren't privy to anything else......because "there is an ongoing investigation".  

    Strange how all this bad stuff about Michael keeps being released or rumored, but we don't know anything about the officer except what his girlfriend's girlfriend tells us happened.  

    Bizarre how we're only allowed to hear about Michael's character but nothing about the officer's character except that he was clean, clean, clean.  

  •  I wonder if the 'coverup' is for any Civil trials (7+ / 0-)

    resulting from the murder of Mike Brown.

    It seems to make sense to me as from what I have been reading there is a snowball's chance in hell of a cop ever being charged with murder when they kill a suspect.

    However Civil fiduciary penalties can be quite severe and can basically put someone in the poor house until they die.  And the standard of proof is much less.

    See OJ.


    • "But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." Thomas Paine
    • "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." Stephen King

    by Tommymac on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:41:39 AM PDT

  •  What do the hash tags in your title mean? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, rb608

    Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

    by dov12348 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 01:42:06 AM PDT

  •  WOW!!! (7+ / 0-)

    A whole diary on a rather controversial topic that is loaded with good information and good discussion and no one called anyone a troll or an xyz apologist. I don't see any HR's, either! Congratulations, everyone - well done. (Oops, I didn't check the hiddens, but I can be optimistic, can't I?)

  •  so let me gets this right (19+ / 0-)

    A report on Mike Brown shoplifting...19 pages rushed out the door to the press references 2 reports that were clearly not written at the time

    A report on Mike Brown's death... 1 page, written weeks later without providing any information on the case

    Funny, I thought they didn't move the body, because they were fully investigating the scene of the event :roll eyes:

  •  I would think that, especially in this hugely (7+ / 0-)

    public case, the report would have been quickly, accurately, clearly.  If Wilson wanted to delay, some officer from Internal Affairs should have sat him down and said, "Write it as you remember it happening."  That should have been completer in a few hours.  If it was interrupted for Wilson to go to to the paperwork at the St. Louis County PD to go and do the report there, then the report he started should have been marked declaring that that was happening and that all other documents would be property of the SLCPD.  At that point, the SLCPD should have been on his ass to do the report ans move through the process.  Instead, he turns in an incomplete incident report and just leaves it like that.  Either he was improperly trained, improperly supervised or both.  

    If the incident report was done in such a sloppy manner was that continued throughout the "investigation"?   Why did it take days to get this piece of nothing paperwork released?  Why couldn't the reporters have been directed to the other PD involved?  Why didn't Jackson hold a police conference and just say that the Ferguson PD wasn't investigating the killing, that the SLCPD was and direct the reporters there? (Though from what I've seen/heard from and about Jackson, he may not have known that any of this was going on.)

    The wheels of justice are grinding really slowly in Ferguson.  Delayed, half-assed "investigation" begun after the cop was allowed to leave the crime scene.  Incomplete paperwork, lack of transparency, smear campaign about the deceased, DA clearly in the policemen's camp, spurious claim of eye socket fracture, different and incorrect information released over time, lies, anger, threats against demonstrators, press and innocent bystanders and, of course, the suspect has not been processed AND JAILED.  

    My hope is that the DOJ and FBI do a good job and that a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate this mess and the civil liberties infractions that have occurred here.

    A word to the wise is sufficient. Republicans need at least a paragraph.

    by d3clark on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 02:44:27 AM PDT

  •  It took 47 minutes between dispatch and arrival? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, rb608, Angie in WA State, mrkvica

    For a homicide? Is that normal?

    The dream knows no frontier or tongue,/ The dream no class or race. Langston Hughes

    by parse this on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 04:47:20 AM PDT

  •  every officer who responded to the scene (11+ / 0-)

    should have filed a report.

  •  What is the reason for the dispatch? (0+ / 0-)

    Has anyone heard this question asked and answered? Is it still the convenience store robbery that the store owner's lawyer has stated did not happen. Or I guess that is the problem, they aren't saying anything.

    Check the times of the dispatch and the arrival of Wilson.

    Dispatch: 12:43
    Arrival: 1:30

    47 minutes! Where was Wilson and what was he doing?

  •  Will take 2 months to present all evidence to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Livvy5, mrblifil, mrkvica

    the Grand Jury. That's a lot of evidence. Yet what crumbs have police released to the public? Wilson's Name, period.

    They are hiding the facts so that if the story has to be changed later, they can do so.

    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

    by CitizenOfEarth on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 05:53:45 AM PDT

  •  What Crap (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    Isn't it a rule for Police officers to file a report immediately following any incident where the use a firearm?  Now we will never know what the officer thought immediately following the murder.  It has been weeks now, plenty of time for him and his compatriots to concoct some story.  This is criminal negligence.

  •  That's not the whole report. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrkvica, mumtaznepal

    Where are all the witness interviews? Where are all the forensic and ME references?

    That's just the bare minimum basic "incident" report, without the narrative report from the investigating officers, which would include crime scene photographs, witness statements, the ME report, etc.

    Hopefully, the ACLU goes back to Court to get the rest of the investigation. Because if that's all they have done on the case, I don't know where the Prosecutor is going to get any evidence to present to the Grand Jury.

  •  Incident occured on 8-9-14, "report" - 8-19-14 (0+ / 0-)

    The US ranks 138th out of all 169 voting countries in actual voting. Since 1974, mid-term % of eligible voters who vote avgs. 37%. Democrats would dominate if they did one thing- GOTV. They never do. Curious.

    by Incredulousinusa on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 07:46:47 AM PDT

  •  I think this new information, if accurate, can (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pitbullgirl65, mrkvica

    spark a new campaign to address, and change by law how police departments are run.  This appears to be a perfect case to overhaul and perhaps disband the Ferguson PD and start from scratch; it would seem the evidence is now there to support that action if none of the other officers on the scene wrote reports of Michael's death.  

    I heard on MSNBC that one of the main reasons the Rialto PD in California put video cameras on all their officers was that they were going to be disbanded, and this was a last ditch effort to show trust and change to the community.  So, Rialto is an example of the people having the power to effect larger change.  

  •  What is most telling to me is that the Incident (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Report was issued by St. Louis County Police Department, NOT the Ferguson PD.

    As the report states, St. Louis County is "reporting" for   the Ferguson police department.

    The question is, why?

    There is something in us that refuses to be regarded as less than human. We are created for freedom - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    by Onomastic on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:02:34 AM PDT

    •  Because of this? See this TomP diary up right now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:29:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't wonder "Why?" but instead "Why so long?" (0+ / 0-)

      I wonder what the County's procedures say about when an incident report should be created and filed.  My hunch: A lot sooner than 10 days.  

      St. Louis County PD: "Investigation? What investigation?  Do you think we should start an investigation on this yet? It's been ten days, let's get the process started, I suppose."

      Like others, I have no faith in the prosecutor but the PDs better start lawyering up in anticipation for when this get to the civil courts.  

  •  A couple of points that I have pondered... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pitbullgirl65, mrkvica, mumtaznepal

    1.  What are the possibilities that there was a report that was conveniently misplaced or destroyed?

    2.  Could some enterprising reporter request all of the reports filed that day at the Ferguson PD, and check for a missing sequence number?  While not definitive, it would be another piece of information to add to the pile.

    3.  Could this department be charged under RICO?  I'm not a lawyer, but it sure is starting to look like the Ferguson PD is a corrupt organization.

    A person's word used to be their contract, now people use contracts to get out of keeping their word.

    by bitpyr8 on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 08:13:45 AM PDT

  •  Reporting, hell no. (0+ / 0-)

    My best guess is that officer Wilson has spoken, reported to no one about this, officially. Not even the Prosecutor. I think the strategic decision has been made, saying nothing is better than being caught in a lie.

  •  Addendum to above (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    With all those videos and pictures of the crime scene out there, he has no idea what might reveal him as a liar. So, shut up. God I love smart phones and the fact that nearly everyone has one. You can tear apart a witness, but videos and pictures --- not so much.

  •  Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum. Let Justice be done (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    though the heavens may fall.

  •  See this diary by TomP currently up: jury is (0+ / 0-)

    likely to be 20% African American because the case was made a county incident, and the county overall is 80% white:

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Fri Aug 22, 2014 at 10:29:17 AM PDT

  •  will this diary be updated or a new one made? (0+ / 0-)

    This is an important discussion.  Now we have, via the ACLU, a correspondingly blank "incident report" from Ferguson PD, that comes with many more compelling and baffling questions, including one that seems to say that Wilson never even told his OWN dispatch that he had just shot an unarmed teen to pieces.  

    I'd like to hear more on this.  But we need a proper forum to do so, one that carries info on both incident reports.  This diary seems somewhat out of date now. Anyone?  

  •  BTW - I was responsible for forcing production (0+ / 0-)

    I will share this story shortly

Thumb, Sylv, hester, glitterscale, Bob Love, Hesiod, eeff, hubcap, davelf2, rasbobbo, concernedamerican, TracieLynn, whenwego, shanikka, ctsteve, Alna Dem, hopeful, aitchdee, sviscusi, kharma, TexDem, mrkvica, figbash, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, duncanidaho, kj in missouri, Damnit Janet, Catte Nappe, Calidrissp, zerelda, WisVoter, Sybil Liberty, Sassy, Frank Vyan Walton, sawgrass727, davidincleveland, Tinfoil Hat, jrooth, Ckntfld, LarisaW, CTPatriot, eru, Ice Blue, kaliope, Tool, Shotput8, Rogneid, peacestpete, Knucklehead, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Mr Bojangles, BlueInARedState, Yellow Canary, MTmofo, StrayCat, gooderservice, middleagedhousewife, thenekkidtruth, markthshark, Sapere aude, Cat Whisperer, shesaid, rontripp, TomP, Empower Ink, gizmo59, mconvente, TruthFreedomKindness, TX Freethinker, OleHippieChick, Cassandra Waites, hwmnbn, BYw, dmhlt 66, ZhenRen, GustavMahler, ARS, CanyonWren, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, Little Flower, Tommymac, Just Bob, parse this, NJpeach, 4CasandChlo, jakedog42, Polly Syllabic, NM Ray, ericlewis0, science nerd, slice, Onomastic, Bluefin, Liberal Capitalist, BlueJessamine, FarWestGirl, PorridgeGun, BarackStarObama, Tommy Aces, merrily1000, peregrine kate, organicus, DRo, DEMonrat ankle biter, allergywoman, No one gets out alive, DeadHead, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, Joieau, a2nite, Horace Boothroyd III, Forward is D not R, hotheadCA, MartyM, doroma, lunachickie, Glen The Plumber, George3, wasatch, Robynhood too, Linda1961, JayRaye, Tim DeLaney, HedwigKos, kmfmstar, ggfkate, howabout, TheDuckManCometh, akeene, eagleray, RightHeaded, Gurnt, ginimck, Eagles92, AJayne, Nilap Haras, bethann, BMScott, Schneewolfe, Sojourns, Dem

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site