Prosecutor Lays The Blame For The Ferguson Debacle At The Feet Of 'Social Media'

from the social-media-now-killing-more-unarmed-citizens-than-ever-before! dept

When prosecutor Robert McCulloch began his announcement of the grand jury's decision in Officer Darren Wilson's shooting of an unarmed Ferguson resident, he expressed his displeasure with a very familiar scapegoat:

On August 9th Michael Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. Within minutes, various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media, accounts filled with speculation and little, if any, solid, accurate information...

The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for something, for anything, to talk about, following closely behind with the nonstop rumors on social media.

One would have thought the most significant challenge would have been the investgation itself, rather than the words of multiple uninvolved parties. Government officials blaming outside entities for their own struggles and failures is nothing new. The normal, non-social media has taken numerous turns as the scapegoat du jour. But now it's more fashionable to blame the general public and their social outlets. When not blaming the public for talking about stuff, government officials blame the services themselves, villainizing them for providing platforms that criminals, terrorists and other malcontents might use.

Not included in the blame-shifting was the Ferguson police department's severe mismanagement of the "investigation," the decision to turn Ferguson into a lower-Midwest Afghanistan, the combativeness of the city's FOIA departments or the no-fly zone erected solely for the purpose of keeping the media out. No. As McCulloch saw it, the Twitter, Facebook, et al (but mostly Twitter) obstructed justice.

It's little surprise McCulloch has no affection for social media, especially when it's being used to highlight his inaccuracies.

"Darren Wilson never stood over Mike Brown's body" - Bob McCullough pic.twitter.com/TAe2gYGLoR

— Jay (@JayChillinBro) November 25, 2014

If you're going to open up your discussion of a heated issue by pointing fingers at everyone else, you can expect to be ridiculed mercilessly. The Hollywood Reporter has collected some great responses to McCullough's opening gambit. Here are a few of the better ones I spotted while hanging out on The Twit last night.
Wil Wheaton referenced a classic board game.

It was social media, on the internet, with the smart phone.

— Wil Wheaton (@wilw) November 25, 2014

It was social media, on the internet, with the smart phone.

Lowering the Bar's Kevin Underhill stopped presses, shouted "Here's your headline, boys!"

FERGUSON PROSECUTOR ANNOUNCES GRAND JURY HAS INDICTED SOCIAL MEDIA

— Kevin Underhill (@loweringthebar) November 25, 2014

FERGUSON PROSECUTOR ANNOUNCES GRAND JURY HAS INDICTED SOCIAL MEDIA

God Himself:

Apparently Mike Brown was shot and killed by social media.

— God (@TheTweetOfGod) November 25, 2014

Apparently Mike Brown was shot and killed by social media

McCulloch's "extended whine" (according to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin) has to be seen to be believed greeted with slow, disbelieving shakes of the head. In addition to blaming social media, McCulloch discussed the unreliability of eyewitness accounts, something cops and prosecutors tend to consider perfectly reliable when seeking to obtain warrants or indictments.


McCulloch didn't discuss his decision to take a (wholly fake) "impartial" stance during the grand jury deliberations rather than act as a prosecutor and drive for an indictment. His disingenuous nod towards "jury independence" was just a weak cover for his unwillingness to prosecute Darren Wilson. He also didn't discuss his family ties to law enforcement or his previous reluctance to pursue prosecution of police officers.

By the end of the press conference (which has been described as "bizarre" and "rambling"), McCulloch had made his views perfectly clear: the only person blameless in this incident is the officer who shot an unarmed man.

Filed Under: blame, ferguson, media, missouri, robert mcculloch, social media

The Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Proves 'The System' Still 'Works'

from the downhill-momentum dept

Many people may have hoped this would be one of those rare exceptions, but to anybody paying attention, the Ferguson grand jury's decision to give Officer Darren Wilson a pass on the shooting of Michael Brown was a foregone conclusion.

The road to the inevitable was unusual, however. Grand juries aren't there to decide guilt. They're only there to determine whether probable cause exists to hand down an indictment. This happens thousands of times a year all over the country, and it's a true rarity when indictments are not handed down.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

It's not a true comparison only in this respect: the above numbers are federal and this was handled by a state grand jury. But the numbers won't vary by much. Grand juries hear evidence provided by a prosecutor seeking an indictment. It is not an adversarial system.

And the system works -- if the system's designed to obtain indictments. That's what grand juries do best. As we covered here earlier this year, a grand jury in North Carolina showed the system is capable of racking up indictments at breakneck speed.

During a single four-hour workday last week, a Mecklenburg County grand jury heard 276 cases and handed down 276 indictments.

That means the 18 jurors heard evidence, asked questions, weighed whether the charges merit a trial, then voted on the indictments – all at the average rate of one case every 52 seconds.

That didn't happen here. The grand jury considered this case over a period of nearly three months. Hundred of pages of evidence and nearly 70 hours of testimony were considered. But the length of the process wasn't the only oddity. There was also the behavior of prosecutor Robert McCullough. Paul Cassell -- who's been acting as law enforcement's Stewart Baker at the Volokh Conspiracy -- maintains that everything about the Ferguson shooting grand jury was normal as normal could be, give or take a few months of deliberation. Defense attorney Jeff Gamso points out the flaws in Cassell's assertions.

Now, of course, we know that the grand jury did what we knew it would do. No, they said, we're not going to indict Wilson. And Cassell is back to assure us that they did their job properly and that there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary that went on. Specifically, he says this:

"A day before the grand jury’s decision was announced, Michael Brown’s family attorney raised the objection that the grand jury process was unfair because it was deviation from the normal process. 'When you think about it, if this prosecutor is saying we’re just going to be fair, we’re not going to recommend any charges, that’s different from anything he’s done in his past 28 years with grand juries,' attorney Benjamin Crump argued. It turns out that at least part of this claim is untrue: McCulloch presented to the grand jury the full range of charges, from first degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. The only difference from normal process was, apparently, that the prosecutor did not make any particular recommendation — leaving the issue up to the grand jurors. But it is hard to understand how this had any ultimate bearing on the outcome. Of course, if McCulloch’s recommendation was against filing charges, then he would never have gone to the grand jury in a normal case. And if his recommendation was filing charges, then in the normal course a grand jury (or judge) would have had to review the evidence and would have been thrown out the indictment at the point."

Cassell makes the following points.

1. Benjamin Crump says that the prosecutor's behavior in this case was unusual because he didn't recommend any charges.

2. That's not true.

3. The only thing unusual is that the prosecutor didn't recommend any charges.

A prosecutor not recommending any particular charge is an oddity. Not only that, but McCulloch advised the grand jury that any doubt it held meant it must find in favor of Officer Wilson. That's something prosecutors seeking indictments never do. Prosecutors prosecute. Indictments are why they exist. Without these, they can't move forward on capital crimes. And yet, McCulloch apparently felt the non-adversarial setting wasn't predisposed enough in Wilson's favor. In this setting, McCulloch acted more as Wilson's defense attorney than the jurisdiction's prosecutor.

Indictments are easy. Probable cause is all the grand jury needs to move forward with an indictment. That's an extremely low bar. That's a cop telling you a dog said he can search your car (or your anal cavity) without a warrant -- and that a judge will back up his facially ridiculous assertion. Probable cause in the context of a grand jury is a hurdle that is generally cleared with little to no thought. (See also: the two statistics quoted in previous paragraphs.)

But the system still worked. It worked exactly as it has for years and years. For civilians, the odds are terrible. 11 cases out of 162,000 ended up with no indictment. For police officers, the numbers are the complete opposite.

A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.

So, when the grand jury failed to return an indictment, the system still worked. The outcome was never seriously in doubt. When it's civilians, grand juries can "indict a ham sandwich." When it's law enforcement officers, it's this:

Remember, grand juries used to be indict a ham sandwich. Now they can’t indict white bread.

— gideonstrumpet (@gideonstrumpet) November 25, 2014

Remember, grand juries used to be indict a ham sandwich. Now they can’t indict white bread.

The Ferguson grand jury played its part in the process. It examined evidence presented by a prosecutor who wasn't interested in pursuing an indictment against his client Officer Wilson and did what grand juries do when faced with the possibility of indicting cops: it declined to do so. Average Americans can expect returned indictments at fast-food drive-in speeds. Police officers will get weeks of deliberation followed by a non-indictment. The system works as it always has.

Had the prosecution desired an indictment against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, the presentment would have taken an hour, maybe two, and there would have been a true bill by close of business the next day, well before Michael Brown had been laid to rest. The grand jury isn’t the venue to present “all the evidence.” That’s what trials are for. The grand jury serves a very limited function, to determine whether sufficient evidence exists so that there is probable cause to proceed to trial.

In Ferguson, the grand jury served a very different purpose. It was the mechanism by which the guardians of the status quo protect the American dream of an orderly society, where the appearance of challenge is preserved so that lazy and ignorant Americans can sleep well at night, secure in the belief that their officials and institutions are doing the job of protecting their comfort against the unsavory and the malcontents.

The end result is no surprise. There are factors that contribute to this, not the least of which being that police officers perform a job that sometimes requires the use of deadly force. Because of this, more leeway is given to police officers facing criminal charges. That prosecutors play for the same "team" as cops weighs into this non-indictment as well.

But everyone knew it would end up this way, even as they hoped it wouldn't. The extended deliberations were basically a show trial meant to show a watching nation how serious officials were working to have justice served -- without all the unpleasant, uncontrollable uncertainties an actual trial tends to bring with it. This is how the system works. Even if the decision gone the other way, the end result would likely be no different. Officer Wilson would be armed with a defense lawyer and still facing prosecutors lacking the desire to prosecute.

No one gained any ground as a result of this. We're still right where we were. And it can't be fixed by destroying Officer Wilson or turning Michael Brown into a martyr. This sort of thing happens far too often to be repaired by simplistic measures. The system is imbalanced and cannot be righted by tipping the scale in the opposite direction and hoping it all averages out. There's a greater cry for accountability that's now being belatedly answered as law enforcement agencies are making more of an effort to work with community leaders and equip officers with recording devices. Unfortunately, most of this is driven by reactions to massive amounts of police misconduct rather than by proactive efforts. But, beyond all of that, the justice system's extreme deference to law enforcement continues to trip up installed corrective measures by allowing it to set the tone and the rules of engagement.

Filed Under: darren wilson, ferguson, grand jury, indictment, michael brown, missouri, paul cassell, police, police brutality, robert mccullough

Ferguson Police Arrest Yet Another Journalist, Ignoring Direct Court Orders

from the because-that's-how-they-roll-in-Ferguson dept

Back in the summer, we had a few stories about the police in Ferguson arresting reporters. In response to that, the police signed a court agreement promising not to interfere with the media -- which they ignored the very same day. More recently, a court found that the "5 second rule" that police had made up as part of enforcing a "failure to disperse" law was unconstitutional, but it would appear that the police still don't care.

Over the weekend, police in Ferguson arrested yet another journalist, Trey Yingst. The St. Louis County Police Department said he was arrested for (you guessed it) "failing to disperse" when commanded to do so. Specifically, the police say he was in the street and refused to leave.

@TreyYingst reporter from D.C. taken into custody for failure to disperse. Was asked to leave street by the commander and refused. #Ferguson

— St. Louis County PD (@stlcountypd) November 23, 2014

However, multiple eyewitnesses, including other reporters, dispute that claim and point out that he was on the sidewalk:

Police refused to say why reporter @TreyYingst of @news_2_share arrested In Ferguson. Was on sidewalk of S Florissant Rd along from the PD

— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) November 23, 2014

Police arrested this man after he said he was a journalist standing on the side walk outside the ferguson police dept pic.twitter.com/AG46fMTyOv

— Alex Wroblewski (@alexwroblewski) November 23, 2014

This is false. He was on the sidewalk. #Ferguson https://t.co/VEOzCCWiq7

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) November 23, 2014

Even worse, as Adam Steinbaugh points out, on Friday, there was a series of federal court orders telling the state, county and city police not to interfere with journalists doing reporting in Ferguson. According to the order [pdf], which covers the St. Louis County police:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [police] shall not enforce or threaten to enforce any rule, policy, or practice that grants law enforcement officers the authority or discretion to arrest, threaten to arrest, or interfere with any individual, including any member of the media or member of the public photographing or recording in public places unless that person is threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.

One of the other orders, directly targeting the County of St. Louis states [pdf]:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant County of St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons under their supervision, or within their control, are permanently enjoined from interfering with individuals who are photographing or recording at public places but who are not threatening the safety of others or physically interfering with the ability of law enforcement to perform their duties.

Of course, this is in Ferguson, Missouri, where people have been gathering all weekend to await the grand jury results concerning officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed Mike Brown in August, setting off the widespread protests. And, in Ferguson, it seems that basic concepts in law no longer apply -- even when courts directly call the police out on them. And, of course, officials in Ferguson have been especially obnoxious towards the press. Beyond just basic stonewalling and threatening/arresting multiple reporters, officials in Ferguson have tried to avoid releasing documents by putting ridiculous price tags on FOIA requests and even requesting a no fly zone to block out press aircraft (while pretending it was for "safety"). Is it really any wonder they'd continue to ignore direct court orders in order to harass and intimidate journalists?

Filed Under: arrests, court orders, ferguson, injunctions, journalists, missouri, police, st. louis county, trey yingst

Police In Ferguson Set Up No-Fly Zone Solely To Keep Journalists Out, According To FAA Audio Recordings

from the that-thing-you-suspected?-yeah,-it's-true dept

A few more details have come to light on the police state experiment conducted in Ferguson, MO over the past couple of months. Despite repeated denials that continued all the way up until October 31st, the real reason for the FAA's no-fly zone over Ferguson has been revealed.

"They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out," said one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series of recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press. "But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that could be going on.

At another point, a manager at the FAA's Kansas City center said police "did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR (temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn't want media in there."

Law enforcement put FAA staffers in an awkward position with this request. The FAA (obviously) has nothing in the rule books that provides for blocking First Amendment-protected activity. While there would be the heightened danger of collisions if police helicopters were also in the area, it's not like this sort of situation hasn't been handled without incident before. (See also: news coverage of every demonstration/riot/police pursuit to this point.)

No, law enforcement simply wanted to keep news coverage to a minimum and control the narrative through the indiscriminate use of tear gas, a ridiculous (and unconstitutional) "five second rule" and the casual detainment of reporters at ground level.

St. Louis police claimed over and over and over again that the no-fly zone was for "safety," citing a single incident where a police helicopter was allegedly shot at -- an incident that only existed in the minds of those looking to keep the press from circling overhead.

[P]olice officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed "rumors."

Small concessions were made when law enforcement realized what it was asking for was impractical (and mostly illegal). As one news director pointed out, his crew was eventually told it could fly over Ferguson but only at an altitude above 3,000 feet -- not exactly a height that produces optimal (or even usable) footage.

Whatever your stance on the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, the fact remains that nearly everything local law enforcement did in response was poorly thought-out at best, and an outright abuse of power at worst. Officials have lied to the public, paywalled public documents, released information in a purely self-serving fashion (and over the objections of Eric Holder and the Justice Dept.) and approached the citizens they serve as an occupying force, rather than trusted allies.

Filed Under: ferguson, journalism, media, missouri, no fly zone, police state

Court Says '5 Second Rule' Used By Police In Ferguson To Arrest Protestors Is Unconstitutional

from the good-news dept

A district court in Missouri has granted an injunction filed against the police in Ferguson for their ridiculous "5 second rule" that was used to arrest numerous protestors. The rule was that if you stood in place for more than 5 seconds, you could be arrested -- with the goal of (a) keeping protestors moving and (b) having an excuse to arrest a bunch of protestors. Mustafa Abdullah, with help from the ACLU, sued over this and the court has agreed that the rule is clearly unconstitutional, and thus a preliminary injunction has been granted. The court notes that standing in place for 5 seconds is not a legitimate standard to be used for Missouri's "failure to disperse law" (or any other law).

First, the court doesn't buy the police's claim that the 5 second rule matches up with the failure to disperse law:

This statute provides no defense to this suit for several reasons. First, people were not told to “disperse” – in other words, to leave the area. Instead they were told to keep moving. Second, the order was given even when there were fewer than six people gathered. The evidence included examples where the order was given to one person alone, to three people attempting to pray, to a reporter and one other person, as well as to larger groups. And the order was given to people who were doing nothing to indicate they intended to violate laws of any sort, much less to engage in violence. In fact, nearly all of plaintiff’s fact witnesses testified that despite gatherings that were peaceful and law-abiding at the time, officers told people they must keep moving or they would be arrested.

Then there's the question of due process. And, once again, the 5 second rule is problematic:

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of showing that the keep-moving policy violates due process in both ways. Of course, in this situation there is no statute or ordinance being challenged. Rather, it is an unwritten policy, given to officers at their roll calls, instructing them to order people to keep moving whenever the officers thought it was appropriate to do so. Some officers told everyone to keep moving, so if plaintiff was unlucky enough to be standing in the vicinity of those officers, he would be told to move. Some officers told people they would be arrested if they did not move, but at least one officer told people that they had to keep moving but probably would not be arrested if they failed to comply. Some officers interpreted the policy to mean that people had to walk at a certain speed, others told people that they could not walk back and forth in a certain-sized area. Some officers applied it to members of the press, while others did not. Plaintiff and his other witnesses testified that they could not tell what would or would not be allowed at any given moment.

The rule provided no notice to citizens of what conduct was unlawful, and its enforcement was entirely arbitrary and left to the unfettered discretion of the officers on the street. This policy “necessarily entrusts lawmaking to the moment-to-moment judgment of the policeman on his beat.” See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 360 (brackets and quotation marks omitted). Like the gang loitering ordinance found unconstitutional in Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), the keep-moving policy cannot meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.

And then the good old First Amendment:

I conclude that it is likely plaintiff will prevail on the merits of his First Amendment claim, and given my conclusions about the Due Process claim, I need not at this time discuss the First Amendment issues in detail. The keep-moving policy – as it was applied to plaintiff and others – prohibited citizens from peacefully assembling on the public sidewalks. Although the state has a valid interest in maintaining order on its streets and sidewalks and in preventing violence by crowds, this interest is not sufficient to apply such a blanket rule to people assembling peacefully.... The evidence showed that the strategy burdened substantially more speech than was necessary to achieve its legitimate goals. In fact, one of the police witnesses testified that it only worked well during the daytime when there were no large crowds and no threats of violence – when the crowds grew unruly, telling them to keep moving was not an effective strategy. Thus, defendants’ own evidence shows that this strategy fails the requirement that “the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government’s interest,”

Nice to see this ruling, though it would have been nicer to have this earlier -- but hopefully it will at least prevent future such actions.

Filed Under: 5 second law, due process, failure to disperse, ferguson, first amendment, free speech, missouri, mustafa abdullah, right to assembly

Ferguson's Strategy Regarding Journalists: Charge Insane Fees For FOIA Requests

from the filing-charges dept

Say what you want, but one thing has become abundantly clear since the whole Ferguson debacle began: the people running and policing that city aren't interested in your concerns. Throughout this entire process, the city and its police force have obfuscated the facts and people involved in the shooting of a civilian, they have cynically released information and videos when it suits them, and they've treated journalists covering the story with the kind of contempt they normally reserve for their own constituents. And now, utilizing a method previously beta-tested by both local and federal law enforcement agencies, they've decided the best way to respond to the ongoing outcry is to try to charge insane amounts for FOIA requests.

Officials in Ferguson, Missouri, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to turn over files under public records laws about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The city has demanded high fees to produce copies of records that, under Missouri law, it could give away free if it determined the material was in the public's interest to see. Instead, in some cases, the city has demanded high fees with little explanation or cost breakdown.

In one case, it billed The Associated Press $135 an hour — for nearly a day's work — merely to retrieve a handful of email accounts since the shooting. That fee compares with an entry-level, hourly salary of $13.90 in the city clerk's office, and it didn't include costs to review the emails or release them.

Allow that to sink in for a moment and marinade in your brain juices: information that could be given for free if it was of public interest is instead being billed at ridiculously high rates. Does anyone seriously want to argue that more transparency out of the Ferguson government isn't in the public's interest? Of course not. This is all about intimidating journalists and trying to put roadblocks in front of likely damning information. Ferguson has a public relations problem in the truest form and their strategy appears to be to freeze out journalists trying to provide information to the public. That won't win them any friends.

And don't think that this strategy is used rarely.

The Washington Post was told it would need to pay $200 at minimum for its requests, including city officials' emails since Aug. 9 discussing Brown's shooting, citizen complaints against Ferguson officers and Wilson's personnel file. The website Buzzfeed requested in part emails and memos among city officials about Ferguson's traffic-citation policies and changes to local elections, but was told it would cost unspecified thousands of dollars to fulfill.

Inquiries about Ferguson's public records requests were referred to the city's attorney, Stephanie Karr, who declined to respond to repeated interview requests from the AP since earlier this month. Through a spokesman late Monday, Karr said Missouri law can require fees but she didn't address why charges specific to the AP's request were nearly tenfold the lowest salary in the city clerk's office. Karr said searching emails for key words constitutes "extra computer programming" that can bring added costs.

Searching emails by keyword now equals "programming?" Brilliant! Although I suppose it's not as egregious as suggesting shooting unarmed civilians equals "policing."

Filed Under: fees, ferguson, foia, journalism, mike brown, missouri

Ferguson PD Lies About Why It Released Videotape Of Store Robbery, Lies Some More When Confronted With The Facts

from the worst.-wagon-circling.-ever. dept

In the wake of the shooting of Michael Brown, the Ferguson Police made several ill-advised moves. The biggest was the paramilitary force that greeted protests, looking for all the world like a unit flown in from Kabul, followed shortly thereafter by the detainment of several journalists. The decision to withhold the officer's name was also received poorly, but this was complicated by one baffling move -- the release of a store surveillance tape that appeared to show Brown stealing cigarillos from a local store shortly before he was shot dead.

This tape's release was purely self-motivated. Even the Dept. of Justice -- which had stepped in shortly after everything went to hell in Ferguson -- advised against it. The only conceivable reason for the release was a post-facto "justification" of Officer Darren Wilson's decision to shoot an unarmed man several times.

But the Ferguson PD tried to cover up this motivation. Matthew Key at TheBlot has dug into the events surrounding the release of the surveillance tape and found nothing but Ferguson PD lies.

The chief of police for the Ferguson Police Department misled members of the media and the public when he asserted that his hand was forced in releasing surveillance footage that purported to show 18-year-old resident Michael Brown engaged in a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store minutes before he was fatally shot by a police officer.

The tape -- released on the same day the PD belatedly revealed the name of the officer who shot Brown -- was supposedly released as the result of "multiple" FOIA requests from journalists and other citizens.

“We’ve had this tape for a while, and we had to diligently review the information that was in the tape, determine if there was any other reason to keep it,” Jackson said at the press event. “We got a lot of Freedom of Information requests for this tape, and at some point it was just determined we had to release it. We didn’t have good cause, any other reason not to release it under FOI.”

But another FOIA request exposed this claim for what it is. TheBlot used a FOIA request to obtain all FOIA requests sent to the Ferguson PD. And it couldn't find a single one that specifically requested that tape.

Last month, TheBlot Magazine requested a copy of all open records requests made by members of the public — including journalists and news organizations — that specifically sought the release of the convenience store surveillance video. The logs, which were itself obtained under Missouri’s open records law, show only one journalist — Joel Currier with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — broadly requested any and all multimedia evidence “leading up to” Brown’s death on Aug. 9.

With that lie uncovered, the Ferguson Police decided to double down. A statement issued to TheBlot claimed that multiple other FOIA requests were made orally, due to heavy traffic to the city's website and email server. Possibly believable, but was anyone logging these verbal requests? And could this be where the multiple requests for the surveillance video originated? The answers are "yes," "well, actually no," and "shut up."

The first response:

City of Ferguson attorney Stephanie Karr said that “many requests were made verbally due to the fact that the City’s website and email were down at several points during that week” and that “city personnel cataloged all requests and treated them in the same manner as it would any Sunshine Law request.

So, if they were logged, there'd be some record of a bunch of people asking for the release of the surveillance tape, right? Cue backpedal #1:

Karr responded to a request for comment Saturday afternoon by denying the City of Ferguson had a log of verbal records requests.

“You assume that the Custodian of Records, somehow, logged every single question, statement or request for information, verbal or otherwise, made to every single police officer, city employee, consultant, appointed official or elected official,” Karr told TheBlot by e-mail. “That assumption is, quite simply, wrong and unrealistic.”

Actually, TheBlot didn't "assume" anything. It simply took Karr's first statement at face value. Apparently, everything about the first statement was a lie. On top of that, the Ferguson PD may have violated the Sunshine Law by not logging requests it filled or denied. TheBlot has a request in for the logged verbal FOIA requests and in the meantime notes that the PD is still withholding both the incident report for the shooting (which may not even exist) as well as the incident report for the robbery.

Just a little more evidence pointing towards the unreliability of public officials, especially when caught in the middle of misconduct. Not only has the PD apparently lied about its reasons for releasing the tape, but it continues to withhold information about its involvement in the shooting of Michael Brown. Earlier, it claimed Officer Wilson suffered injuries -- possibly severe -- during his "interaction" with Brown. Those have proven false as well, with Wilson's own post-shooting text messages saying nothing about sustaining an injury as well as citizen video showing Wilson standing around the shooting scene for several minutes without seeking medical attention.

Odds are, no one directly requested this video. The release of the video coincided with the forced release of the officer's name in a blatant attempt to provide justification for his actions. While undoubtedly true that the city's website and email server have been hit pretty hard during the past few weeks, that's no excuse for city employees to fulfill or deny FOIA requests without documentation -- especially when its track record so far shows an urge to bury and obfuscate.

Filed Under: ferguson, foia, lies, mike brown, missouri, police, release, videotape

Why Do Police In Suburban St. Louis Have More Powerful Weapons Than Marines In Afghanistan?

from the just-wondering... dept

We've been covering some of the more troubling details of police militarization across the US, and specifically what's going on in Ferguson, Missouri over the past couple of weeks. However, we knew fairly little about the actual military equipment being used there. And we know that sometimes scary looking military equipment isn't necessarily so scary when put to use. So it's interesting to read a former Marine's analysis of the military equipment being used in Ferguson, which more or less confirms that it not only looks scary but absolutely is scary. Much of the discussion is about how all those "non-lethal" "riot control" weaponry is actually quite dangerous and potentially lethal. Here are a few examples:

There are scattered reports of stun grenade use in Ferguson. Also known as flashbangs or flash grenades, this weapon of choice for American SWAT teams (and Israeli soldiers) originated in the British special forces community more than four decades ago. Ostensibly less than lethal, stun grenades have been known to kill or severely injure numerous victims, and the device was recently in the news for burning a 19-month-old baby in Georgia, resulting in a coma, during one of the thousands of domestic police raids this year. They are designed to temporarily blind and deafen, thanks to a shrapnel-free casing that is only supposed to emit light and sound upon explosion. Nonetheless, the list of casualties is long, and the number of flammable mishaps is disconcerting. In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Balko recounts a story of an FBI agent accidentally lighting himself and his vehicle on fire.

[....]

These "pepper balls" are lethal; the Boston Police Department banned them after a young woman was killed by one. It passed right through the eye and skull to the brain. She was guilty of being present in a rowdy crowd after a Red Sox v. Yankees game in which the former won. The ACLU condemned the use of such projectiles for the purposes of crowd management back in 1997, following an unfortunate incident in Eugene, Oregon. They even convinced Eugene officials to do the same. It's about time St. Louis County and the rest of the country followed suit.

[....]

Like the stun grenade, employing wooden pellets as a form of riot control was spearheaded by the British decades ago, mainly in Hong Kong. As the ACLU makes clear, considerable litigation has proceeded in the aftermath of such tactics, including suits brought by protesters in Oakland who bore the brunt of these measures around the beginning of the Iraq War. Longshoremen on their way to work also suffered and sued accordingly. As a result, the Oakland police department caved and beating residents with wooden projectiles as a means of crowd management was rendered illegal.

There's a lot more in the article as well. But here's the bit that really stood out for me. After posting a picture of militarized police moving down the street looking pretty scary, the former marine, Lyle Jeremy Rubin, explains how they're more well armed than the actual military in Afghanistan:

What we're seeing here is a gaggle of cops wearing more elite killing gear than your average squad leader leading a foot patrol through the most hostile sands or hills of Afghanistan. They are equipped with Kevlar helmets, assault-friendly gas masks, combat gloves and knee pads (all four of them), woodland Marine Pattern utility trousers, tactical body armor vests, about 120 to 180 rounds for each shooter, semiautomatic pistols attached to their thighs, disposable handcuff restraints hanging from their vests, close-quarter-battle receivers for their M4 carbine rifles and Advanced Combat Optical Gunsights. In other words, they're itching for a fight. A big one. It's a well-known horror that the US military greets foreign peoples in this fashion as our politicians preach freedom, democracy and peace. It's an abomination that the police greet black communities in the States with the same trigger-happy posture. Especially on the occasion of an unarmed teen's death by cop.

He also discusses the general rule that people repeat in our comments all the time: "never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." And yet, of course, in pretty much every picture of the police here, we see them pointing weapons. And sometimes worse. Here's some video of a police officer in Ferguson not just pointing a weapon at some people livestreaming the protests, but telling the livestreamers that "I will fucking kill you." When the streamers ask him for his name, he says "Go fuck yourself." And, again, remember that this is not in response to any terrorist threat, but to some protests after a fellow police officer killed an unarmed teenager. While that particular officer has since been suspended, it seems worth questioning this particular approach to policing.

Actually, isn't it about time we rethought the entire way that this country handles policing?

Filed Under: ferguson, militarization, militarized police, missouri, weapons

LAPD Officer Says Tragedies Could Be Prevented If Citizens Would Just Shut Up And Do What Cops Tell Them To

from the NOW,-DO-YOU-UNDERSTAND-WHY-I'M-BEATING-YOU? dept

In the continuing furor that is Ferguson, Missouri, someone is finally asking, "Won't anyone think of the poor police officers?" Naturally, the person raising this question is a police officer -- a 17-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department. And the question isn't so much being raised as it is being thrown in the reader's face.

Sunil Dutta wants to make a point about the difficulties faced by police officers every day. But he does so by boiling down his argument to little more than, "Shut your mouth or I'll beat your ass." Dutta begins by stating the obvious:

[C]ops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed.

Sure. And most people aren't saying that cops are murderers. But they are calling them out for deploying excessive or deadly force far too often. That's homicide (in the rare cases when it results in charges). Murder is premeditated and while there are likely a very small number of cops who commit murder, there is a far larger percentage deploying excessive force -- force that sometimes results in death.

Once Dutta's erected his strawman, he casts about seeking to validate the sort of force escalation that seems far too common these days. It's not cops that are bad, it's just that people won't listen.

Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.

Now that Dutta has made it clear that the public needs to exercise self-control because many police officers clearly can't, he moves on to explaining why it's so hard for officers to resist deploying excessive/deadly force.

Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.

I'm still unclear as to when police officers were guaranteed a "safety zone" while on patrol and the rest of this plea for sympathy is similarly misguided. Scott Greenfield makes the obvious point that taking a job as cop is to willingly place yourself in situations where people become irate at your very existence.

Did someone tell you at the Academy that the public would be showering you with kisses and adoration? Perhaps they suggested you would carry all that cool hardware on your service belt because people would get in your personal space to request your autograph, you rock star you. Oh wait. You were a cop. Your job was to deal with people who were often unpleased to see you. Are you complaining? Do you want to give back your pension?

After illustrating how he resolved a potentially dangerous situation without force, Dutta moves on to explain why nearly any use of force is justified. There's only one way to (almost) guarantee that a police officer like Dutta won't move past an "ostentatious display of the lethal (and nonlethal) hardware resting in my duty belt" and into full deployment of the mini-arsenal. And that's to never do anything that might signal your respect for the police officer "interacting" with you is anything less than 100%.

[I]f you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

Dutta says "cooperate," no matter what. No matter if you're just being hassled for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or if you're the wrong color or just walking insouciantly, when a cop orders you to do something, do it. But this isn't "cooperation." That word suggests people working together. What Dutta demands is something else entirely. Scott Greenfield breaks it down:

When you use the word “cooperate,” you do so applying the cop definition. We, non-cops, are to cooperate with you, cop. We, as you’ve already told us, are to do as you say. Your idea of cooperation has nothing whatsoever to do with cooperation. It’s just a much better word than “comply or I will inflict pain, perhaps even death…"

The problem is that life isn't nearly as clear cut as Dutta portrays it. There are nuances at play at any given time, but Dutta only sees it as black and white. Submit or pay the price. That's how Dutta defines "cooperation."

The disconnect seems to be that the public just won’t do whatever a cop says. Sometimes they won’t do it fast enough. Sometimes, they don’t do it right enough. Sometimes, they won’t do it at all. Your solution is just do it or you’ve brought the wrath of the police down on your own head.

Among the many problems with Dutta's column is this: he expects the public to have respect for law enforcement while officers show an active disrespect for the laws governing their behavior. He throws this sentence into the mix without a hint of self-awareness.

Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.

This legal prohibition doesn't seem to be prohibiting the use of excessive force. And the words "stop resisting" are muttered over and over again as personal permission slips to deliver more blows, whether or not the suspect is actually resisting. Cops are given desk duty or paid suspensions for violating this law while those on the receiving end spend time in the hospital… or the morgue.

Dutta also delivers this remarkable paragraph with a straight face.

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.

Take your beating and sue later! Enjoy having your future destroyed by bullshit charges! Our justice system presumes you're innocent, except for all the evidence otherwise! Let the system runs its course, with citizens molested and cops unmolested! Use your time and money to sue us and watch the courts grant us immunity! Use YOUR OWN MONEY (taxes) to pay for our misdeeds in the odd event that a settlement is agreed to!

If this is the argument for police actions in Ferguson, it's an insanely shitty one. If this is what passes for justification, then it's clear there's no excuse for excessive force. No one truly believes all cops are murderers, but there's enough harboring the potential to do serious harm that citizens are justifiably wary that any encounter with police officers could go horribly wrong -- especially if they attempt to stand up for the rights these officers deny them.

Filed Under: authority, civil liberties, civil rights, ferguson, free speech, lapd, missouri, obedience, police, sunil dutta

Police In Ferguson Sign Court Agreement Promising Not To Interfere With Media... Then Go Threaten And Arrest Media

from the because-who-cares dept

We've been writing about the efforts by the police in Ferguson, Missouri to intimidate and arrest reporters trying to cover the protests and the police (over)reaction there. What's now come out is that, last Friday, the police actually signed a court agreement promising not to interfere with the media:

Parties acknowledge and agree that the media and members of the public have a right to record public events without abridgement unless it obstructs the activity or threatens the safety of others, or physically interferes with the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their duties.

This was based on a lawsuit brought by Mustafa Hussein, the reporter for radio station KARG (Argus Radio) who got some attention last night after a police officer yelled at him to "get the fuck out of here or you're going to get shelled with this" while pointing some sort of weapon at him: Note that the agreement was signed by Hussein and parties representing St. Louis County, the City of Ferguson and the Missouri Highway Patrol... on Friday the 15th. The threat to Hussein came on Sunday... the 17th.

And those kinds of activities are continuing today. Here's an Instagram video of a Getty photographer, Scott Olson, being arrested. Olson, if you don't know, is the guy who has photographed many of the most iconic images of what's happening in Ferguson, including this astounding shot. Here are a few more Olson images, courtesy of Getty's recent embedding program:

#453505316 / gettyimages.com

#453768692 / gettyimages.com

#453769244 / gettyimages.com

#453582860 / gettyimages.com

#453769068 / gettyimages.com

And the police arrested him. Yeah, you can see how they thought he was a "danger"... to them trying to control the narrative of what's happening.

And here's a video of police threatening CNN's Don Lemon -- which I've now seen, but for reasons that I don't understand, the video seems to disappear at times (as does the embed code).

No matter what, it seems pretty clear that police are continuing to stamp on the rights of just about everyone, including those with cameras and microphones (so you can just imagine how they're handling those without such things). The fact that there's a signed court agreement promising not to do this doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

Filed Under: ferguson, free speech, journalists, media, missouri, press, scott olson