Violent protest erupts in Ferguson, MO over deadly police shooting

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Steve steveson**

Not sure about the US, but in the UK, it is possible, but unlikely. For example in a case where an officer had good reason to believe you had committed an offence, but later it was shown you did not:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/13/liberty-clinic-resisting-arrest

If evidence shows that a person is innocent of crime for which they have resisted arrest, are they still guilty of the second charge of resisting arrest?

For example, if the police arrest someone for damaging a bus stop and they physically resist the arrest, is the individual still likely to face court for resisting arrest even though CCTV of the bus stop shows the person wholly innocent?

Before I attempt to answer this post I should reiterate that this blog is not a place for giving individual legal advice. SashaAutonomous seems to be asking about a specific incident and should contact a criminal solicitor for more detailed advice.

SashaAutonomous raises a common concern, and I can see that it may seem unfair on the face of it, but it is possible to be guilty of offences relating to resisting or obstructing arrest, even if you are not guilty f the offence for which you were arrested. The key question is whether the arrest was lawful.

There are a number of offences which might apply if you are obstructive when a police officer arrests you. First, it is an offence to "resist or wilfully obstruct a constable in the execution of his duty". It is also an offence to assault a constable in the execution of his duty. You won't be found guilty of these offences, however, if the police officer is acting outside his powers; in that event he is not acting "in the execution of his duty". Secondly, there is a more serious offence of "assault with intent to resist arrest". Again, however, in order to be guilty of this offence it must be proved that the person attempting to carry out the arrest had the right to do so.

In order for an arrest to be lawful, the conditions set out in section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984(PACE) must be met. Section 24 provides that a constable may arrest anyone who has committed an offence, is in the act of committing an offence or is about to commit an offence. He may also arrest anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting of these things. In order for this condition to be met the constable must honestly believe in the person's guilt, and that belief must be reasonable on the basis of the facts known to him. Evidence which shows that the arrested person did not in fact commit the offence may be relevant to the question of whether the constable had reasonable suspicion, but it will not be determinative.

Section 24 also states that the power of arrest may only be exercised if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person for a number of specified reasons. Those reasons are:

(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c) to prevent the person in question
• causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
• suffering physical injury;
• causing loss of or damage to property;
• committing an offence against public decency; or
• causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

The basic idea being that the police are not perfect, and sometimes they do arrest the wrong person, or the evidence points to the wrong person. This should not open them up to violence just because that person did not commit a crime. The matter of wrongful arrest is a different issue, and amusing that the police should always arrest the right person is a dangerous path, both from the point of view of expecting them to be perfect, and the point of view of "If they are being arrested they must have done something wrong".

**Kilkrazy**

whembly wrote:
... ... ...

See... this is another example where plain statistics doesn't tell the whole story.

The whites in Ferguson are typically older / retiree families as Ferguson used to be a hopping place back in the days.

The MO State Attorney General publishes a disparity index comparing the racial breakdown of drivers stopped to the racial breakdown of the driving age population.

A "1" means no disparity.

The index for blacks in Ferguson is 1.37.

Statewide, the disparity index is worse for blacks, at 1.59, is higher than in Ferguson.

Frankly, I can name off several areas that DWB is a thing... and Ferguson isn't one of them.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
whembly wrote:
... ... ...

See... this is another example where plain statistics doesn't tell the whole story.

The whites in Ferguson are typically older / retiree families as Ferguson used to be a hopping place back in the days.

The MO State Attorney General publishes a disparity index comparing the racial breakdown of drivers stopped to the racial breakdown of the driving age population.

A "1" means no disparity.

The index for blacks in Ferguson is 1.37.

Statewide, the disparity index is worse for blacks, at 1.59, is higher than in Ferguson.

Frankly, I can name off several areas that DWB is a thing... and Ferguson isn't one of them.

No, it means that there is DWB in Ferguson but it is worse in other parts of the state.

**CaulynDarr**

Kilkrazy wrote:

No, it means that there is DWB in Ferguson but it is worse in other parts of the state. The black drivers anywhere don't care if they are less worse off than black drivers in other places because it doesn't help them. They care that they are worse off than white drivers or the population as a whole.

Interestingly enough, the "Contraband Hit Rate" for arrests of white drivers is significantly higher than for black drivers. This is an indication that black drivers are being far too often due to racial bias.

The reason that it's lower than the state average is not because Ferguson is better, but because the surrounding areas are so much worse. Places nearby like Chesterfield or St.Peters(my home town). Have indexes at around 3 and are at under 4% African American. If you are an African American driving in those towns, you are 3 times as likely to be pulled over, twice as likely to be arrested, and half as likely to have had any contraband on you in the first place.

edit:

The whole St. Louis area is a messy conglomeration that should be one incorporated city-county area. St Louis has a problem with racial profiling as a whole. Don't let the small number for Ferguson fool you because you can drive 5 minutes in any directions and go from that 1.3 to a 3.

**Hordini**

Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?

**whembly**

Hordini wrote:
Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?

I have no idea exactly...

I do know that it (profiling) has been investigated numerous times over the years.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Hordini wrote:
Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?

Not saying it's universally true, but when there's a car that looks like these, it's a pretty safe bet you can tell the race of the driver:

Spoiler:

**DarkTraveler777**

A Charmin Car? So do car people make joke cars like we make joke armies or did that guy get corporate sponsorship from a TP company?

**hotsauceman1**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?

Not saying it's universally true, but when there's a car that looks like these, it's a pretty safe bet you can tell the race of the driver:

Spoiler:

Anyone who drives thoe monstrocities deserves to be pulled over and arrested.Why ruin perfetly good cars with such ugly tires?

**Ensis Ferrae**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
A Charmin Car? So do car people make joke cars like we make joke armies or did that guy get corporate sponsorship from a TP company?

Neither.... I remember a dude on Fort Carson who had a "Nerds" car (nerds candy, not nerdy people) They definitely take this gak seriously, but they also don't get corporate sponsorships... I highly, HIGHLY doubt that Bank of America is going to sponsor a car like that either

Also, at/around Fort Campbell, there was a Kool-Aid car, which if it weren't for the stereotypes, probably wouldn't be so damn funny to see

**mega_bassist**

There were reports that people were trying to spread the looting in another mall on the Illinois side, St. Claire Square in Fairview Heights. Luckily, nothing has happened yet. Hopefully it's stays confined to North County.

**DarkTraveler777**

So Nerds guy, BoA guy, Kool-Aid guy and Charmin guy all just really like those products? That is awesome. Especially the Charmin guy. That takes some balls to drive around in a toilet paper car.

BRB! Gonna go trick out my ride with Preparation H branding.

**mega_bassist**

Edit - double post

**Dreadclaw69**

Kilkrazy wrote:
If there was no doubt it would be available on the BBC news website. Since you are proposing it I think you should do the searches.

However it is not clear how the possible existence of footage of shooting at helicopters in London explains the lack of footage of shooting at helicopters in Ferguson.

Well it answers your question as to how the police in the helicopter would know that they are under fire seeing as you were disbelieving of the notion.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/07/jailed-shooting-police-birmingham-riots

Because the MO police have not released any footage, which is evidence in an active investigation and public dissemination may be prejudicial to any court proceedings, does not mean that they were unable to tell that they were under fire or do not have video of it

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rismonite wrote:
"A police officer encounters two people, including Brown, on the street near an apartment complex in Ferguson."

"One of the men allegedly pushed the officer back into his squad car and a struggle begins, authorities state."

This is really all the explanation I needed. If a police officer approaches you and anything is alleged other than "one of the men allegedly did everything the officer said" than I think you probably need shot.

Anybody that thinks looting and rioting is ok, as a form of protest needs their head checked. Anyone caught looting and rioting probably needs shot.

Anybody that opens their mouth to an officer to say anything other than "yes, sir/maam/officer." probably needs beaten with a nightstick, and then probably shot.

That community has only made it worse for themselves, causing damage to infrastructure that will only make the place worse to live in.

It is not your right as an American citizen to question a police officer who is essentially a representation of law which makes order in this country for 99% of us. The police are not your enemy, if you see them as such then you are probably a criminal or need your head checked and maybe also need beaten with a nightstick, tased, and/or shot.

There are bad apples here and there in law enforcement. But entirely too many cases of "this man/women was acting like an idiot and then an officer responded excessively". If you are acting like an idiot towards law enforcement you probably deserve whats coming to you.

Obey the law, work, advance your life, and maybe if you ever work hard enough to become a lawyer or politician you can open your face politely to suggest how to make things better and people will listen.

"Did you hear? The police shot M. Brown?".
"Oh yeah? Lets go down the local market break in all the windows, steal everything, and maybe set the place on fire."

No.. just no.

**d-usa**

There is quite a few posts in this thread that seem to have some very thinly veiled racist undertones. Stay classy Dakka.

**mega_bassist**

d-usa wrote:
There is quite a few posts in this thread that seem to have some very thinly veiled racist undertones. Stay classy Dakka.

I've had to remove several people from my Facebook over the past couple days due to this reason.

**whembly**

mega_bassist wrote:
d-usa wrote:
There is quite a few posts in this thread that seem to have some very thinly veiled racist undertones. Stay classy Dakka.

I've had to remove several people from my Facebook over the past couple days due to this reason.

Yeah... I also want to reiterate that Ferguson is as American as apple pie. It is a lovely little community.

There are many historic homes from before the Revolutionary War, a first class golf course and country club, a Fortune 500 company and hundreds of suburban homes with American flags flying on their front porches.

It has undergone an economic resurgence and revitalization in the past ten years with new micro breweries, coffee houses and national retail outlets. It's adjacent to one of the largest campuses of the state university. The middle class people that reside there mostly own their own homes, tend their gardens and send their kids off to college or to serve in the military.

Ferguson is far more Mom and Apple Pie than a lot of places in MO these days even though its not a rural area where cooking and selling meth has destroyed small towns. It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.

And now, outsiders are trying really hard to push a “narrative” that is deflecting attention from the actual matter at hand... which is to get the unvarnished truth on what happened.

**CaulynDarr**

whembly wrote:
mega_bassist wrote:
d-usa wrote:
There is quite a few posts in this thread that seem to have some very thinly veiled racist undertones. Stay classy Dakka.

I've had to remove several people from my Facebook over the past couple days due to this reason.

Yeah... I also want to reiterate that Ferguson is as American as apple pie. It is a lovely little community.

There are many historic homes from before the Revolutionary War, a first class golf course and country club, a Fortune 500 company and hundreds of suburban homes with American flags flying on their front porches.

It has undergone an economic resurgence and revitalization in the past ten years with new micro breweries, coffee houses and national retail outlets. It's adjacent to one of the largest campuses of the state university. The middle class people that reside there mostly own their own homes, tend their gardens and send their kids off to college or to serve in the military.

Ferguson is far more Mom and Apple Pie than a lot of places in MO these days even though its not a rural area where cooking and selling meth has destroyed small towns. It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.

And now, outsiders are trying really hard to push a “narrative” that is deflecting attention from the actual matter at hand... which is to get the unvarnished truth on what happened.

That kind of gentrification can also cause issues. The increased cost of living can force out the poorer families in the town. And St. Louis has a long history of displacing it's minority populations for the current urban development flavor of the month. Also the fact that the city police force and leadership seems to be more representative of the wealthier part of the city's demographic is problematic.

**Crablezworth**

I don't understand the people that jump immediately to race, disregarding any socio-economic factors. Being poor sucks, living in a high crime area sucks, what's worse is when the people who should be protecting you from crime look at you like a criminal and act like soldiers in occupied territory.

**Kilkrazy**

Hordini wrote:
Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?

Yes.

It is not pure random chance that black drivers get stopped a lot more often than white drivers, and it isn't because white people are genetically or culturally superior at driving.

**The Hedge Knight**

I just want to bring up an issue with the title, cause the riots have little to do with the murder. Everything was peaceful until people hijacked the protest and started looting, where the riot teams then had to show up, starting the current violence.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:
It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.
.

Ya know, I honestly have an issue with the media calling these, or any riots "race riots" There certainly may be some elements of racial tension/racial divide going on that aided in the cause of a riot, but I just feel that calling them specifically a Race Riot throws more fuel on the fire where it's really not needed.

It's not you, whembly, that I'm referring to here of course, but more the Media™ at large.

**whembly**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
whembly wrote:
It's also not inner city nor was there a race riot.
.

Ya know, I honestly have an issue with the media calling these, or any riots "race riots" There certainly may be some elements of racial tension/racial divide going on that aided in the cause of a riot, but I just feel that calling them specifically a Race Riot throws more fuel on the fire where it's really not needed.

It's not you, whembly, that I'm referring to here of course, but more the Media™ at large.

No argument from me.

It's the "narrative" the these outsiders are trying push.

I haven't had a whole lot of time to scour the local news... but, from what I seen so far, it looks like the situation has quieted down.

**Easy E**

I have not followed this story at all.

Also, is anyone else wondering why the Police have an APC on the streets for a riot? Why do cops even have APCs at the ready? If it s so bad that you need military equipment aren't you supposed to call in the National Guard?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Easy E wrote:

Also, is anyone else wondering why the Police have an APC on the streets for a riot? Why do cops even have APCs at the ready? If it s so bad that you need military equipment aren't you supposed to call in the National Guard?

That was a thread from a few months ago

**Frazzled**

Stay safe Whembly.

Strangely I need some new cross country running shoes. Think you can hook me up?

**Jihadin**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Easy E wrote:

Also, is anyone else wondering why the Police have an APC on the streets for a riot? Why do cops even have APCs at the ready? If it s so bad that you need military equipment aren't you supposed to call in the National Guard?

That was a thread from a few months ago

MRAP?
MATV?
Four wheel light armored vehicle? (MRAT)

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
MRAP?
MATV?
Four wheel light armored vehicle? (MRAT)

Crunch Wrap?
Club Wrap?
It's a wrap?
Gangster Rap?

**Jihadin**

Ahtman wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
MRAP?
MATV?
Four wheel light armored vehicle? (MRAT)

Crunch Wrap?
Club Wrap?
It's a wrap?
Gangster Rap?

IED in one
Rolled in other
SF version of a MATV

I want to see the type of APC Ferguson has

**SlaveToDorkness**

Al Sharpton can forge a narrative better than Jervis ever dreamed of!