18 and Dead.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by icenine

http://www.lapdonline.org/i_want_to_...sic_view/36329

GC 6254 specifies exemptions in order to balance the individual's right to privacy with the public's need for information. Items that will most likely be redacted from Los Angeles Police Department public records are:

Identifying juvenile information
Identifying victim information associated with crimes to Penal Code Sections 261,264,264.1,273a,273d,286,288 or 289
Identifying confidential informant information
Criminal offender record information
Information that may endanger the safety of a witness or the other person
Information that may jeopardize an investigation, related investigation or law enforcement proceeding
Any portion of the report that reflects analysis, recommendation or conclusion of the investigating officer
Information that may disclose investigative techniques
Information that may deprive a person of a fair trial
Preliminary drafts, notes, or memorandums which are not retained in the ordinary course of business
Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the city is a party until the litigation is adjudicated or settled
Personnel, medical or similar files


It seems most of these exceptions apply in the Ferguson case. Above all, California law doesn't apply in Missouri.

Now that this case has taken on a life of its own, it's all the more important for authorities to get this right. If the cop is indeed guilty of something, releasing all sorts of preliminary info now will only jeopardize those trying to get an indictment or conviction. Relax and be patient. The truth will come out in due time and the facts will matter little to those who have already made up their minds in an effort to confirm their own biases.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

I can't do linking in a post with this app but the pertinent article is at St Louis Post Dispach online titled "Robbery report could have made Ferguson officer more wary".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Link to the St. Louis Dispatch. http://www.stltoday.com/

[Zeke]

Meh.

I've tried to explain procedure, gang signs, investigation, et all.

Some folks are just willingly ignorant about how/why things work in such situations. They'll wind up looking like post Benghazi Republicans or a whiny and embarrassed Glenn Beck.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

I can't do linking in a post with this app but the pertinent article is at St Louis Post Dispach online titled "Robbery report could have made Ferguson officer more wary".

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I did find that, and it attributed to Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson the assertion that Wilson made the connection, to the reported robbery, when he noticed cigars in Brown's hand.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Men.

I've tried to explain procedure, gang signs, investigation, et all.

Some folks are just willingly ignorant about how/why things work in such situations. They'll wind up looking like post Benghazi Republicans or a whiny and embarrassed Glenn Beck.

It's because in such cases, people are more interested in confirming their own biases than adjudicating the truth. You'd think the Tawana Brawley case would give them pause.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Very insightful point. My main argument here is with the way 'law and order' people refuse to recognize that there is ever any reason to question the fairness, honesty, and good intent of law enforcement.

This particular case has been, for me, mainly an occasion for that discussion. For me, there have been red flags here that called for close scrutiny, not quick declarations of "good shoot."

"Good shot" shows the bias built into the law & order state. The state makes laws and it's police enforce order. I don't see how a loyal LEO could question the fairness, honesty, and good intent of law enforcement - especially in a public forum.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It's because in such cases, people are more interested in confirming their own biases than adjudicating the truth. You'd think the Tawana Brawley case would give them pause.

In there a name for the phase of an argument when people stop talking to each other, and just make vague generalized criticisms of unspecified others?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by bobabode

They will be, in time. What is the harm in waiting for the forensics to be completed?

We can't enjoy the circular argument? point made.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

In there a name for the phase of an argument when people stop talking to each other, and just make vague generalized criticisms of unspecified others?

Beginning, middle, end, and all phases in between.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by nailer

You can't enjoy the circular argument?

They're oval in California, <grin>.