Re: Michael Brown

[robrecht]

they might have the police report or they might not. But the report shown is basically a report stating that they are investigating the case. It is not a full statement itself. It just details what they are investigating.

Of course they had the report. The fact that they initially only released this one, with no real information, is why some people were upset. When the later produced the police report, it too was heavily redacted. The ACLU's position is that this will not build up trust between the police and the residents.

[tabibito]

Of course they had the report. The fact that they initially only released this one, with no real information, is why some people were upset. When the later produced the police report, it too was heavily redacted. The ACLU's position is that this is this will not build up trust between the police and the residents.

Why would police release a document in full about a matter that is under investigation, and which if released might compromise that investigation? FOI only requires that non-sensitive information be released. (and if redacted, I believe, the fact that it is redacted must be divulged.)

[robrecht]

Why would police release a document in full about a matter that is under investigation, and which if released might compromise that investigation? FOI only requires that non-sensitive information be released. (and if redacted, I believe, the fact that it is redacted must be divulged.)

I think the main reason would be to demonstrate that they are not hiding anything and thereby build trust with the community. They had no qualms about releasing information that reflected poorly on the deceased. This gives the impression that they are trying to selectively release information that they feel will make their case in the media. That undermines trust. I presume that they did divulge that the report was redacted. Do you have any reason to doubt that?

[tabibito]

I believe that the information would have been provided. And I don't think that the risk of compromising an investigation for the sake of PR is sensible.
I'm also seeing a lot of what seems to be wilful mis-reporting in the press articles. So, if we're going to discuss undermining of credibility and of trust, the press would seem to have a lot to answer for: including its role in producing an atmosphere conducive to riots.

As an example of mis-reporting, the date the report was processed (by another department) being billed as the date the report was filed. If that wasn't wilful deception, it was rank incompetence. The sequence is filed (with one department) - processed - despatched to another department - received - processed. All up, 10 days isn't overly long to complete the chain - that's the way government departments work.

[Cow Poke]

Are you keeping track of the conversation?

To the important posts, yes.

I asked "Why do you think it is justifiable for a police officer to shoot an unarmed person?". You already said that you think the law dictates what is moral.

I don't think I said that.

[Cow Poke]

No, I don't, I think the officer grabbed him and a scuffle ensued at the window of the cruiser, not that he tried to pull him into the front seat. None of the witnesses said that Mr Brown was in the front seat, they said that they saw them scuffling through the window. Now let me ask you CP, do you actually believe that Mr Brown, an 18 year old kid, of his own volition, attacked the officer, climbing into the front seat in order to get the officers gun? SERIOUSLY?

Jimmy - you seem to have a REAL comprehension problem. "Climbing in the front seat" is just downright goofy. YOU are the only person raising that as a possibility. It's dumb. Stupid. Moronic. Nobody is claiming that. It's GOOFY.

Let's try this again, Jimmy. First, do you have any friends? Are ANY of them 6'4" tall? Do you have, or can you borrow, a vehicle like a Tahoe or other SUV?

Now, sit in the vehicle, and ask your friend to REACH IN (not try to CLIMB in) and touch the console between the front seats.

Tell me how that goes, and we'll continue.

[myth]

I'd imagine that the Ferguson PD is not releasing the narrative portions of the report on purpose. I don't know what the rules are in Missouri, but that's how things work in my state.

For example (in my state), in an incident report only pages 1 and 2 are public record. Page 2 has space for a narrative, so does page 3. But as a matter of course, I restrict all the good information to page 3 (to avoid releasing important suspect information, or information that contradicts the complainant's story, etc). So if you get a copy of one of my reports, it'll have the basic info (victim info, location, date, time, property stolen/damaged/seized) along with a 2-4 sentence narrative summary. And that's all you'll get (aside from a CAD/event report, which is what that few pages was with the notes about timers, EMS staging, etc), because supplemental reports are not public record either.

I'm surprised that so many people expect all the juicy details to be released in a narrative form to the public. In my experience, that never happens until it goes to trial.

[Cow Poke]

I'd imagine that the Ferguson PD is not releasing the narrative portions of the report on purpose. I don't know what the rules are in Missouri, but that's how things work in my state.

For example (in my state), in an incident report only pages 1 and 2 are public record. Page 2 has space for a narrative, so does page 3. But as a matter of course, I restrict all the good information to page 3 (to avoid releasing important suspect information, or information that contradicts the complainant's story, etc). So if you get a copy of one of my reports, it'll have the basic info (victim info, location, date, time, property stolen/damaged/seized) along with a 2-4 sentence narrative summary. And that's all you'll get (aside from a CAD/event report, which is what that few pages was with the notes about timers, EMS staging, etc), because supplemental reports are not public record either.

I'm surprised that so many people expect all the juicy details to be released in a narrative form to the public. In my experience, that never happens until it goes to trial.

Yeah, IF it goes to trial!

[robrecht]

I believe that the information would have been provided. And I don't think that the risk of compromising an investigation for the sake of PR is sensible.
I'm also seeing a lot of what seems to be wilful mis-reporting in the press articles. So, if we're going to discuss undermining of credibility and of trust, the press would seem to have a lot to answer for: including its role in producing an atmosphere conducive to riots.

As an example of mis-reporting, the date the report was processed (by another department) being billed as the date the report was filed. If that wasn't wilful deception, it was rank incompetence. The sequence is filed (with one department) - processed - despatched to another department - received - processed. All up, 10 days isn't overly long to complete the chain - that's the way government departments work.

Building up trust between a police department and the citizens it serves should not be dismissed as just PR. Selectively releasing only information that makes the deceased look bad undermines trust in the impartiality of the investigation. It is the latter that smacks of a misguided attempt at PR or spin that backfires.

[Cow Poke]

Building up trust between a police department and the citizens it serves should not be dismissed as just PR. Selectively releasing only information that makes the deceased look bad undermines trust in the impartiality of the investigation. It is the latter that smacks of a misguided attempt at PR or spin that backfires.

It's hard to be in PR mode when you're in Crisis mode.

[Teallaura]

Shouldn't the county have a copy of the police report for the incident they are investigating? I'm not a lawyer, but the ACLU petition seems to request the report that is in the possession of the county, not just one that the county subsequently produced.

http://www.aclu-mo.org/files/3914/08...e_Petition.pdf

No, they specified 'a copy of the incident report' but did not specify city or county. City would be my understanding since the officer is a city policeman but they could have just as easily interpreted it as county since that would be the norm for them. The denial cited ongoing investigation which is a valid ground for a denial - without seeing what they did get it's hard to say but it looks like just the usual tussle back and forth and I doubt a judge will grant relief at this point.

[robrecht]

It's hard to be in PR mode when you're in Crisis mode.

But I don't think they should be in PR mode. I think part of the crisis they should be addressing is the anger and mistrust that is felt by some of the community, and it sounds like some of it may be legitimate.

[Cow Poke]

But I don't think they should be in PR mode.

I think they should ALWAYS be in PR mode -- in a genuine sense.

I think part of the crisis they should be addressing is the anger and mistrust that is felt by some of the community, and it sounds like some of it may be legitimate.

Yes, and if they has been in legitimate PR mode, much of this may not have happened, or it may have been much more manageable.

[robrecht]

No, they specified 'a copy of the incident report' but did not specify city or county. City would be my understanding since the officer is a city policeman but they could have just as easily interpreted it as county since that would be the norm for them. The denial cited ongoing investigation which is a valid ground for a denial - without seeing what they did get it's hard to say but it looks like just the usual tussle back and forth and I doubt a judge will grant relief at this point.

Yes. They did eventually provide a heavily redacted report.

[Teallaura]

Building up trust between a police department and the citizens it serves should not be dismissed as just PR. Selectively releasing only information that makes the deceased look bad undermines trust in the impartiality of the investigation. It is the latter that smacks of a misguided attempt at PR or spin that backfires.

During an ongoing investigation there are quite a few things that will not be released because they damage the case - and that can happen in either direction. Community relations are not more important than getting at the actual truth nor are they more important than getting a conviction where it is merited. If the department were trying to help Wilson, early, damaging disclosure would certainly do it - you can get a case completely tossed doing that. What would the community relations look like if Wilson were truly at fault but could not be tried because the police mishandled information?