Re: Michael Brown

[Teallaura]

Yes. They did eventually provide a heavily redacted report.

I know that - I saw it in the brief. I think I read that one but I'm not sure. If so, the ACLU is just making noise - there's nothing out of the ordinary for that release at this point in an ongoing investigation.

[robrecht]

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

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.

I agree. If we are distinguishing genuine and legitimate PR from 'just PR'.

[Cow Poke]

I wanted to make sure I understood FOIA the way it actually is, so I went to the FOIA.gov website, and found this....

Source: FOIA.gov

President Obama and Attorney General Holder have directed agencies to apply a presumption of openness in responding to FOIA requests. The Attorney General specifically called on agencies not to withhold information just because it technically falls within an exemption and he also encouraged agencies to make discretionary releases of records. The Attorney General emphasized that the President has called on agencies to work in a spirit of cooperation with FOIA requesters. The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice oversees agency compliance with these directives and encourages all agencies to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the FOIA. President Obama has pledged to make this the most transparent Administration in history.

© Copyright Original Source

OK, back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Cow Poke]

I agree. If we are distinguishing genuine and legitimate PR from 'just PR'.

Yeah. Our local PD works very hard on PR -- part of why I'm a police chaplain. I interact MONTHLY with a group of city leadership and management, commissioner's court, and the local ministerial alliance just to keep channels open and information flowing.

[tabibito]

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.

I get the same impression. I also well enough that the only kind of report that would be acceptable to the people who want trouble is one that puts all the blame on the police officer. If anything in that report even hints at mitigation, it will be promoted in the media as a whitewash - and that risks fuelling another round of civil disturbance.

The Police Department can't win here. Assume that the report in fact does show the police officer to be culpable of something. The police release the report - and an impartial jury can't be selected.

Information about the deceased can be released - he's not under investigation.

[robrecht]

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?

I am not disputing any of this. My reference to the police report was merely to explain where the belief came about that Wilson did not even file a report. It seems to me that belief came about because when the judge requires the county to turn it over they then only produced the county document and only later produced the heavily redacted police report.

[robrecht]

I know that - I saw it in the brief. I think I read that one but I'm not sure. If so, the ACLU is just making noise - there's nothing out of the ordinary for that release at this point in an ongoing investigation.

I think it was stupid for the county to only produce the county report. They should have provided both at the same time.

[Cow Poke]

I think it was stupid for the county to only produce the county report. They should have provided both at the same time.

I think there was an abundance of stupid in this entire case from both sides.

[Teallaura]

I think it was stupid for the county to only produce the county report. They should have provided both at the same time.

No, they should have denied and requested clarification, if this was an actual issue for them. In an FOIA of sensitive information you make darn sure you know exactly what's being requested and deny or supply that alone.

[robrecht]

I get the same impression. I also well enough that the only kind of report that would be acceptable to the people who want trouble is one that puts all the blame on the police officer. If anything in that report even hints at mitigation, it will be promoted in the media as a whitewash - and that risks fuelling another round of civil disturbance.

The Police Department can't win here. Assume that the report in fact does show the police officer to be culpable of something. The police release the report - and an impartial jury can't be selected.

Information about the deceased can be released - he's not under investigation.

I don't think 'the people who want trouble' are that many and I do not agree that 'the police can't win'. Good communication is sometimes difficult but it is not impossible. If some of the stories and statistics that I have heard are true, than some of the anger and mistrust is justified.

[robrecht]

I think there was an abundance of stupid in this entire case from both sides.

There always is.

[robrecht]

No, they should have denied and requested clarification, if this was an actual issue for them. In an FOIA of sensitive information you make darn sure you know exactly what's being requested and deny or supply that alone.

They could not deny at that point. They were compelled by a judge. Their choice at that point was to comply stupidly or to comply intelligently, or somewhere in between. I don't think they did so intelligently.

[Teallaura]

They could not deny at that point. They were compelled by a judge. Their choice at that point was to comply stupidly or to comply intelligently, or somewhere in between. I don't think they did so intelligently.

What? I thought you referred to the initial response.

[robrecht]

What? I thought you referred to the initial response.

No, the initial response was a denial. The second and third responses were court ordered.

[Teallaura]

No, the initial response was a denial. The second and third responses were court ordered.

Okay.