Re: Michael Brown

[Cow Poke]

Here's waaaaaaay more information than you probably want from the perspective of someone who has been trying to get information on the police reports:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...c-information/

Bottom line. He does think they are violating the Missouri sunshine law.

Here's an update on an additional report that was sought:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...ions-ferguson/

He was stating that Officer Wilson didn't write up a report "as required by Missouri law". It wasn't about the sunshine law. But, then again, Jimmy tends to just make things up as he goes along, so he'll probably say "oh yes it was", and I don't care enough to look it up.

[Cow Poke]

We have some facts.

That's DUMB. Some facts can be interpreted by other facts -- and you have demonstrated a profound ignorance of the principles of this whole thing.

We know that Brown was unarmed.

So? He was unarmed when he robbed the store of the swisher sweets.

We know that Brown ran away at one point. We know that Wilson left his car alone to confront a person liable to resist arrest and was stronger than average. We know that Wilson shot Brown. I can't imagine any new information that would make me rethink my conclusion, since I allowed for all the possibilities people suggest that paint Wilson in a positive light.

Yeah, I kinda figured you had come to the "don't give me ANY new facts, my mind is already made up". Shall I get a rope for officer Wilson's lynching?

[Cow Poke]

The "current facts" are obviously insufficient to form such a judgement.

EGGzackly!

[Cow Poke]

As I told Cow Poke, I feel there are enough facts available to make a judgment.

Praise God you're not in any position of authority in such cases.

[JimL]

Video and written statements are time stamped. If the prosecution or federal investigators have any reason to suspect tampering with evidence or perjury, that will be addressed in due course. In the meantime, if your and Grapski's interpretation of the sunshine law is correct, I expect a judge to rule in your favor. If, on the other hand, the ACLU's interpretation of the law is correct, I do not expet a judge to rule in your favor. Tell it to the judge.

Well, since it is law that incident reports must be written on paper then the video example is a moot point, and as i already made clear a blank dated incident report can always be filled in at a later date than the one recorded. There is no interpretation needed for the law which says incident reports need be on paper and available to the public.

You did not comment on the need to weigh other issues that might conflict with immediate and complete transparency at this time, eg, the interests of the investigation, the prosecution, and the rights of the suspect or accused. Do you not agree that the suspect in this case has rights that might conflict with immediate transparency? Grapski seems to think that as long as the suspect does not invoke his 5th amendment rights, these are irrelevant. Is that also your position? That sounds like an extreme position to me that I doubt would hold up in court. And what of the interests of the prosecution? I do not think you have really addressed the position of the ACLU either. It almost sounds like you are saying that immediate and full disclosure of all information is absolutely necessary to counteract your own conspiracy theories. I think perhaps a little more subtlety is involved in the application of law and the judicial process.

Explain if you will in what way would revealing the officers legally required incident report filing interfere with the investigation, the prosecution, or the rights of the accused? The Officer can not plead the 5th and somehow erase what he has already testified to in his report. Immediate and full disclosure of the incident report is the law and the incident report, if it was filed, can not be altered, so what purpose, since pleading the 5th is excluded, could there be in hiding it?

[Cow Poke]

Well, since it is law that incident reports must be written on paper then the video example is a moot point, and as i already made clear a blank dated incident report can always be filled in at a later date than the one recorded. There is no interpretation needed for the law which says incident reports need be on paper and available to the public.

Can you please cite the Missouri State Ordinance?

Thanks

[JimL]

He was stating that Officer Wilson didn't write up a report "as required by Missouri law". It wasn't about the sunshine law. But, then again, Jimmy tends to just make things up as he goes along, so he'll probably say "oh yes it was", and I don't care enough to look it up.

Apparently the one who didn't care enough to look it up CP, was you. Fancy that! And yes it was about the Sunshine law which is Missouri law.

[JimL]

Can you please cite the Missouri State Ordinance?

Thanks

Does the Sunshine law apply to Missouri, to Ferguson, to the Wilson/Brown case or not CP?

[Cow Poke]

Does the Sunshine law apply to Missouri, to Ferguson, to the Wilson/Brown case or not CP?

Obviously you don't have a CLUE what the sunshine law is. I linked to it cause you're apparently too lazy to provide cites for your goofy claims. Now, with that link, can you please show me the section that required Wilson to write a report "on paper"?

Thanks

[robrecht]

Well, since it is law that incident reports must be written on paper then the video example is a moot point, and as i already made clear a blank dated incident report can always be filled in at a later date than the one recorded. There is no interpretation needed for the law which says incident reports need be on paper and available to the public.

It is in no way a moot point when speaking about statements being on the record being able to impeach a witness. Obviously, there is room for interpretion or this would not have gone to a judge and the ACLU would not hold a different position than you.

Explain if you will in what way would revealing the officers legally required incident report filing interfere with the investigation, the prosecution, or the rights of the accused?

Simple. It could impede the investigation and the prosecution because as far as possible you do not want one witness' statement to be influenced by another's, which could happen in a way that supports or detracts from the suspect's statement, thus potentially harming the rights of the suspect or accused.

The Officer can not plead the 5th and somehow erase what he has already testified to in his report. Immediate and full disclosure of the incident report is the law and the incident report, if it was filed, can not be altered, so what purpose, since pleading the 5th is excluded, could there be in hiding it?

Already answered immediately above. I cannot tell from your statement here if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Grapski's interpretation of the significance of the 5th amendment.

Immediate and full disclosure of the incident report is the law ...

Immediate and full disclosure of the incident report is your interpetation of the law. Obviously the ACLU and others disagree with your interpretation. You still have not addressed why your interpretation is correct and that of others is wrong.

[Cow Poke]

Simple. It could impede the investigation and the prosecution because as far as possible you do not one witness' statement to be influenced by another's, which could happen in a way that supports or detracts from the suspect's statement, thus potentially harming the rights of the suspect or accused.

Which, of course, is why there are EXCEPTIONS to the sunshine law, as follows (bolding mine)

1. information relating to national defense,
2. related solely to internal personnel rules and practices,
3. related to accusing a person of a crime,
4. related to information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy,
5. related to investigatory records where the information would harm the proceedings,
6. related to information which would lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution, and
7. related to the agency's participation in legal proceedings.

But I'm not aware of any provision of the sunshine law which requires a police officer to file a report "on paper".

[Cow Poke]

Again, I don't profess to be an expert on Missouri law like Jimmy, but I AM part of a multi-jurisdictional IT team (as a consultant) that deals with recording audio and video for police departments. We recently (as in Tuesday morning) had a clarification by the Texas Attorney General, and I'm pretty sure it was based on federal law, that digital records are permissible as long as they are committed to physical media. In other words, you can't email a video file or audio recording, because you lose "chain of custody" control. If the records are committed to a DVD, however, that physical DVD can be time stamped, sealed in an evidence bag, and logged in and out just like any other piece of evidence.

Our own Police Department is paperless -- and they rank on the top scale of "best practices" for police departments.

Jimmy --- can you do me a favor? Can you just go ahead and link to the liberal looney left blog where you're getting these steaming piles of horsie poo, so I can read them for myself?

Or are you just making all this stuff up as you go along, like the "no mechanism to give money to the government" horsie poo?

[robrecht]

That's just your interpretation, Purple Pants; too bad you can't point to the actual legal wording of the law, you know, like black letter law in ink on an actual piece of paper.

[Cow Poke]

That's just your interpretation, Purple Pants; too bad you can't point to the actual legal wording of the law, you know, like black letter law in ink on an actual piece of paper.

I have the RED LETTER edition, I'll have you know, where the words of the Supreme Court justices are in RED!

[Teallaura]

That's just your interpretation, Purple Pants; too bad you can't point to the actual legal wording of the law, you know, like black letter law in ink on an actual piece of paper.

They wouldn't necessarily be codified - they would likely stem from court decisions as well.