Sorry for the double post, ended up just googling it. This is what I found. Let me know if you agree with this guy's conclusions. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-For-Refusing-To-Give-A-Statement?showAll=yes So if there are no real ramifications to not writing a report.... then how is anyone held accountable? I'm not expert, but this makes no sense.
As pointed out . .. cops have special rights. [Some people are MORE EQUAL than others] Rich people have this privilege too [See Rick Perry] you determine when you want to show up to be booked when you want to show up and give a statement no batterrams at your door - etc you know the things poor people don't get Police get more than poor people but less than rich people but . .. yea. . .we all equal Rocket River
I am not trying to be a pain, but not divulging pertinent information and not giving a statement or testifying are different things. I am going to assume that you just want to know what happens if Wilson refuses to speak to investigators. At that point a lot of it depends on the district attorney and in this case the attorney general. They can conceivably charge him with a crime, but it would be a difficult to prove and probably costly. Further, it would most likely mean that he will not face charges for the death of Brown. There are loopholes, and their may be precedent for the Federal government charging him for failing to cooperate and later for a more serious crime. I can tell you that it is very rare at the state level. The federal government since 9/11 seems to have no issues essentially making up law as they go and letting the court system figure it out, so no one can say for absolute certain. If Wilson is charged with a crime by the district attorney or the attorney general, then Wilson does not have to speak or discuss the case at all with authorities. He does not even need to testify at trial if he does not want to (that would be a mistake though). Ultimately, I find it very unlikely that Wilson is going to face any criminal consequences for a lack of cooperation you are perceiving. I have read nothing from any viable source that Wilson is failing to cooperate or has not given his version of events to someone. The fact that the incident report is redacted or black discussing the version of events does not mean he hasn't spoken to the Feds with his attorney present or that the authorities really even intend to compel anything further from Wilson. Concerning physicians. It is not unheard of for there to be limitied dictation of procedure gone wrong, incomplete dictation or in some circumstances no dictation. Some doctor's dictate post procedure. If an accident happens quickly, it is very possible that a physician does not even have a surgical report. Indeed, I would in many circumstances advise against a client dictating a report a day or two after a tragedy. It holds very little value and unless the physician has a documented history of failing to keep records, he is likely not facing any consequences relating ONLY to a lack of a record. I have seen doctors destroy their records after a death, falsify their records and even make a new set of records and still practice medicine.
An incident report is just a particular officer's version of events. It really can be very biased, limited or innacurate. As far as losing his job, I don't think that Wilson is worried about that, at this point he wants to avoide being killed or sent to prison. I doubt he returns to the FPD. How is writing a report "accountable"? It isn't necessarily considered factual.
I'm an idealist - we're all told to uphold maleficence first and foremost. That's really sad to me. Only had a chance to glance at the response, lecture is over. Will be back later.
This is going to blow your mind, but plenty of non-rich police are afforded the opportunity to turn themselves in for booking. But no, when the cops have to bust down your door to arrest a drug dealer, they don't give them the chance to turn themselves in at some future date.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Z3rC8VOCJHE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Interesting stuff Rocket River
Been on fires for the last month, so not as up to speed on this and other things and certainly not reading 50+ pages, so forgive me if this point has already been made. One of the first things I thought about when I noticed folks were complaining about the militarization of the police force was this from 1997: <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/-E4_wDQFky0?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/-E4_wDQFky0?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with pistols. The bank robbers had fully automatic rifles with armor piercing ammo and they wore body armor. SWAT eventually arrived and the cops also took several semi-automatic rifles from a nearby gun shop. The shootout was big news and folks couldn't believe these guys could get weapons and body armor like that. It was new and shocking. Now, it seems everyone has high-powered firearms and body armor. When the kid went into the movie theater in CO, of course he had body armor and was carrying significant firepower. Nobody seemed shocked by that at all. What a difference 15 years makes. If we insist on making everything short of howitzers available to anyone, of course the police need to militarize. I think the bank shoot-out is when that trend really started in earnest. Of course, you have to be wise about when to use it and it seems like aiming it all at the public you're supposed to serve isn't the right thing to do, but if we continue with the absurd interpretation of the 2nd Amendment we now seem to have, the militarization of police is legit. You can't make it easy for people to get this kind of firepower (and armor) and keep the cops carrying a revolver.
That is a one off incident. That one off incident has been used over and over and over again to justify nearly 20 years of military police. The first person who brought it up in this thread was me. The North Hollywood guys had illegally modified guns. "Well it could happen again". It hasn't. There hasn't been shootouts with police even close to that. You cannot change the tone and mission of your entire police force over incidents that happen once every few decades. Military tactics and relationships with an occupied public are far different than that of a police force to the public.
I Agree. Having a bunch of american citizens riot over some dead crack head should make us the laughing stock of the world. I'd be laughing at us too if I lived in another country. Having such low lifes riot like that would be a disgrace to any country.
Unlike you I find it comforting to know that I don't share the same sense humor as the North Korean dictator.
WOW! So now he is on crack??????? Rocket River rationalization much? Just go on an say he was only 3/5ths a human.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ferguson police officers begin wearing body cameras in the wake of Michael Brown shooting <a href="http://t.co/eh6cP57WN5">http://t.co/eh6cP57WN5</a> <a href="http://t.co/i7gXR7COJw">pic.twitter.com/i7gXR7COJw</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/statuses/506479632606969857">September 1, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Exactly. Reward for being a brave individual that survived an unwarranted attack from a known criminal.
