In other words, he doesn't want to self incriminate so he's being advised to plead the 5th. The problem is that it's his job to file a report in incidents like this. He should have been terminated rather that put on administrative lead the second he refused to tell his version of events. How is this not obstruction? I'm a medical student, not a lawyer. This is your forte. Everything I do has to be documented, whether it incriminates me or not. It's my job and responsibility as a healthcare professional. I'd assume police are under similar statutes by law?
you are not reading his posts are you You are assuming things SHOULD be done one way when it fact it really doesn't.
I read his post. Read mine. What you just posted contributed absolutely nothing to this conversation.
What are the laws and procedures regarding self-incrimination and an officer filing the police report in situations like this? I work in IT so law isn't anywhere close to my field either. Wouldn't the 5th amendment supersede laws on obstructing an investigation?
no, you are the one that just keeps harping on him not immediately filing a police report and should be terminated because of it when Nook clearly explained to you that police report are often delayed in a complicated case like this one He even told you that when there's the case is investigated on a federal level, he is advised by his attorneys to keep his mouth shut to the public which is standard procedure.
I'm not "harping on him". My post is asking for clarification. Again, I don't see how anything you've said in response to me is relevant. This is exactly what I'm wondering also. That definitely isn't the case in healthcare. The fifth amendment applies in the courtroom. It doesn't excuse providers from documenting what occurred/complications etc. This would be grounds for losing your license.
No kidding that isn't the case in healthcare. Why are you comparing the medical field to the law enforcement field? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
It isn't a matter of self incriminating. It is a matter of having something said taken out of context or being used against you. There is a reason an attorney will almost always tell his client to not give a statement when a fatality is involved. At this point we do not even know if he has given a statement. All we know is that an incident report has not been composed by him. As a medical student, just wait and see what happens when there are medical malpractice suits filed against you and claims of criminal homicide. You will compose reports and medical records concerning treatments but it is very unlikely you will file/record a POST occurrence report. I have represented physicians at Rush Hospital and numerous other hospitals that did NOT dictate anything of any sort once a tragedy happens. In fact, I advise them not to. There is absolutely no benefit to doing so. At that point the matter is investigated and the physician is represented by counsel, the hospital as well.
1) You have no idea that he hasn't give his version of events nor do you have any idea when he may or may not have given them 2) Depending on the nature of a shooting, it is very possible that an officer doesn't even get to return to his desk following a shoot to fill out a report. The shooting happens, he's as the scene, his rep shows up and tells him to keep his mouth shut, he goes back to the station and is put on leave pending an investigation. He never even sat down at his desk to file a report. He'll then be interviewed by IA in the presence of his representation and he can give his side of events there. Edit: In this case, he was taken from the scene to the hospital. He can't fill out a report there. He probably went home from there. The next morning he may have reported to work and been put on leave the moment he got to the station. Very plausible scenario where he never refused to tell his side of the story, never refused to fill out a report but also never had a chance to.
There is absolutely no evidence that the officer is obstructing an investigation. As far as I know, no one has even made that claim. It is very likely that the officer has already spoken to investigators about the shooting and has purposely been removed from the situation because no one wants it to look like he has access of any sort to the investigation. I am sure that someone has already spoken to Wilson, or at a minimum has attempted to. Once their investigation is complete, they will attempt to speak to him again. Depending on their findings, and the evidence, a decision will be made as to what to do with the officer. At this point administrative leave is proper, because they have not completed their investigation. Hypothetically, if they fire Wilson and then conclude it was justifiable homocide, they will have wrongly terminated him and likely be sued. Also, it isn't really a matter of self incrimination. Innocent people all the time are told not to give a written statement or agree to an interview. This is all a process and I have no problem with them taking their time because we all want it to be done as well as possible. The FEDS also are involved which is good at helping the family get a fair investigation, but it also slows the process.
To me it's simply that if you've already decided the officer is guilty then you believe it is taking too long and you see every thing as confirmation of guilt. It's like Lois Lerner. Just because she won't testify before Congress doesn't mean she is hiding something about the IRS scandal. Republicans say she is hiding something, Democrats say it's her right.
This. Look no further than the headlines from last week. It is reported that Wilson went to the ER and x-rays were taken, but there was no broken/fractured orbital bone. CNN: "Injuries to Wilson grossly exaggerated" FOX: "Wilson badly beaten." With the same limited information, both news sources came up with drastically different spin because both networks have viewers that have alread made up their mind.
What's interesting is both of those headlines can theoretically be correct at the same time, yet they portray an entirely different story, intentionally, of the evolving narrative. It is possible that he was badly beaten but that the reports of broken bones were exaggerated. It is clear however from the headlines that Fox is presenting him as a beaten officer and so a potentially justified officer while CNN is playing to the guilty narrative.
I'm in a lecture atm so this may be a bit confusing to read. Notinmyhouse: I'm not attempting to equate healthcare to law enforcement, I was just using a personal anecdote to explain what action liability requires from my frame of reference. It's why I used a disclaimer, "from my experience" - I was using my own assumptions and was asking Nook to clarify as he's a lawyer. Nook: I'm making an assumption here, but provided that Wilson at no point in the past two weeks has recounted his version of events would that not provide him with an avenue to escape culpability? He knows whether what he did was lawful; being allowed to abstain from providing a statement allows his narrative to change to account for new findings in the investigation.... I'm going to use my experience again. What you said regarding dictation directly contradicts what I've been taught. The primary (or your resident/1st asst/PA) are required to dictate immediately post-op regardless of outcome specifically to prevent the hypothetical situation I mentioned earlier. Just as an aside you said someone may have at least "attempted" to speak to him. If he plead the fifth rather than giving his PoV, where would he stand legally? Is there an established precedent for situations like this or is it a legal gray area? The reason I ask is because the ACLU filed (and won) a lawsuit to force the incident report's release initially and the PD's response to the missing information was that questions about the report’s missing information “are beyond the scope of what [their] team can respond to.” Now the ACLU is filing another lawsuit because the information missing apparently violates Missouri's Sunshine law. http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-rele...port-on-death-of-michael-brown-221844542.html This leads me to believe that Wilson likely hasn't provided a statement yet. Justxxyank: You're right, each network provides it's own spin to the facts, but that's life. They're catering to different audiences with different ideologies. Again you're right, people do pre-judge (me included). Based off of what I've seen, something is off in Ferguson. I understand that it's not up to me whether he's guilty or not. That's not important. My point is that if he (and the other Ferguson officers who arrived shortly after the incident) indeed haven't provided any recount of what happened that night to anyone but a lawyer, it should be grounds for his/their termination. That's a big if though - everything I've said is dependent on an assumption. Police need to be held accountable, just like anyone else. PS - I don't hate the police.
You started off by saying that Wilson was guilty, so you obviously already have a strong opinion, which is fine but don't back track on it. You also said that Wilson did not provide a statement, the article you provided says that portions were redacted and left blank. That does not mean that Wilson did or did not provide a statement or play a part in the incident report. All it means is that the incident report redacted information. There can be a variety of reasons that the police redacted parts of the report (which isn't uncommon, you usually have to go in on a motion with the court). The ACLU alleges that the response to the subpoena from the ACLU is incomplete and does not require with statute and it will be worked out in the court system. Why would they redact the information? Variety of reasons, including not wanting all the information made public prior to the investigation being complete. I have seen it happen in Cook County before. Your premise that it some how equates with guilty is a stretch, for all we know the PD and their lawyers made the decision to redact information provided by Wilson. At this point it really means nothing concerning the guilt or innocence of Wilson or Brown.
Didn't mean to hit submit. Sorry for the double post. I said I was making the assumption that he didn't make a statement based on the wording of the Ferguson spokesman in that report. I understand that it's just an assumption and may not be the case. I explained why I was making the assumption. The questions I (and Baumher) had for you were based on that assumption, and you still have not answered them. Rather you've explained why that assumption is probably not the case and why leave was the appropriate choice in this situation. Twice now.
You called the cop dirty..... You then stated that it isn't up to you whether he is innocent or guilty... Perhaps I took it out of context but it sure sounded like you were back tracking. All I am saying is that the incident report was/is redacted and it is dangerous to read too much into that one way or the other. There are many motivations and procedures going on that do not make sense taken out of context.
What questions do you want answered that I have not answered? Your assumption is a big "if" BTW. You first stated that the officer did not file an incident report... not it appears that an incident report was filed but that it is highly redacted or incomplete. The ACLU believes it is a violation of statute and it will be settled in the court system. No one from the federal government or the FPD has claimed that Wilson has willfully hindrered the investigation or violated the law. Indeed, the ACLU hasn't stated that Wilson has hindered the investigation. Also, the 5th Amendment does not apply at this point as Wilson hasn't been charged with anything, it is still an investigation.
I understand that it's a big assumption. That's all we can do given the circumstances though. I did call the cop (and the department) dirty. I also said that I judge just like anyone else and that something is off in Ferguson. I don't know if he's guilty or not. That's why I pointed to the pending trial immediately afterwards. My mistake - he filed an incident report. It contained only the date/time/location of the incident: https://twitter.com/aclu_mo/status/502201858098614272/photo/1 What I posted was worded poorly. He (or someone in the department) technically filed one, but it was useless. The equivalent of putting your name on a test and submitting it. My question is similar to Baumer's: If Wilson did indeed refuse to divulge the pertinent info after speaking to legal counsel, what are the legal ramifications? Is there an established precedent for situations like this or is it a legal gray area? I used the healthcare anecdote because dictation in essence is providing a recorded statement immediately after a procedure. Providers are required to dictate as part of the job. I've been taught to dictate post-op regardless of outcome. Not to refuse in order to not incriminate myself. Logically speaking, being allowed to do so would have crazy ramifications. Anytime there's a slight chance of prosecution - don't dictate. That defeats the purpose of dictation in the first place: to ensure the safety of the patient and see if any wrong doing occurred.
