TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 So what? There have been death threats against the anonymous officer. I'd rather be on the side of the people not enabling a lynch mob. Do you feel this should be the case in all investigations, or just those involving police? If not, speak to your inconsistancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Wow. I live in a nation of !@#$ing idiots. How desperately do these dipshits need racial strife to turn every isolated incident into a national crisis. I'm not a big law & order type, but it wouldn't break my heart if they started treating these rioting and looting sons of bitches like the criminals they are. Rubber bullets would send these opportunistic pu$$ies back to their ****ty government subsidized apartments quickly enough. Edited August 14, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 14, 2014 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 Do you feel this should be the case in all investigations, or just those involving police? If not, speak to your inconsistancies. I think common sense should prevail. Knowingly releasing anyone's name when it involves death threats is irresponsible. If these idiots are rioting and looting for 4 days what makes you think they won't kill the officer if they knew who he is? Let's give time for the facts to come out before making a person go into hiding to protect his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 I think common sense should prevail. Knowingly releasing anyone's name when it involves death threats is irresponsible. If these idiots are rioting and looting for 4 days what makes you think they won't kill the officer if they knew who he is? Let's give time for the facts to come out before making a person go into hiding to protect his life. So are you advocating a change in the law, or are you advocating not following the law? Further, what they do when a regular citizen is in actual danger after their name is released (which is public policy), they can be forcably taken into police custody for their own protection. Why should a different standard be applied here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 14, 2014 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 So are you advocating a change in the law, or are you advocating not following the law? Further, what they do when a regular citizen is in actual danger after their name is released (which is public policy), they can be forcably taken into police custody for their own protection. Why should a different standard be applied here? What law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 To Name and to Name Not by Kevin . Williamson Here’s a microcosm of the relationship between state and citizen: We know the names of the nine people charged with felonies in the Ferguson looting, but not the name of the police officer at the center of the case. The government is all discretion when it comes to one of its own. True, there have been threats against the police officer in question — but if any municipal institution is positioned to defend its members, it is the police. And are there no threats against private individuals who are arrested or investigated? Are there no threats against people in prisons? Police departments and prosecutors regularly release discretionary information that has serious consequences for the lives of private individuals, including those who have not been charged with or convicted of any crime. If we take seriously the idea that political power ultimately resides in the people, then for the people to do their job and oversee the activities of the representatives they have elected to take care of their affairs, they need information. They are entitled to know the details of the case, including the identity of the officer and the details of his professional history. It is wrong to withhold that information. The investigation of the shooting cannot be evaluated in the absence of that knowledge. The behavior of the Ferguson and St. Louis County police in this matter is illuminating. They are ridiculously militarized suburban police dressed up like characters from Starship Troopers and pointing rifles at people from atop armored vehicles, i.e. the worst sort of mall ninjas. They are arresting people for making videos of them at work in public places, which people are legally entitled to do, a habit they share with many other police departments. Protecting life, liberty, and property — which is the job of the police — does not requiring scooping people up for making phone videos; in fact, it requires not scooping people up for making phone videos. These confrontations are a reminder of the eternal question: Who? Whom? Who is to protect and serve whom here? Is government our servant or our master? A police department habitually conducting its business in secrecy and arresting people for documenting its public actions is more of a threat to liberty and property than those nine looters are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 To Name and to Name Not by Kevin . Williamson Here’s a microcosm of the relationship between state and citizen: We know the names of the nine people charged with felonies in the Ferguson looting, but not the name of the police officer at the center of the case. The day those nine people are at risk for vigilante justice is the day that becomes a valid comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 The day those nine people are at risk for vigilante justice is the day that becomes a valid comparison. and you know that they aren't ? Really Tom. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 14, 2014 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 and you know that they aren't ? Really Tom. . Highly unlikely that those nine individuals are at risk for vigilante justice since they are most likely part of the potential lynch mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 and you know that they aren't ? Really Tom. . How many death threats have they received? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 What law? I misspoke. What I meant to ask was: Are you advocating a change to the law restricting the names of people involved in investigations from being released to the public and media? If not, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 14, 2014 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) I misspoke. What I meant to ask was: Are you advocating a change to the law restricting the names of people involved in investigations from being released to the public and media? If not, why? No. I'm advocating the use of common sense. I would expect there to be police department manuals that would have directives in them that state something like this: All persons arrested for a felony shall have their names released to the public. Not all persons suspected of a crime shall have their names released to the public. The Police Commissioner shall make the final determination on the release of the name based on public safety and/or suspects safety. Edited August 14, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 No. I'm advocating the use of common sense. I would expect there to be police department manuals that would have directives in them that state something like this: All persons arrested for a felony shall have their names released to the public. Not all persons suspected of a crime shall have their names released to the public. The Police Commissioner shall make the final determination on the release of the name based on public safety and/or suspects safety. You're putting an unusual amount of faith in the executive branch of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 How many death threats have they received? I have no idea. but if they looted my store, and his name was known. I would be ready to threaten. You theorize possibilities quite often here. These people may be facing some type of retaliation also, w don't know. Of course, none of this was the point of the article anyway. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 but if they looted my store, and his name was known. I would be ready to threaten.. Then you're an idiot. And a threat from one person is quite different than the situation currently going on in Ferguson, Mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Then you're an idiot. And a threat from one person is quite different than the situation currently going on in Ferguson, Mo. Good God. Of course its different. You are reading much more into my reply then is there The point of the article was that the policeman's name should be released, even if there are threats, Tom picked the first line to dispute, saying that the nine arrested for looting did not have threats against them. I disagreed, saying that we couldn't know that for sure. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) Then you're an idiot. And a threat from one person is quite different than the situation currently going on in Ferguson, Mo. Mmmm.... What's going on there, given multiple seperate eyewitness reports, seems, very much, to cast the officer as a murderer. As such, if there is a real fear that he my be victimized by vigilante justice, he should be placed in police protective custody, just like we do with every other suspect. The fact that this is not being investigated as a crime speaks volumes. But you go right on ahead, trusting the government. Edited August 14, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 The fact that this is not being investigated as a crime speaks volumes. It's not being investigated? Because they haven't released his name? They usually don't release information relevant to an investigation during an investigation (see "Stewart, Tony"). For the very simple reason that they don't want to !@#$ up the investigation or any subsequent hearings (see "Zimmerman, George"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 No. I'm advocating the use of common sense. I would expect there to be police department manuals that would have directives in them that state something like this: All persons arrested for a felony shall have their names released to the public. Not all persons suspected of a crime shall have their names released to the public. The Police Commissioner shall make the final determination on the release of the name based on public safety and/or suspects safety. Discretionary power to the police? Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 Mmmm.... What's going on there, given multiple seperate eyewitness reports, seems, very much, to cast the officer as a murderer. Yeah, and yet in this day and age there isn't a single cell phone video. Forgive me for my skepticism. As such, if there is a real fear that he my be victimized by vigilante justice, he should be placed in police protective custody, just like we do with every other suspect. The threats are not just against the officer, they are also against all the members of his family. Additionally, there have been threats against other Ferguson officers and their families. People have been using the various avenues available to them to get information on public servants and posting the information on various social media websites. No lynch mob should ever be fed. The fact that this is not being investigated as a crime... Got any actual proof of that? But you go right on ahead, trusting the government. I think I've accomplished virtually everything here at PPP. I'm now being accused of "trusting" the government. That's awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts