|
Bel Shazar posted:I can't speak for the officers on the scene, but the ones that erased the footage qualify for Accessory after the Fact. He was talking about the officers at the scene, the BK footage is a different issue. AreWeDrunkYet posted:don't the police have any sort of responsibility to arrest someone when they clearly see a murder happening in front of them? I realize police don't have any specific duty to protect an individual, but surely some laws are being broken if police officers watch someone pump bullets into someone laying on the ground and their response is "eh, gently caress it" rather than taking action to arrest the individual. No, not at all.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, not at all. Fair enough, though it is disconcerting that the police have no legal obligation to intervene if they witness a murder. Most of the case law I have seen about this removes that responsibility for some secondary effect - failing to enforce a restraining order or failing to respond to a call that then results in someone dying. Giving police the option to ignore a murder they witness seems like it would be taking that another step. I assume they at least have a professional obligation though? Why wouldn't they have been fired for ignoring a murder happening right in front of their faces? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
You see, police don't actually have to do anything. But they're essential for society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Has the manager actually provided names or badge numbers, or have any of the officers present come forward to say they were in Burger King? Even if the footage was unambiguously erased, it's hard to file charges against "unknown John Doe 1-5."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Has the manager actually provided names or badge numbers, or have any of the officers present come forward to say they were in Burger King? Even if the footage was unambiguously erased, it's hard to file charges against "unknown John Doe 1-5." If only there was some sort of department designed to investigate crimes, even in cases where the criminals don't come forward and give their names.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Imagine if every investigation of a crime ended at "well that guy in the tape isn't wearing a name tag, I guess he's outwitted us."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Fair enough, though it is disconcerting that the police have no legal obligation to intervene if they witness a murder. Most of the case law I have seen about this removes that responsibility for some secondary effect - failing to enforce a restraining order or failing to respond to a call that then results in someone dying. Giving police the option to ignore a murder they witness seems like it would be taking that another step. There's an established procedure for investigating officer involved shootings, which from what I can tell was followed (except for whatever happened at burger king), that's what their professional obligation would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's an established procedure for investigating officer involved shootings, which from what I can tell was followed (except for whatever happened at burger king), that's what their professional obligation would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Don't forget the witness intimidation. what witness intimidation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:Imagine if every investigation of a crime ended at "well that guy in the tape isn't wearing a name tag, I guess he's outwitted us."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:what witness intimidation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's an established procedure for investigating officer involved shootings, which from what I can tell was followed (except for whatever happened at burger king), that's what their professional obligation would be. In what world is the established procedure for dealing with a man who shot someone walking away from him then continued to dump his magazine into the body now twitching on the ground not immediately neutralizing and arresting the shooter? e: "Officer involved shooting". Are you implying that if it was Van Dyke who was shot 16 times including a bunch of shots while he was on the ground, McDonald wouldn't have been immediately arrested (assuming he survived)? Or are you just using a passive euphemism for "cop shot someone" to downplay the circumstances? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's an established procedure for investigating officer involved shootings, which from what I can tell was followed (except for whatever happened at burger king), that's what their professional obligation would be. Sure, it might be "established procedure" for investigating cops killing people to tell witnesses to leave the area and not take any of their information. However, if this had been a killer who didn't wear their uniform, they probably would have taken witness statements or at least taken down their information for later contact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
The police officers who went into the BK would probably not be hard to identify given that the pool of suspects is solely members of one police force who were on duty and at the scene that night. They could just have the BK manager see if they could ID them. Not the hardest investigation, you'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Burger King has been pretty adamant that the video was deleted after giving it to the police so normally I would think they would go after whoever would have been the most likely to be in that area at that time and day and crosscheck that with the witnesses who gave them access to the tapes in order to try and catch blatantly illegal destruction of evidence. I mean I could be totally wrong and they've spent the last year trying to build up a case against those specific officers but I'm not really confident in that. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Has the manager actually provided names or badge numbers, or have any of the officers present come forward to say they were in Burger King? Even if the footage was unambiguously erased, it's hard to file charges against "unknown John Doe 1-5." Look, this just happened Oct. 2014. It's completely unreasonable to expect investigators to have figured out this whodunit in a year. The best thing we can do is investigate to the fullest extent we can and maybe our children or our children's children will have enough time to bring the perp to justice. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:He was talking about the officers at the scene, the BK footage is a different issue. You're correct; I was referring to officers at the scene. I don't know the precise legal term (a running refrain in this thread!), but I have a strong suspicion that if the situation were reversed, and several of McDonald's associates were present while van Dyke was shot repeatedly, they would have been arrested for *something*. Whatever that something is, that's what I am asking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:You're correct; I was referring to officers at the scene. I don't know the precise legal term (a running refrain in this thread!), but I have a strong suspicion that if the situation were reversed, and several of McDonald's associates were present while van Dyke was shot repeatedly, they would have been arrested for *something*. Whatever that something is, that's what I am asking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Well hold up, the BK evidence might not have been useful anyhow, unless Burger King had a specialist that could confirm the footage was indeed a recording
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:Burger King has been pretty adamant that the video was deleted after giving it to the police so normally I would think they would go after whoever would have been the most likely to be in that area at that time and day and crosscheck that with the witnesses who gave them access to the tapes in order to try and catch blatantly illegal destruction of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Even assuming that the manager could pick the four or five (he's not sure) guys out of a line up, and none of them had alibis, "a guy says you were there when a crime we have no physical or documentary evidence of allegedly occurred" is not a strong start to an interview. The fact that some of the tape is missing does not by itself prove someone tampered with it. Sounds like a detail that should be decided at a trial to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Yeah we wouldn't want to convict someone based on testimony and no evidence, that sort of thing is unheard of in Chicago. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-burge-guilty-plea-dismissed-met-20150812-story.html But this was overturned after 24 years so I guess the system works. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/11/burger-king-confirms-chicago-police The District Manager for Burger King is very adamant that they deleted the video and I would assume there were multiple witnesses on staff at that time, computer logs, and possibly other clues to their identities they left behind in that store. I'm pretty sure they could build a case against these guys without needing a written confession and a videotape of them doing the crime that was zoomed in on their ID badges if the will was actually there to investigate this crime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Sounds like a detail that should be decided at a trial to me. Radish posted:The District Manager for Burger King is very adamant that they deleted the video and I would assume there were multiple witnesses on staff at that time, computer logs, and possibly other clues to their identities they left behind in that store. I'm pretty sure they could build a case against these guys without needing a written confession and a videotape of them doing the crime that was zoomed in on their ID badges if the will was actually there to investigate this crime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Radish posted:http://crooksandliars.com/2015/11/burger-king-confirms-chicago-police Imagine if "officer involved shooting" meant the cop got shot. They'd have fingerprinted the entire room, canvased the block, and charged with accessory to murder anyone that had destroyed video evidence of the police officer being shot. But since "officer involved shooting" means cop shot someone else, they get to pretend its impossible to investigate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
If only the car that captured the dashcam turned a little more it would still be a good shoot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Fun fact I just learned, the prosecutor who took a year to charge Van Dyke for killing McDonald is the same one who purposefully mischarged the officer who killed Rekia Boyd when he fired indiscriminately into a crowd so that he wouldn't face any consequences for killing someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Hmm if only there was some sort of investigation into this alleged crime maybe we could have some facts to bounce around and maybe have a trial based on that. Sure is weird that the officers went through a bunch of footage before an investigation was even opened and the staff at the store are so sure that footage was deleted they are willing to make public statements to that fact, oh well we don't have facts and there is no way to get them so we have to assume nothing happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
A gun was fired at the 4th Precinct Shut Down in Minneapolis, again.quote:Shots were fired early Wednesday morning near the scene of a Minneapolis protest for the second night in a row. One man was arrested, but there were no reports of injuries, police said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/25/shots-fired-at-minneapolis-protest-2nd-night-in-a-row/
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Wow that event is like a white supremacist honeypot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Minnesota is racist and segregated as gently caress. We just don't talk about it, because it's impolite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Fun fact I just learned, the prosecutor... purposefully mischarged the officer who killed Rekia Boyd when he fired indiscriminately into a crowd so that he wouldn't face any consequences for killing someone. It's funny though, because A Fancy Bloke and Devor were insisting back on page 346 that the cop who shot Tamir Rice should be charged with manslaughter, and this is what happened when a prosecutor tried that strategy IRL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
There's a subtle difference in that at least my pleas for manslaughter were a desire to see him charged for loving ANYTHING rather than a murder charge
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You have no real basis for making this allegation, except that someone planning to run against her in the next election suggested it. Didn't she charge a similar case as murder? I think I remember something like that. e: Looked it up, Miguel Adorno was the name of the guy. Fired behind him into a crowd, charged with attempted murder and got 15 years for it. lfield fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You have no real basis for making this allegation, except that someone planning to run against her in the next election suggested it. Isn't it the case where she charged it involuntary manslaughter and the trial judge's ruling was "it's blindingly obvious this was mischarged, so not guilty"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You have no real basis for making this allegation, except that someone planning to run against her in the next election suggested it. You're right, she could just be grossly incompetent. Whew, what a relief!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
From the executive producer of FOX 9 News: Turns out the person who shot the protesters in Minneapolis was the friend of a cop! https://twitter.com/Seth_Kaplan/status/669641224198844416
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Friend of a cop doesn't mean much to me, unless that earns him special treatment that wouldn't be afforded to non-friends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:In what world is the established procedure for dealing with a man who shot someone walking away from him then continued to dump his magazine into the body now twitching on the ground not immediately neutralizing and arresting the shooter? Its not a euphemism, when a cop shoots someone its not treated the same because cops have to shoot people sometimes as part of their job, I'm not sure why this is hard/controversial. Grundulum posted:You're correct; I was referring to officers at the scene. I don't know the precise legal term (a running refrain in this thread!), but I have a strong suspicion that if the situation were reversed, and several of McDonald's associates were present while van Dyke was shot repeatedly, they would have been arrested for *something*. Whatever that something is, that's what I am asking about. They wouldn't be, being a witness to a crime is not a crime. Is there something they did that you think amounts to accessory to murder or is this just a "gently caress those guys for being cops" type of crime?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:From the executive producer of FOX 9 News: Which earned him getting snitched out by the cop. Sounds like the system worked in that one case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:From the executive producer of FOX 9 News: The cop immediately turned him in and swore out a report, so, great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:58
|
|