what did the "prosecutors" have to say to the grand jury about this conflicting evidence?
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
in his? in HIS? they just fucking came out and admitted that the prosecutor's case was wilson's case. no ifs ands or buts. 'the evidence' they presented was meant to be exculpatory. they allowed wilson to testify, at length, while getting a gentle hand-job from the coaxing prosecutor, who reminded him at the end to stick anything in that he might have forgotten about how scary michael brown was. you know, like that they had discussed but he hadn't produced, just maybe? at a jury trial, it's far from clear wilson's lawyer would let him testify. if he did, he wouldn't do it for two fucking hours with an attorney sucking his dick the whole time; he'd face withering cross examination.
how would witness 40, the awesome soviet-era 'I have come to negro neighborhood to better understanding your cultures despite I am racist in past, when suddenly I am witness to serious crime!' do on the stand? maybe not so good. the dude who was three blocks away and sure brown had a gun? he didn't correct his testimony to go with the facts at all, and thus claims to have seen the very start of wilson returning fire at a man who had already fired a few audible shots. would that guy do well on the stand in a jury trial? nnnnnoooooo.
all the grand jury needed to think was, could another jury of our peers look at this evidence and possibly convict wilson of a crime? then if so there should be a trial. THAT'S THEIR FUCKING JOB. the prosecutor in the grand jury situation is supposed to convince the grand jury to indict by presenting evidence about the crime that could be compelling evidence of guilt to another jury. THAT'S HIS JOB ALSO. he is decidedly not meant to snow the grand jury members with conflicting evidence of uncertain and unequal merit, tell them to take each one at face value, allow the accused to testify at length and question him in the most sympathetic manner conceivable, and then tell the jurt that they are obligated not to indict if they do not find probable cause that the accused committed both the crimes of which he was accused.
any talk to the contrary is the same bullshit that would tell us a dude would have gotten a fair trial after busting up the chifforobe whether atticus finch was there or not, because wasn't there a jury of his fellow citizens, and an elected prosecutor, and wasn't there first-hand evidence and testimony from the injured party, and didn't everyone dot all the 'i's' and cross the 't's' on the order that sent him to parchman? not just merely similar bullshit. the same bullshit. a smoke-screen of legal posturing that illustrates the merits of our great legal system, and the equality of law afforded to all--here we even graciously grant that up till now all has meant some, but that's in the process of being corrected, and if chance fates it that a poor black man should get shit on again while justice works itself out, that is bad luck but no fair criticism of a policy--when only some people have access to the workings of the laws, and others are always and only mangled in the gears. FUCK. THIS. BULLSHIT.
You know something ms. alamida, entitlement is bad.
But no way I can watch four or five minute of George Snuffleupagus^ in that interview much less 45 minutes. From the few seconds I watched I could see he was using his "show me where on the doll it hurt when you shot Michael Brown" voice. (To be fair that I think that may be his only voice*.)
*Well, except that time when the uppity presidential candidate had listened to a bad man talk. It was George who weighed in with the priceless "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" question at that crapfest in Philadelphia (which led to Journolist). That one actually managed to rile up the usurper who somewhat testily pointed out that Jeremiah Wright had been a marine**.
**My bet is that if George had asked that question of a Repub candidate with a similar "pastor problem" he would have lost his job at ABC.
I'm thinking that a bunch of mannered phonies meticulously sifting through the debris via the internet is unlikely to advance the cause of justice, but so be it.
Right, I guess I should have done that as Opinionated Holden Caulfield.
If they had indicted the prosecutor running the show would have been McCullogh again, right? So I don't know why Al assumes all these people wouldn't have gotten a second handjob at trial.
"which is kind of like finding a negative"
WTF?
8: I confess that I had difficulty parsing those sentences.
Yeah, its certainly more difficult to parse transcribed spoken words, as opposed to written words.
But my reading of his intention was to analogize the conditions needed to send the case on to the jury with the widely known logical impossibility of "proving a negative." He played a rhetorical trick by softening the phrase to "finding a negative" - maybe because plausible deniability - but the implication that it brings to mind is still there. And he's a prosecutor so he knows that, and its likely quite intentional.
Never mind that making that argument is the exact opposite of what a prosecutor should be doing.
11: That was exactly my reaction -- "To indict Wilson you'd have to prove a negative."
I don't see the problem. I had a perfect 0 and 126 record when I was a prosecutor.
The extent the prosecution went to tank this case is impressive enough that it makes me think that while they almost certainly wouldn't have gone to the grand jury if people hadn't been watching them closely it wasn't because they thought there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Yes, someone said that in the last thread- a case that really was weak wouldn't need such a dedicated effort to tank it.
I keep thinking about what Darren Wilson's fellow police would be inclined to say to him about that "I felt like a five-year-old" line. I mean, would he not be mocked mercilessly? You felt like a fucking FIVE YEAR OLD?
The "mistaken" instructions to the grand jury about Missouri law regarding police shootings were also a nice touch.
Well, they say a prosecutor can get a grand jury to exonerate a ham sandwich, if he wants to.
You felt like a fucking FIVE YEAR OLD?
Well, if they thought he meant it...
In that vein, and since no one seems inclined to watch the video: Wilson is a big dude. He's not a stringbean.
And he is one exceedingly well-coached dude. He's clearly spent the past couple of months being coached and rehearsing story; it's no surprise at all that once he was allowed to tell his story sympathetically and at length, they didn't indict him.
Also, he doesn't even realize that "demon" is a loaded word. Implicit bias, how the heck are ya?
Was TNR right in saying that under Missouri and a lot of states' law, once self-defense is raised in court, that claim specifically must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict? If so, that's fucked up.
That is right in more states than not. I was surprised by that when I found it out on the Zimmerman case; what I recall learning in law school as the general rule, that a defendant had the burden of production and proof by preponderance of the evidence on affirmative defenses like self-defense, is now not the most common rule by a long shot.
That "finding a negative" is infuriating. But I'd love to hear that this is how justice works.
20: is that not usually the case? Don't we generally require the defendant to be shown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which would imply disproving beyond a reasonable doubt their specific defense? Or am I messing up the quantifiers somehow?
Oh--things apply different to "affirmative" defenses. Sometimes. Gotcha. That makes more sense.
Not my area; I literally learned most of what I know when I was arguing about Zimmerman. But what I recall from law school on the rationale for the preponderance of the evidence standard for defenses like self-defense, is that to even raise such a defense, you have to admit to having committed an act that would generally be criminal: in this case, killing a man. So it is reasonable that the burden shift toward the defendant to explain their confessedly at least questionable act.
That really does make a lot of sense. Thank you. That states would change that is bizarre, even if you assume that it's by motivated by racism or other bad design. It seems like something that would eventually cut both ways...Enh, unless you assume you can rely on juries being racist or whatever. Hrm.
Number of times Michael Brown's marijuana use got mentioned by prosecutors: 44.
And it gets especially fucked up when you layer such laws with harsh minimum sentencing laws, in a world where the plausibility of self defense to evaluators (prosecutors, judges, juries) is racialized. So you get the fates of Wilson and Zimmerman contrasting with that of Marissa Alexander.
could another jury of our peers look at this evidence and possibly convict wilson of a crime? then if so there should be a trial.
The standard is probable cause, not possible cause. McCullogh is an idiot but the witness testimony and physical evidence on this case simply do not get us to "Wilson probably committed an act of murder when he shot Michael Brown."
contrasting with that of Marissa Alexander.
She is a really terrible example for the point you're making.
Number of times Michael Brown's marijuana use got mentioned by prosecutors: 44.
I was just stuck in a room where CNN was on. Between Black Friday WalMart riots, they were discussing "what is 'wax' and why was the prosecutor telling the jury about Michael Brown's use thereof."
28- That black guy (Corey something?) that Radley Balko got off of death row might make a better example.
I guess it's Cory Maye. Still less racist than you.
The standard is probable cause, not possible cause.
Not when they're trying to railroad some anarchist, it's not.
The person who said Corey Haim is the most racist of all.
Uh oh, does that mean they're going to investigate anyone who ever had a connection to the SCA? Not that I, um, know anyone who, er, would fit that description.
Bunch of accessories after the belly dance.
Why aren't the SCA leaders condemning his terrible acts?
36 is amazing. Also, Ray Rice, suspension overturned! Philly picked up Vick after that dog fiasco, who do we think will snag Rice? And do we believe Shia Lebeouf?
Shia LaBeouf: One woman who came with her boyfriend, who was outside the door when this happened, whipped my legs for ten minutes and then stripped my clothing and proceeded to rape me... There were hundreds of people in line when she walked out with dishevelled hair and smudged lipstick. It was no good, not just for me but her man as well. On top of that my girl was in line to see me, because it was Valentine's Day and I was living in the gallery for the duration of the event - we were separated for five days, no communication. So it really hurt her as well, as I guess the news of it travelled through the line. When she came in she asked for an explanation, and I couldn't speak, so we both sat with this unexplained trauma silently. It was painful.
36 et seq.: I have long predicted this day: all the more reason to beware the uprising-and-then-quickly-sitting-back-down of the bathrobe-and-long-jorts-wearing-Kevin-Smith-following neckbeard peoples.
Burden of proof for defences is a fascinating area because it's something that's actually quite recent - remember, Woolmington is only 1935 - and so it's really variable even across very similar jurisdictions & even between enactments.
I took it he was trying to tell them they needed to prove a negative. on account of he was an asshole, like I mentioned.
Certainly no one could prove he's not an asshole.
I've been thinking about what I'd put on a hypothetical mandatory national checklist for law enforcement. Here's what I have so far:
1. Officers are subject to automatic, immediate blood/toxicology screenings after any shooting incident.
2. Departments are legally required to submit standardized data on officer-involved shootings to a national repository on a monthly basis.
3. Officers are required to summon medical assistance immediately after shooting a person, and to provide such assistance themselves to the greatest extent possible.
4. Law enforcement training academies are mandated to provide as much training in de-escalation, hour-for-hour, as they do in use-of-force and firearms instruction. This should include detailed case studies of successful instances of disarmament.
Thoughts? What am I missing? What are the unintended consequences of the above?
Make them wear polka dot uniforms with rainbow suspenders, and see if they take themselves seriously then.
Also, make some kind of cotter pin that the officer has to pull through their nipple in order to fire their weapon. If you are in danger of life or limb--or anyone else is--it's a no brainer.
The NYC academy should be fired en masse, based on the exposure they've created for the city.
49- And make firefighters put out fires with peanut butter instead of water?
48: disarm the police? Except for specialist firearms units, obviously. Let them carry pepper, tasers, that kind of thing, but no firearms.
Body cameras for all officers on patrol.
Points 1 and 2 are pretty scary: have there been a lot of drunk policemen shooting people? Are there so many shootings that you need monthly reports to keep up to date?
52.( last - 1 ): yes.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5247504
That provides a familiar combination of comedy and horrified.
For #1, I was thinking about the reports that National Guard members are bring given "medication" to "keep them awake" that is similar to what was given to them in Iraq. Between that and steroid use, I would really like to see officers as on record of being under the influence of whatever they're taking.
Killing someone is the most extreme power we give our government. Its representatives should face the highest level of scrutiny when they exercise it.
For #2, AIUI it is not currently required that police depts submit data to the FBI (a number of jurisdictions do not). There is no national database of police-involved shootings. A widely reported stat that I haven't been able to fully analyze is that a black person is killed by security or police forces EVERY 28 HOURS in the US. We need better data.
***
Apropos of nothing, I'm pretty sure this is the only time in the history of the blog that Ajay has advocated a more radically pacifistic solution than me.
He's just being a little nationalistic, and justly proud in the state of policing over his way. (Well, they have their own problems, but they pale in comparison to ours.) That pesky Second Amendment makes disarming most cops here a hard sell.
Further to Witt's 2, I'd want a national review board for fatal shootings by police, and, if we're asking for the moon, I'd like the standard to be "could it have been handled differently" instead of "was this basically reasonable in the moment," with sanctions scaled to the degree that it could have been handled better.
Right. There's a pattern where for criminal purposes, the shooting is judged on whether it was arguably necessary at the moment it happened, and if there's an argument that it might have been, everything's just peachy. I'd like to see a whole lot of inquiry about what the shooter did to set up the situation where shooting arguably became necessary.
E.g, the Sean Bell killing, which happened when a couple of undercover cops got involved in an argument with a bachelor's party-worth of drunk guys at a strip club, waited until the drunk guys got in their car to drive away, and then tried to arrest them by shouting at them through the car window. When the driver freaked out and tried to drive away, including not stopping when an undercover cop on foot blocked the path of their car, the cops shot them.
You can argue that the driver was threatening the life of the cop who was blocking their car in. But there's no way what the cops did was anything like a sane and sensible away to arrest a bunch of drunks.
Asking police officers to justify every decision they made in arriving at a justified homicide in the line of duty is [ANALOGY WARNING] kind of like asking a rape victim what she was wearing and how much she drank and whether she flirted (while also being different in all kinds of relevant ways) [END ANALOGY]. It seems the relevant legal consideration is what was going on at the moment the crime occurred.
I'm not saying rageaholic cops should get a pass on purposefully creating deadly situations Little Bill-style. It's not really clear how to deal with that, except at the disciplinary level (ha ha).
59.1 Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit
Truly the worst analogy ever.
A) The police are employed to do this work. So legality aside, there are professional standards and sanctions etc.
B) 20 zillion other things
Aw, come on folks, it's no fun if you close ranks immediately. Couldn't some member of Judas Priest come through and explain how right I am?
I'm having trouble making sense of what the attempted analogy is: is it that both involve asking someone about something after a bad thing happened?
I really thought Little Bill was going to be the Cosby-related kids' show and was impressed you'd managed to tie those threads together. But alas!
Killing someone is the most extreme power we give our government. Its representatives should face the highest level of scrutiny when they exercise it.
This is the easy one-liner I've been looking for, for the occasional undergrad who posts something anti-Mike Brown on FB. (It really has been minimal, but.)
It's a hell of a thing, killin a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have.
I really, sincerely don't want to troll the blog, but at the same time feel obligated to give my analogy a cursory defense and uphold my non-racist and anti-cop bona fides...
The idea is just that, as I gestured to in 59, what happened before the crime isn't legally relevant and invites all kinds of culture warfare about how things ought to be. For example, I think most of us, on hearing Wilson's version of events, think he was being kind of a dick from the start and maybe deserved a bit of backtalk (if not a punch in the face). Whereas someone of a more authoritarian bent would say, "Why the hell didn't Brown obey a reasonable request from an officer of the law?"* I don't think we'll make any more headway on that point than we will on the question of whether shots ought to have been fired.
That said, I think there's a big difference between getting raped and murdering somebody, and it might indeed make my analogy somewhat problematic.
* BTW, there's a bit in This American Life's Harper High School episode that discusses walking down the middle of the street as a folkway of the urban youth. I don't think I've seen that mentioned in relation to Michael Brown.
That said, I think there's a big difference between getting raped and murdering somebody, and it might indeed make my analogy somewhat problematic.
C'mon, man. Have the courage of your convictions!
I think you're right that that's the key question, and I think it's what has to be addressed. That is, putting Wilson to one side for the moment because everyone's excited about it, back to the Sean Bell thing. There wasn't all that much reason to arrest Bell and his friends: the argument had resolved, and the reason for arrest as I recall it is that a cop said he heard someone claim to have a gun, but no one saw a gun (and there was, ultimately, no gun) and Bell and his friends were trying to leave, rather than continue, the argument.
So they were definitely fleeing when the cop tried to arrest them, but not because they were criminals, because they were frightened drunks. What made the situation deadly, at the stage before the first shot was fired, is that a cop decided to block a moving car with his body, giving the fleeing drunks two choices, total surrender, or doing something that was a threat to the cop's life. Not stopping was a threat to the cop's life, so they were fair game to be killed, and the cops killed Bell.
But that same sort of behavior looks like a pattern in a lot of police shootings: any non-compliance or disrespect makes the cop escalate the situation to the point that continued non-compliance can be interpreted as lifethreatening, and then deadly force is appropriate.
Part of the culture change that needs to happen in that in a situation where killing someone is a wildly disproportionate response to the fundamental problem that got the police involved in the first place, police have to be willing to defuse the situation even in the face of a non-compliant or disrespectful response rather than escalating to homicide. And that means under some circumstances accepting non-compliance.
And that means under some circumstances accepting non-compliance.
LB: objectively soft on crime.
Sure, we can all agree with 70.4 in principle but then sometimes you're like, "hey, kid, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" and suddenly like a demon from hell he's crushing the life from your body and what are you going to do? Not shoot him in the head?
Well, I think we can all agree that shooting helldemons is a perfectly reasonable thing for law enforcement to do.
He's clearly spent the past couple of months being coached and rehearsing story
This, and I don't understand why the transparent story-rehearsing, ass-covering and wagon-circling haven't been more openly discussed. Given the potential criminal charges and Michael Brown's inability to make his own defense, I'd guess the probability that Wilson substantially embellished his story--to the point that he believes it himself--is one hundred percent.
|| If folks want to watch some football in a real blizzard, the Montana State South Dakota State playoff game right now is as snowy as you could want. Jacks up 7-0, Cats driving. |>
As I understand it, double jeopardy doesn't attach to grand jury proceedings. Does anyone have the authority to convene another one in this case? The governor? The feds? I mean, come on.
DJ wouldn't prevent a fed indictment anyway.
But I'm not talking about a federal indictment (which would be a civil rights indictment, right?), just a charge on murder or manslaughter.
|| Second play of the game, Zach Zenner ran 45 yards for a TD. Next possession, he just ran 70 for another. Jacks up 14-6. |>
70: Similarly, police have the major advantage of multiple ranged weapons, but in this and other narratives they seem very ready to enter close quarters for no compelling reason.
|| And now it's snowing like hell here, if people want to switch to the Montana San Diego game. Griz are winning handily. 31-0 and still the 1st half. |>
Another recap of the evidence by the Times.
Officer Wilson testified, and both bruises and DNA evidence indicate, that Mr. Brown struck him and tried to wrest his gun away early in their encounter.
Didn't the medical examiner claim that the wound on Brown's hand was made from 6 to 12 inches away? This is hardly proof.
|| Game over, Jackrabbits won 47-40. Temp single digits, and dropping, throughout. Blowing snow all game long. MSU tried for an onside kick with a minute ten left on the clock, but couldn't quite get it. Zach Zenner ended up getting 252 yds rushing, 72 receiving (screen passes, so you really have to call it rushing) and 5 TDs. If he has a decent game against ND State next week -- a big if, I think they've won 3 national championships in a row? -- that'll be 3 2,000 yard seasons in a row. |>
No more masturbating to Darren Wilson in his police uniform.
Frank Conniff tweet: Darren Wilson resigning from Ferguson police force so he can spend more time killing unarmed black men with his family
His Ferguson police uniform, at least. (Calling Academi!)
any non-compliance or disrespect makes the cop escalate the situation to the point that continued non-compliance can be interpreted as lifethreatening, and then deadly force is appropriate.
Seattle's police force is currently under some now-behave monitoring after a DOJ finding against them. Last weekend a collection of incidents made it look (to at least some reporters of the mainstream local paper) as if the Seattle police are now refusing to show up when someone reports seeing their stolen property (cars, computers, bikes) and maybe claiming that they can't go because the DOJ won't let them do their jobs safely. Then one of the suburban forces caught one of the car thieves and the Seattle blotter strongly implied they'd been involved.
And a bunch of our police officers are suing over the DOJ rules and more-or-less threatening to `de-police' if there's any oversight on their use of force. Summary from a Spokane newspaper, where it might be playing out differently.
they'd been involved.
I lost track of the referent of 'they'. The Seattle police? The suburban police? And I'm not sure who controls the Seattle blotter.
President Reagan will fire them all forthwith, to much applause.
President Reagan was shot by a pro-lesbian fanatic and liberals want to decriminalize homosexuality.
91: Yeah, no wonder, terrible sentence, sorry. The Seattle police did nothing to catch the car thieves but reported the arrest as though they had.
Some of the richer but not enclosed neighborhoods are hiring local security forces, which I do not like *at all*, it reminds me a lot of my time in St Louis.
Oh, I thought the Seattle police were accusing the suburban police of staging a phony car theft, because we all know that it's impossible to catch car thieves.
Man, I had some wild Seattle blotter sophomore year... I was seeing rainbow trails for a month.
I can totally see now how people become conspiracy obsessives. I'm having to remind myself that further staring at the evidence maps, and trying to determine when it was collected aren't even going to clarify for me what happened, let alone add anything g to the larger issues of police malpractice.
Funny, I read this opinion in WaPo, and this former US Attorney general was arguing that DOJ oversight was the best thing to result from a failure to indict an officer who killed an unarmed Native American man who was hard of hearing. It was an odd argument that rang a bit like Tim "Ripper" Owens' in the other thread. Now I see that it's not all Officer Friendly there, and I'm shocked (shocked, I tell you).
97: If you read anything about how bad lab techs doing the forensics can be, you'll just give up. DNA evidence? Yeah, sure. Where? Wherever they wanted it to be. #NotAllForensicTechs, but I have trouble putting a lot of weight behind analysis done after the desired outcome is known.
98: That article does wind down with " Years of work remain to implement the new policies and truly change the culture." which is plausibly bureaucrat-speak for "Not that this will be fixed until the old guard is out on their plushy retirements." And that could *still* be the best likely outcome.
Did this AP article on police de-escalation get linked here yet? It talks about DOJ investigations and mentions Seattle.
Also, I completely lack the background knowledge to assess the political perspective or ethical bona fides of this website, but the thinking outlined in this case study is very familiar to me.
It continues to surprise me the degree to which "officer safety" is repeatedly held up the primary and overwhelming concern of law enforcement. I certainly understand its importance, but it is eye-opening to see how many people seem to feel that even a theoretical threat to officer safety* should outweigh all other considerations.
*That is, NOT an example like the one linked above, but a much more innocuous one.
Careless discharge of a firearm causing death"? Aside from everything else fucked up about this particular case, why should such a charge even exist on the books as a misdemeanor rather than involuntary manslaughter? Basically "involuntary manslaughter by someone we like"?
102: yes, that the only concern at all seems to be officer safety is fucked up and a fundamental error.
Also, I strongly suspect, not actually what the real concern here is anyway. "Officer safety" always seems to, in practice, mean "officer gets complete deference from everyone around them", as opposed to "officer is free from danger". I'd be curious what would happen if someone did the training for dangerous situations but just taught all the officers that instead of trying to kill people they should just run like hell. I mean, yes, "shit he's got a gun run away!!" wouldn't necessarily do much to protect civilians from potentially dangerous situations. But it's not like firing dozens of bullets in the vague direction of someone potentially threatening has the greatest track record either. Somehow I suspect that the people talking about the importance of officer safety would end up strangely resistant to this kind of training.
I'd be curious what would happen if someone did the training for dangerous situations but just taught all the officers that instead of trying to kill people they should just run like hell.
You'd save a lot of money by just handing badges and cuffs to unemployed grad students?
I'd be curious what would happen if someone did the training for dangerous situations but just taught all the officers that instead of trying to kill people they should just run like hell.
Apparently the strategy the US/US-paid trainers used for the Iraqi Army.
I tried to talk x trapnel into it, but he wouldn't go for it.
Let's extend this thinking to the fire guys as well. "Go in? Are you out of your mind? It's all smokey and flamey in there."
I think the settlements paid by the city as a result of police actions would fund a department worth of graduate students. Another $100k last week.
There are differences, though. Fires usually don't put themselves out without doing a lot of damage if you leave them alone. Excited, upset people do often calm down without hurting anyone if you leave them alone (for values of leaving them alone that include monitoring the situation to see if they're about to hurt anyone).
I think fire fighters very frequently let shit burn down because it isn't safe to put out. They just contain.
Excited, upset people do often calm down without hurting anyone if you leave them alone
People call the cops on people when they think this is not the case. I have yet to go on a call where someone called in to tell the police that some guy looks upset but that they think he'll be fine in few minutes.
As much as I want another 600 comment thread on use of force with you hippies, I'm off to work.
If you have someone all pissed off and riled up, call the fire department and tell them he's on fire. Keep knocking them down with the spray until they tire.
113: I have. "I'm a foster parent and this is NOT an emergency. I've been told as part of our safety plan I need to call for EMTs or police if we can't get this child in the car safely after [triggering event] to get to the ER. I suspect the child will calm down if we wait, but the safety plan requires us to call now." I've also called police on a white person yelling and brandishing a gun as I drove by a house and I don't think that was all that weird either, per the Tamir Rice discussion.
Hey, I'm not saying it would be ideal. But neither is the current situation. And it's not like we see a new case of some firefighter somewhere in America freaking out about a potential fire and setting a bunch of other fires in the neighborhood in response.
And it would be nice to either see fewer cops* who think they're in an action movie or more action movies where the protagonists just yell "OH SHIT HE'S GOT A GUN EVERYONE RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!" a lot.
*#notallcops, etc.
Also I think 110 vastly overestimates the cost of a department full of graduate students. You could probably just put a "cop" on every third street corner and have them stand around looking menacing* by hiring grad students.
*"menacing" may not actually menace.
118: Adjunct cops. Pay them almost nothing and lay them off if they grumble.
113: Demonstrably, sometimes they call the cops when they're pretty sure the gun a twelve-year-old is waving around is fake, but they're not totally sure. I'll bet that sometimes they also call the cops when they think someone might hurt someone else, but they're also not sure, and maybe it would blow over, but they'd like the cops there in case the situation heats up again.
Some more detail on the waxing/marijuana parts of the prosecution's defense of Darren Wilson. And I'm pretty sure this is total bullshit on several levels, but am having trouble finding benchmarks for THC levels.
According to a toxicology report, Brown had 12 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood in his system. There were no other drugs detected. In testimony before the grand jury on Nov. 4, the chief toxicologist for St. Louis County said it was clear Brown had consumed a lot of marijuana because it would take a lot to get a 300-pound person to the level of 12 nanograms of the compound THC in his bloodstream.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
Interpretation of Blood Concentrations: It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often Interpretation of Blood Concentrations: It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often
Fucking HTML. Full Quote:
Interpretation of Blood Concentrations: It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often
Sigh. Just follow the link and look for that paragraph.
123, -125: Thanks> I had found and read that. Potentially relevant:
Significant THC concentrations (7 to 18 ng/mL) are noted following even a single puff or hit of a marijuana cigarette. Peak plasma THC concentrations ranged from 46-188 ng/mL in 6 subjects after they smoked 8.8 mg THC over 10 minutes