Originally posted by Lestov16
Nope. Intelligent would have been to release this info the day after Brown's death.
No, what Robtard said was the best perspective.
Here is why: if they were not sure that it was Brown, then they released the tape, and then it turns out that that was not Brown, they would be in a load of shit.
It would exacerbate the situation, not improve it IF that was the outcome.
1. During investigation, there are forensic investigators that review the data to ensure integrity and then they make some logs, chain of custody documentation, and so forth. This chain of custody stuff is followed in the next steps, too. Also, I should note that the digital forensic specialist puts this shit on a special device that prevents any bits of data from being changed throughout the analysis to ensure integrity so it con proceed to trial. They create a hash of the data, too...then after the investigation, they create another hash and check to make sure it matches the first hash. If the second hash does not match the first one...the case is in a load of shit and that evidence is probably not admissible in court.
2. Than another forensic specialist reviews the "data" for content and makes a determination: suspect match. If there are doubts, those are fleshed out in the official report with a probability statement/conclusion.
3. If the results of the investigation are desirable to the head of the case (or, probably, in this case, probably the Chief of Police), then they proceed with a PR consideration (if that was a consideration...which in this case, it definitely is).
4. If releasing the video to the public helps support an image the PD is wishing to portray, then it is released to the public. This is almost always done IF and only if they are positive that it supports their position/results and will not further cause public outcry in sensitive cases. They would never go straight to step 4, like you suggested, if only a layman (police officer) reviewed the footage and thought it was a match. They wouldn't even take the involved officer's word for it: they would complete the full investigation. Not doing so could land them in a load of shit. As you can see, all 4 steps, if not done properly or with suspicious procedure, could land them in a load of shit.
Based on how this process works, it is likely that it took this long because they were crosses their T's and doting the i's to ensure that this case was clean as a whistle. There is another reason that they needed to make sure everything was done perfectly: the FBI could become involved and investigate this PD for hate-crimes (which is near to the worst possible scenario and the shittiest possible outcome in an death resulting from an officer's firearm discharge).
I hope that clears things up for why Robtard was correct in his "guess" for why it took so long.
We, as outsiders who are not directly involved with reviewing the case, should probably exercise caution when talking about conclusory opinions. If we all readily acknowledge that we are virtually ignorant of all the case facts, then I think it would be easier to discuss this case. I think this is obvious and it is possible we are already doing that.
Oh well...
This just reminds me of the George Zimmerman shit where George Zimmerman clearly got his ass kicked and we didn't know that until like...2 weeks later when the police released some photos and videos of George (because 4Chan hackers literally hacked into that PD's DB and released it to the public forcing that PD to also release the same information which corroborated Anonymous' information).
Also, I see some more action from Anonymous in this case. I never support illegal activities but my jimmies are certainly not rustled over some of the cyber warfare that they have waged against this municipality.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what Robtard said was the best perspective.Here is why: if they were not sure that it was Brown, then they released the tape, and then it turns out that that was not Brown, they would be in a load of shit.
It would exacerbate the situation, not improve it IF that was the outcome.
1. During investigation, there are forensic investigators that review the data to ensure integrity and then they make some logs, chain of custody documentation, and so forth. This chain of custody stuff is followed in the next steps, too. Also, I should note that the digital forensic specialist puts this shit on a special device that prevents any bits of data from being changed throughout the analysis to ensure integrity so it con proceed to trial. They create a hash of the data, too...then after the investigation, they create another hash and check to make sure it matches the first hash. If the second hash does not match the first one...the case is in a load of shit and that evidence is probably not admissible in court.
2. Than another forensic specialist reviews the "data" for content and makes a determination: suspect match. If there are doubts, those are fleshed out in the official report with a probability statement/conclusion.
3. If the results of the investigation are desirable to the head of the case (or, probably, in this case, probably the Chief of Police), then they proceed with a PR consideration (if that was a consideration...which in this case, it definitely is).
4. If releasing the video to the public helps support an image the PD is wishing to portray, then it is released to the public. This is almost always done IF and only if they are positive that it supports their position/results and will not further cause public outcry in sensitive cases. They would never go straight to step 4, like you suggested, if only a layman (police officer) reviewed the footage and thought it was a match. They wouldn't even take the involved officer's word for it: they would complete the full investigation. Not doing so could land them in a load of shit. As you can see, all 4 steps, if not done properly or with suspicious procedure, could land them in a load of shit.Based on how this process works, it is likely that it took this long because they were crosses their T's and doting the i's to ensure that this case was clean as a whistle. There is another reason that they needed to make sure everything was done perfectly: the FBI could become involved and investigate this PD for hate-crimes (which is near to the worst possible scenario and the shittiest possible outcome in an death resulting from an officer's firearm discharge).
I hope that clears things up for why Robtard was correct in his "guess" for why it took so long.
We, as outsiders who are not directly involved with reviewing the case, should probably exercise caution when talking about conclusory opinions. If we all readily acknowledge that we are virtually ignorant of all the case facts, then I think it would be easier to discuss this case. I think this is obvious and it is possible we are already doing that.
Oh well...
This just reminds me of the George Zimmerman shit where George Zimmerman clearly got his ass kicked and we didn't know that until like...2 weeks later when the police released some photos and videos of George (because 4Chan hackers literally hacked into that PD's DB and released it to the public forcing that PD to also release the same information which corroborated Anonymous' information).
Also, I see some more action from Anonymous in this case. I never support illegal activities but my jimmies are certainly not rustled over some of the cyber warfare that they have waged against this municipality.
I saw the vid before it got taken down.
Cop is chasing him in his car, reaching out trying to choke the kid from his window, snipes him from his driver window basically. 10 shots.
I'm a little bit more read-up on this story, now.
Why is not the military called in to start gunning down the "protestors?"
Serious question. This type of savagery should be responded with even stronger savagery.
By the way, they are not protesters: they are violent and savage looters and thieves and the town appears to be virtually lawless.
Or has the looting died down and I'm just not aware of what's going on?
I read that store owners are guarding their own places with guns because the police will not help. And people say we need to ban guns...lol
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Naw black people just hate each other regardless. We are natural enemies with each other. All going back to the fact that we knew we sold each other out and were forced to be treated as one people. Our unity is a lie we do around others.
I hope your joking. There were lots of black people fighting against slavery back in the day. It did happen but I think it's been exaggerated. You're also looking at it in simplistic terms, I'm not saying it's right but they didn't seem themselves all as black people the same way white people see themselves as Scottish, English etc.
All people are nasty to each other but it seems to me that slavery got way out of control when Europeans started coming in mass to Africa. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Deadline
All people are nasty to each other but it seems to me that slavery got way out of control when Europeans started coming in mass to Africa. I could be wrong.
That really depends on what you're looking at...
Which slaves?
Which time-period?
If it is just the US slave trade you're talking about, then the US is one of the earliest abolishers of slave trade: 1808.
But, iirc, all states/colonies had stopped slave trade (importation) by 1798.
But there were grumblings of stopping slavery and slave trade long before then. Even Georgia had some history with banning slavery long before the US was a country. Guess why? Because the white people were trying to enslave each other with indentured servitude. Yeah, you read that right: white-people slaves before black-people slaves. It wasn't until economic pressure hit Georgia, from the people, that they relented (it was a colony, at the time) and let people have black slaves.
Based on this, I demand reparations for my ancestors' slavery.
The governor finally issue a curfew for Ferguson. Sympathy to the store owners, who are just trying to make a decent living...
http://news.yahoo.com/police-protesters-clash-again-ferguson-085511380.html