There have been dozens, if not hundreds of such videos over the past few years, directly showing the cops acting as the instigator and aggressor and then lying about it in their report later, ranging from petty incidents all the way to full blown likely police murder.

The mainstream media and the public hasn't given a damn in any of those cases. If they can't race bait they tend not to care about police abuse, which is rampant.

Really? I mean where we can clearly identify a particular cop.

cops did the exact same thing in Canada and eventually admitting having undercover police posing as protesters. They were identifed by the protesters as they were trying to incite violence in a peaceful protest. Orginally they denied it but after video evidence they admitted they were uncover police.

video is pretty solid as Union leader totally calls out the cops and they essentially panic and get "arrested" in an akward fashion. Including the police admission reported by CBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg

would never happen in the UK. The moment protesters found a plain-clothes cop in their midst:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-6270908.html


Then there's this charming story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29743857
The Metropolitan Police has agreed to pay £425,000 to a woman who did not know the father of her child was an undercover policeman. The unprecedented settlement comes after a long battle by a group of women who say that the police used sex to infiltrate their protest groups. Here is Jacqui's story.

If I lived in Cleveland I wouldn't be too happy about this headline: Cleveland police's fatal shooting of Tamir Rice ruled a homicide.

A) Of course it's a homicide. No one was contending the kid died of anything other than a bullet.

B) How many people do you think don't understand that "coroner ruled it a homicide" does not = murder or manslaughter or w/e? Based on this thread and the others like it I'd say a lot - and we're definitely above the curve in terms of informed-ness.

The only reason for this headline is to grab attention, and it does that by semi-tricking a large chunk of the viewing the audience. IMO

Well things could change quickly it really just takes 1 DA to man up. Adrian Peterson ended up with tougher punishment as a result of it happening a week after the Ray Rice situation blew up in Goddell's face.

The US is pretty divided on corporal punishment but pretty together on being against shooting children

I think this cop has a very real chance at getting convicted it's a different situation

Ferguson protesters win injunction to stop cops using tear gas

Not actually a complete banning of chemical weapons, of course.

Convicted on what charge?

I think it's great that they won but what does this actually do? Moral victory?




From today:

St. Louis police say they'll discipline officer who wore 'Wilson' name tag at City Hall protest



Roorda's response. ****ing guy.

Yeah, only a moral victory. One hand slaps the other, then it's on with business as usual.

Maybe those lawyers want them to hand out gas masks as well before they gas them.

What lawyers?

The plaintiffs are Alexis Templeton, Brittany Ferrell (both protest organizers in their 20s), Maureen Costello (business owner whose shop was gassed), Steven Hoffman (legal observer), Nile McClain (20 yo bystander, who was gassed and tazed), and Kira Hudson Banks (protester and 35yo college professor).

Legal observers aren't protesters, and are often lawyers, paralegals, or law students. None of the other plaintiffs are lawyers. Only half were even protesting.

Sounds to me you are trying to imply that it was a buncha ambulance-chasers stirring up trouble for their own personal enrichment. Just like the racists like to carry on that it was the 'race hustlers' stirring up the protests themselves, also for their own personal enrichment.

Shame on you !!!1!

Text of the TRO.

The article clearly states the plaintiffs had legal representation. I'm sure they will come out In front very soon.

So did the gub'mint police officers and agencies. And surely the judge, another part of the gub'mint, was a lawyer. Of course, both hands of the gub'mint have lawyers that are paid by taxpayers like me.

What's your point.

That the gub'mint should get taxpayer supported lawyers... but random citizens being tear gassed, etc. should not have any lawyers at all... even if they pay for those lawyers out of there own pockets ??

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

The Smoking Gun claims to have figured out who Witness 40 is: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...ness-40-496236

Ferguson to Increase Police Ticketing to Close City’s Budget Gap

Fund your own oppression tm

No way this can be real? If so, WOW

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1...-Darren-Wilson

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...ness-40-496236

Wasn't it the prosecutors themselves who shot holes in her story?

Yeah, she was basically destroyed in pre-GJ testimony which was submitted to the GJ in writen form.

Basically they told the GJ she wasn't credible but also that they should listen to her words as they are truth, sending a very mixed message. If this was a trial the defence wouldn't even call her she would have been so easy to destroy on cross. It'd plausible she wasn't even a true witness let alone she was potentially lying.

prosecutors? lol

1. I think the DA didn't want any "You didn't present this evidence/testimony" complaints -- from either side

2. By presenting obvious lies/inconsistencies from witnesses on both side, I think he is telling the GJ that "everybody has an agenda; everybody lies" so that any eyewitness is suspect. If you doubt all the eyewitnesses, how do you indict?

Source?

I kinda have a feeling this is like when you credited Republican Senate gains to gerrymandering the United States Senate

Lol JAAAAASH thinking his gotcha lets him sound smart asking for obvious answers.