Anonymous Releases Audio in St. Louis Shooting

[doxydad]

St. Louis County police haven't released audio regarding the shooting of black teenager Michael Brown, but the hacker collective Anonymous took care of that today, reports Mashable. The lengthy file released on YouTube shows the progression of events after an officer shot the unarmed teen in the suburb of Ferguson. As Mother Jones notes, the first hint of trouble comes more than nine minutes into the recording, with the dispatcher making a request for crowd control. But the circumstances were still unclear as to why at that point.

Some excerpts, with the bold referring to the time of the audio recording:

http://www.newser.com/story/192436/anonymous-releases-audio-in-st-louis-shooting.html

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Explain how this makes the situation any better? The local cops...

aren't handling the situation very well, but just how does this help them, or anyone else, handle it?

Since "the circumstances were still unclear", isn't there nothing but speculation and woo in the public discussion of this tragedy? If we do get to know even more, like the officer's identity, precisely how does that help calm things down, restore order, and get justice for the guy at this point?

This is all mob bullshit from all angles-- investigations and justice will take its slow course.

[pintobean]

3. It doesn't.

Good post.

[justhanginon]

4. My thoughts too. I used to live in Ferguson years ago

and it was a nice community. The peaceful protests are necessary in this case but there are always people taking advantage of the situation, most of them from outside Ferguson. Agitators always want to keep the fires burning for whatever reason and I include anonymous in that group.

It seems to me that if anonymous does release the name of the officer involved it will not only endanger him and his family and neighbors but also people who want to take the law into their own hands and will lead to more arrests and violence.

It (the shooting) shouldn't have happened in the first place but the legitimate protestors are losing the public's support with the continued violence.

It's a sad situation all around, very sad.

[Squinch]

6. "Agitators want to keep the fires burning for whatever reason." Seriously? You can't think of

any reason why people might still be angry in that town? You think it's all just outside agitators with "whatever reason"? You think residents are just A-OK with a young man being killed for no reason whatsoever?

[justhanginon]

8. I did not say they had no reason to be angry. They have every

reason to be and I agree with the peaceful protestors and do understand their anger as much as a white person can. I really don't think the residents are "A-OK" with the killing of the young man.

What I question is the value of burning down a business and the looting of others which to me seems counterproductive to the community at large and especially their cause. This is not the product of the legitimate peaceful protestors who have every right to protest and demand justice..

At some point I hope cooler heads will prevail and we all get justice in this seemingly unnecessary killing.

[sabrina 1]

22. Why don't the police release his name? The parents of the dead teenager have a right to know

how and who killed their son. As a survivor of what was called an 'accident' of a loved one, the one thing people NEED at that time, is ANSWERS. Not to cause trouble for anyone, not to condemn the person responsible, it's just something you want to know, especially, as in my case, when it becomes apparent some one is trying to prevent you from knowing. THAT creates an additional assault on the family.

[Squinch]

7. Why are the circumstances still unclear? 5 days after the shooting, the eyewitness who was

with Michael Brown has still not been interviewed by the police, even though he offered multiple times to come in and give his story. If there is nothing but woo, it is because the police are not doing what they need to do to get a clear account of what happened. If they leave an information vacuum, that vacuum is going to be filled. If they don't want woo and speculation, then they ought to get off their asses, get an account from all present of what happened, let the public know and openly acknowledge and address the problem they have created.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. We know the cops there screwed up and...

I hear now they are being relieved for screwing it up.

But-- it is just as easy for us to screw it up from outside. What they "want" isn't important. What we all want is a proper investigation and a plan to see this doesn't happen again in the future.

[morningfog]

10. True investigations and real justice will not happen without citizen oversight and pushback.

The cops have to know they can't hide behind their abuses of authority.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I would agree if there were organized oversight.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

29. Part of what the citizens are protesting against is the fact that the shooter's name is

illegally being withheld. So, what helps calm things down and restore order is for the cops to follow the law rather then putting themselves above it.

[TreasonousBastard]

43. Who says it's illegal to withhold his name? And, again...

why is it so important to know his name?

What will you do with this information?

The shooter isn't going anywhere and an investigation is ongoing with stories all over the place being bandied about. Complain if you think the investigation isn't honest, otherwise let it take its course.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

44. The following an other reports indicate as much.

Rothert said that under Missouri’s public records laws, police incident reports, comprising the names of officers, must be made public within 72 hours. Thomas Jackson, the Ferguson police chief, claimed on Tuesday that exceptional circumstances meant that did not apply in this case.

“There can be legitimate reasons for not releasing the name, and this is a classic,” Jackson said at a press conference. “Where there is a serious threat of danger to the officer, then clearly this is one of the cases where the value of releasing the name is far outweighed by the risk of harm to the officer and his family.”

Jackson later told NewsChannel 5 that he would not be releasing the name unless directed to by a judge or required to, if or when official charges are filed.

Police officials backtracked after initially saying that they would publish the officer’s name on Tuesday. They said that the officer and the department at large had received threats of violence from around the world since Brown was killed on Saturday.

However, Rothert dismissed Jackson’s claim to a waiver. “That’s what he wishes the law was, but that’s not what the law is,” he said. “The law is that the incident report is a public record and should be released. They are breaking the law by not releasing that information.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/12/michael-brown-aclu-lawsuit-officers-name

[TreasonousBastard]

45. This is not a typical "incident"...

it's a potential felony investigation.

Again, regardless of a law we don't know the exact wording of, what is the point of naming the officer this early in the investigation? What good things happen if we know his name and what bad things happen if we don't?

We will eventually know it, so why must we know it now?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

47. The lack of transparency and unequal protection of authority figures vs. citizens

is unjust and engenders suspicion and distrust.

Local law enforcement has gone into complete lockdown mode. It has detained journalists without explanation. It has fired tear gas at an Al Jazeera America camera crew. It has filled the streets with armored vehicles, police officers in combat fatigues and has done nothing to defuse the situation.

The police department has not released the name of the shooter. Because he's one of the insiders. As has been pointed out by several people, we know the names of everyone charged with looting-related felonies in Ferguson. But we still don't know who shot Mike Brown. The police chief wants to protect the officer and his family, but law enforcement agencies will not return that favor should a citizen kill someone. And they will unleash entire police departments to destroy you if you shoot a cop. If you're still alive enough to give a statement, your name will be prominently displayed everywhere. Your family will be harassed by cops and citizens. Death threats will make their way through phone lines and into the mailbox. But only cops are immunized against this by policies backed by police unions and government officials.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140814/13131328215/ferguson-law-enforcement-occupying-force-with-special-rights.shtml

[maced666]

2. Yea, learned nothing from this audio.

anyone else?

[Squinch]

5. There is no reason why police radio communication should not be made public. There

should not be anything in their radio communication that they are not willing to have the public hear.

This is a good thing.

[OilemFirchen]

9. SSN, for one.

Let's get Greenwald to champion your cause. He's also very good at double standards.

[Squinch]

13. What double standard is that? The double standard that says that the cops shouldn't say

things on police radios that they wouldn't say in front of average citizens?

[OilemFirchen]

14. Pretty simple, really.

The double standard of anyone who howls about the government invading our privacy, then proposes that all police communications should be available to the public.

You think that the police shouldn't be allowed to call in a W&W using the suspect's SSN? Howsabout a missing person? Stolen identity?

BTW, said info is often available "to the public" via scanners. Accordingly, the police are now often texting to dispatch and each other. Do you think those texts should be made public? They also use (and have for as long as the technology has been available) telephones to communicate info. Should you and I be privy to those conversations?

[Bragi]

15. Yes and yes. /nt

[OilemFirchen]

17. I see.

SWAT has surrounded a house in which a perp is holding a family hostage. I guess his reading or listening to their communications would be entertaining for him. So there's that.

Otherwise, what could go wrong?

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Police, when on duty, do NOT have privacy rights.

This should be a given, and yes, we should be privy to every single piece of communication of government agencies and agents, that's transparency in government.

[OilemFirchen]

18. I do believe that we were discussing YOUR privacy rights.

Give me a call when the IRS audits you. I'd like to sit in.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. OK, let's see if I can make this clear, because you seem to be...

shall we say, dense. Private citizens, doing private things, have privacy rights, Police, when performing their official duties, are working on the public dime and are under public scrutiny.

Do you need me to write this in a bigger font? How about I draw it out in a diagram?

[OilemFirchen]

28. Why not just dribble on your keyboard?

Perhaps that'll result in a cogent response.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. You seem to think that dispatch is secured communication, it is not, its a public radio frequency...

that anyone with any electronic experience can modify any radio, or buy one, that can listen in. They have some scrambled frequencies, that is true, but rarely use them unless absolutely necessary.

And again, no personal information about anyone should be transmitted over such frequencies, where anyone can listen in.

[OilemFirchen]

35. I believe I already made that observation.

Listen to a scanner for the next half-hour and get back to me, 'kay?

In the interim, I'll reiterate that your attempt to educate me is irrelevant. You want ALL government communications available to the public. That, of course, would include scrambled frequencies.

So why are you arguing with me?

[Humanist_Activist]

41. I dont' know, because I misunderstood you...

I don't think you have much of an argument when it comes to privacy for everyone, things such as your name, SSN, address and phone number are generally readily available for everyone, not just police, to access, if they are determined enough.

Privacy advocates generally are more concerned about homes, persons, and vehicles being secured from unreasonable searches and seizures without cause or court oversight.

[Squinch]

46. I guess that passes for a brilliant ripost where you live. You might want to pay attention to what

that poster is "dribbling" because you seem to be missing his point.

[Squinch]

21. Are you of the opinion that the IRS is part of the police department? Because, um, they aren't .

[OilemFirchen]

23. Are you aware that the poster to whom I responded said this?

"we should be privy to every single piece of communication of government agencies and agents"

[JEB]

26. How about?

We should be privy to every single piece of communication by govt. agencies and agents directly before and after they gun down an unarmed kid.

[Jenoch]

24. So when a cop is investigating

a sexual assault, all of the information that is gathered should be made available to the public?

[Humanist_Activist]

25. We are talking about their communications here, and if they are careless enough to...

reveal personal information on victims or perpetrators over dispatch that is not relevant an aiding in law enforcement, they should be raked over the coals and fired from the police force.

[Jenoch]

34. You wrote that every bit of police communication

should be made available to the public. I do not believe that would be helpful in all situations.

If your intent was only about police radio communications, you should have made that clear.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. OK, most police radio communication is already public...

if you had the time, you can set a radio scanner on record and record what is said over dispatch 24/7.

All other communication should be properly logged and made available to the public in a timely manner, with two exceptions, as long as it is determined, by a civilian source, that it won't hinder an ongoing investigation, and to protect the identity of victims when necessary.

[Jenoch]

40. That's pretty much the way it is now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. for the reason that.....the public have police scanners too....

[Squinch]

20. When on duty on a police radio, police don't talk about suspect's social security numbers. Not

sure why you think they do. What are you envisioning?: "Hi dispatch, a man is holding up a 7-11, please send backup. His social security number is 555-55-5555." Because that doesn't really happen.

Missing person? Um, well, of course. And to make that information easier for the public to get at we have instituted things like Amber alerts.

You think cops are talking about details of stolen identities a lot on the police radios? Where the hell do you live?

And if they are using their own phones to talk to each other outside of work time, then of course not. If they are using publicly paid-for phones that are given to them as equipment on which they do their jobs, then yes. Just as I think that it is a good thing that politicians emails and phone calls on officially funded phones and computers should be available to the public. Not sure why that should be a difficulty for you.

Let me guess: you are a fan of FISA, right?

[OilemFirchen]

27. Name, DOB, DL#, SSN.

Ever been stopped for speeding?

I think cops call in info if they have a suspect with potentially stolen IDs. Fuck it, I know that they do.

And no, I'm not describing calls the police make "outside of work time". I'm describing constant phone and text communications between patrolmen, detectives, brass and other agencies... on "publicly paid-for phones" while doing their jobs.

I honestly can't imagine how this conversation could become more bizarre, but I'm game.

[Humanist_Activist]

30. They do that over secured computer networks, connected to relevant databases, what century are...

you in?

[OilemFirchen]

32. Sometimes. More than they used to.

But not, by any means, significantly.

What does it matter, though? You want that info communicated "over secured computer networks, connected to relevant databases" made public, right?

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Yes, if its part of an investigation into police abuse, as happened in Florida to a cop...

who was harassed by fellow officers who looked up her information in police databases without authorization. Such access is logged 10 times over for a reason.

Access logs, and the reasons behind them, should be available for public scrutiny, on the internet, after a set time period, say, 6 months, or as long as its not actively hindering any investigations.

[OilemFirchen]

37. Hedging, now?

Pathetic.

[sabrina 1]

42. Excuse us? You object to PUBLIC SERVANTS while working ON OUR PAYROLL being transparent about

how they are doing the job WE pay them to do?? And you are somehow attempting to equate THAT to a PRIVATE citizen sending a love letter to his wife having the SAME obligation to let the world see that private communication?

Unbelievable. Have you ever read the US Constitution? Have you read the 4th Amend where the public are guaranteed the right to be safe from Government intrusion in their own personal, private homes, their papers and other assets should be protected from the Government's prying eyes?

Let me ask you, should someone who is at work in an office be free to hide what they are doing from their boss during the working hours for which they are being paid? Does the Boss have the right to know HOW they are doing the job s/he is paying them to do?

Now that worker leaves the office at five and goes home. Does the Boss have the right to follow him home and peek in his window to see what he is doing in his own home?

Can you please tell us where this 'double standard' is that you are accusing Greenwald of?

HE is supporting the boss, US, knowing how our employees, PUBLIC SERVANTS, are doing the job we are paying them to do.

HE is also supporting the right of the same workers, PUBLIC SERVANTA, being safe from the Govt spying on them IN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES.

So please, go ahead and explain that double standard.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. all of it is available because of FOIA!

What is FOIA?

Enacted on July 4, 1966, and taking effect one year later, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to federal agency records, except to the extent that such records (or portions of them) are protected from public disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions. A FOIA request can be made for any agency record. Before sending a request to a federal agency, you should determine which agency is likely to have the records you are seeking. Each agency’s website will contain information about the type of records that agency maintains.

I believe even state and county govts are held to this standard...

If it's recorded and stored.....you have a right to access it...UNLESS it falls into those specific exemptions mentioned above....police dispatch conversations are not exempted I don't believe...