Quote:Police keep using Twitter for misinformation and rumor-mongering about protesters
Late Monday night, two New York City police unions took to Twitter to accuse Shake Shack employees of trying to poison police officers with beverages they were served. The New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association said the officers had come “under attack."
The New York City Detectives’ Endowment Association went a step further, claiming their “fellow officers were intentionally poisoned by one or more workers."
Neither of these tweets, it turns out, were accurate. New York Police Department Chief of Detectives Rodney Harrison said Tuesday morning that a “thorough investigation” had revealed no criminal act. The Detectives’ Endowment Association now acknowledges it was “evidently” an accident. Its tweet, which had been retweeted more than 12,000 times, has now been deleted.
What is so remarkable about this flap is the language used. Rather than note that the officers’ beverages had toxic substances in them and calling for an investigation, both unions immediately alleged it was a deliberate attack. Groups whose job it is to carry out the law jumped straight to criminal wrongdoing, not allowing for it to be an accident or any other explanation.
Increasingly, in recent weeks, this is the story of how some police departments and organizations have handled the protests and other unrest over the May 25 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and others at the hands of police officers. Often using their official Twitter accounts, they have tweeted allegations without substantiation when other, less-nefarious explanations are just as plausible — and, in some cases, have turned out to actually be the case. The Columbus, Ohio, police department on June 1 tweeted an image of a colorful bus in which it said it found “bats, rocks, meat cleavers, axes, clubs & other projectiles.” It said “there was a suspicion of supplying riot equipment to rioters.”
Mayor Andrew Ginther (D) later suggested the bus showed the violence was worse than the arrest numbers indicated. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also tweeted sarcastically: “But I guess still ‘no evidence’ of an organized effort to inject violence & anarchy into the protests right?”
146 people are talking about this Reporting since then indicates the bus was, in fact, used by traveling street performers. The clubs were juggling clubs, according to those familiar with the bus. The hatchet was next to a wood-burning stove the bus used. The meat cleaver was from a knife block used to prepare meals. The rocks were crystals and fossils.
The Columbus police have said the investigation is ongoing, but there are very logical explanations for all the items found on the bus. Yet it was held up by police and the mayor as evidence of something nefarious.
The Spokane, Wash., Police Department on June 7 tweeted that it had seized a “bucket of rocks staged downtown” to prevent it from being used for violence.
Quote:Spokane Police@SpokanePD
#SeeSomethingSaySomething Thanks to alert citizens, this bucket of rocks staged downtown was secured so it could not be used for violence.
2,829 people are talking about this The next day, though, Spokane Police Sgt. Terry Preuninger admitted that the rocks didn’t appear to be “staged” at all. “In one of those cases, after I saw the photos, it looks like that may have just been something that was there naturally and not something staged for a protest or criminal behavior,” Preuninger said.
The tweet has not been taken down.
The Seattle Police Department on June 6 tweeted that protesters had thrown “improvised explosives” at officers.
Quote:Seattle Police Dept.
@SeattlePD
At about 7:30 p.m. demonstrators outside the East Precinct began moving barricades at 11th and Pine despite multiple requests from police to stop. Individuals began throwing rocks/bottles/and explosives at officers. Several officers injured due to improvised explosives.
12.5K people are talking about this The images accompanying the claim, though, appeared to show regular candles accompanied by glass. While potentially dangerous, it is not clear what the explosive was. As The Washington Post reported:
Quote:The department’s Twitter account said individuals were throwing “rocks/bottles/and explosives” at police outside the East Precinct when officers escalated their response. Multiple people pointed out that the photo the department tweeted of what it claimed was an improvised explosive may, in fact, show a candle. A label in one of the images clearly says “candle.”
The Kansas City Police Department tweeted May 31 that they had “discovered stashes of bricks and rocks in & around the Plaza and Westport to be used during a riot.”
Quote:kcpolice
@kcpolice
We have learned of & discovered stashes of bricks and rocks in & around the Plaza and Westport to be used during a riot. If you see anything like this, you can text 911 and let us know so we can remove them. This keeps everyone safe and allows your voice to continue to be heard. 7,736 4:55 PM - May 31, 2020 Twitter Ads info and privacy
4,403 people are talking about this Kansas City Police Capt. David Jackson scaled that back somewhat, though, when he told reporters, “I sense that they’re probably there for nefarious use.”
BuzzFeed News has reported that reports of bricks being left for protesters across the country — most of them spread on social media but not originating with police — often had logical explanations, including that they had been there before the protests and/or were linked to construction. Jackson said there was no construction in the area.
The White House at one point tweeted and then deleted a video that alleged, “Antifa and professional anarchists are invading our communities, staging bricks and weapons to instigate violence. These are acts of domestic terror.” This claim got four Pinocchios from The Post’s Fact Checker.
While it is possible some of these bricks could have been left for nefarious purposes, as BuzzFeed noted, Kansas City police claimed without offering evidence that they were deliberately left for rioting. Jackson’s comments suggested whatever evidence existed was not definitive.
New York City Police Commissioner Dermot Shea tweeted a similar allegation on June 3.
“This is what our cops are up against: Organized looters, strategically placing caches of bricks & rocks at locations throughout NYC,” Shea said. AD
Quote:Mark Treyger@MarkTreyger718
This is in my district. I went to the site. This construction debris was left near a construction site on Ave X in Gravesend. Could be evidence of a developer breaking law since phase 1 hasn’t begun, but there was no evidence of organized looting on X last night that I’m aware of https://twitter.com/NYPDShea/status/1268187062001455111 … Commissioner Shea
@NYPDShea
This is what our cops are up against: Organized looters, strategically placing caches of bricks & rocks at locations throughout NYC.
As Vice News reported, though, there was no unrest in the area, and others pointed to construction in the neighborhood:
Quote:There is one major issue with that story: VICE has confirmed the video was taken on a street corner in Gravesend, a part of South Brooklyn where no protests, looting or rioting actually occurred. Interviews with both workers in the area and location data from both Snapchat and Instagram show there were no protests anywhere near that corner.
Shea has also tweeted unfounded allegations about protesters using concrete mixed in ice cream containers. “Anyone with information please call” police, he tweeted June 8, appending a New York Post headline that said, “NYPD finds concrete disguised as ice cream at George Floyd protests.”
494 people are talking about this As many soon pointed out, mixing concrete in such containers is a common method of testing mixtures on construction sites. The markings on the containers even appeared to indicate what mixtures each had.
Shea at another point tweeted pictures of tools allegedly seized from people arrested in protests in the Bronx. The four pictures he tweeted appeared to show the same tools from different angles.
AD
ADVERTISING
Quote:Commissioner Shea
@NYPDShea
These are not the tools of peaceful demonstrators.
Conversely, these ARE the tools of criminals bent on causing mayhem & hijacking what we all know is a worthwhile cause.
These items were seized from individuals arrested in the Bronx last night.
7,983 people are talking about this Some of these allegations could turn out to be substantiated. But many of them have not or seemed to inflate the danger actually posed. In each case, a criminal suggestion was tweeted out in a way that raises suspicions about the intentions of the protesters and often their level of organization.
Many of them are the kind of thing you see on social media — using inference and innuendo to raise suspicions about adversaries. In these cases, though, they are promoted by police, whose job it is to carry out the law and not jump to conclusions about criminality.
Shea himself recently [url=https://nypost.com/2020/06/08/nypd-commissioner-ignores-his-own-misinformation-warnings/]warned against such rumor-mongering.
“We are living in a toxic time: One that relies increasingly on the selective use of a combination of things: some facts, misinformation, rumor, false conclusions that can be drawn from all of them, sometimes spill over into social media or mainstream media,” he said.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(06-17-2020, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Without knowing about the first case, is there more to that charge than just the weapon used? I'll have to read up on it.
(06-17-2020, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: That said I don't believe a taser is lethal when used properly. I also don't believe someone who just took one from an officer knows how to aim and fire one while running either so I don't find them a lethal threat to anyone.
Actually, a taser is more dangerous in the hands of someone untrained and using it recklessly.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-17-2020, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wouldn't it be less likely to hit/be effective? It would be like me aiming and shooting versus someone who has, well, ever fired a gun before...lol.
Training with a taser involves where to fire it so the probes stick and it is most effective without being dangerous (though there are cases of individuals being tased and dying or have serious health issues). Hit someone with a taser int he wrong place and it can be very dangerous.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-16-2020, 02:17 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now.
It's always somebody else's fault.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Are you talking about the cops who say they are not responsible for their actions or the protestors or who?
(06-17-2020, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Training with a taser involves where to fire it so the probes stick and it is most effective without being dangerous (though there are cases of individuals being tased and dying or have serious health issues). Hit someone with a taser int he wrong place and it can be very dangerous.
I can understand that. I suppose it should be "dangerous" then. Is till feel like it was less likely to be dangerous by a guy running backwards and aiming wildly. Less than if he was firing a gun, say.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
We are all having this discussion in part because protests against police brutality swept the nation following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, and continue still. The protests have crystallized into a movement for sweeping police reform. Reform activists argue that cases like Floyd's are not the result of a few "bad apples," but recur year after year in many different communities also as an expression of systemic racism, enabled by a toxic "police culture" (discussed below) which police cannot be trusted to fix themselves. We are having a national debate about this now, as "the other side" argues there is no such racism and police are just fine--except for a few bad apples, whose prosecution we should concentrate on in ways that don't undermine public trust in the police as a whole or shift funding priorities. Banning choke holds ok, though. This national debate means that in the next year, some 3-5 cases of excessive police action (in addition to Floyd's) will receive closer scrutiny from the press, politicians, and reform activists, according to how each highlights some aspect of the above-mentioned "police culture" on interpretation of existing law, on the behavior of prosecutors who work daily with the police, and upon the training often appealed to when deciding whether an officer's actions were "reasonable." Reformers will use these cases to test and push the reform they seek, and to measure whether any such reform is actually occurring. Quite likely the Brooks case will be one of these 3-5.
The following quote highlights the essential points the reformers of "police culture" would like to see addressed . . .
(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What defense? Has the former officer been charged with a crime? Also, if charged the officer will certainly go for a bench trial in which he will be sure to walk. Quite honestly, if the DA files charges he'll just be pulling a Mosby, filing charges to appease a mob instead of actual doing their job properly. Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed. Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing. This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students. At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person.
. . . starting with a bench trial option in which an officer who has been investigated 12 times in the last five years* and disciplined at least once for excessive force "will be sure to walk" pro forma after shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Or maybe charged with nothing. The "mob" of voters who want reform will not likely find that a reasonable outcome. If we have arrived at a point where there is "zero chance" that such an officer can be charged for shooting a DUI stop in the back for taking his taser--and can "get his job back"--that will perfectly illustrate the problem they want addressed. If there is a jury trial, then at some point the prosecution is going to introduce a still photo of Officer Rolfe with his gun pointed at Brook's back as Brooks runs away, the moment before Rolfe fires. They will align this moment with the existing Georgia statute on an officer's use of lethal force "only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person." They will ask, first, if the officer appears to be preventing great bodily injury to himself as he fires at Brooks' back, regardless of whether he was in danger earlier. Then they will ask if the inebriated Brooks appears to threaten "death or great bodily injury" to others with his already fired taser. Did firing at him in a residential area (and missing once) increase or decrease risk of injury to others? The jury will hear some police experts testify that the officers actions were "in line with police training," and therefore ok, but other experts will emphasize not only the back shot, but the rejected option--let him flee, call for back up--and argue the actions were not so in line. For MSM news commentators following the trial, this will raise questions about that training, the relative emphasis on "shoot for body mass" as opposed to "let him run"--all to be put before the public.
(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, they could have let him run with the weapon he was actively using against them. Of course, you have the benefit of watching this scenario from your chair, not having just fought the guy on the ground and had him steal your weapon. The officer in question had to make a split second decision and IMO, he did not act inappropriately. I do appreciate your statement though, it shows just how unreasonable many people can be when analyzing police use of force decision.
Certainly embarrassing that Brooks manhandled two police officers and wrested a weapon of intermediate force (classified with pepper spray and impact weapons) away from them and then "fired" it in flight. A jury might wonder if shame and anger factored into Rolfe's "split second decision." I suspect we are going to hear a lot more about the "could have let him run" option. We'll read of comparable cases, of officers who did "let him run," whether that increased or decreased risk to the public, whether more white than black suspects receive the benefit of the doubt, etc. and consider how comfortable police departments and others are with officers exercising split-second decisions in favor of life. And we'll hear some argue that the choice between letting Brooks run and killing him would just be very hard for any reasonable person. And people will have to decide if they really want law officers, and prosecutors, to assume such decisions are so "very hard" in such cases that either option is “appropriate.” That will be a key to deciding how reasonable or unreasonable people are when, as voters, they view police actions from their chairs.
One side of this debate will focus on history, police training, statistics and trial processes to reframe existing standards of "appropriate" actions. Calling them "unreasonable" might not work well when "reasonable" is itself what is in question.
(06-17-2020, 12:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Without knowing about the first case, is there more to that charge than just the weapon used? I'll have to read up on it.
That said I don't believe a taser is lethal when used properly. I also don't believe someone who just took one from an officer knows how to aim and fire one while running either so I don't find them a lethal threat to anyone.
Once fired, there is no chance of "firing" it again to embed those little darts.
It will still shock but has to be jammed against the body now.
Once Brooks missed, and ran, there was no danger of him still "shooting" an officer with an, in any case, less than lethal weapon.
(06-17-2020, 04:53 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Turn the tv on it's everywhere. I was referring to the Rashard Brooks shooting when I posted it. But that line of thinking has become the norm.
Sorry, but I still don't get your point.
People have been blaming other people for thousands of years. There is no "new" lack of individual personal responsibility.
"What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now.
It's always somebody else's fault."
I never said it was a new line of thinking just that I believe it's becoming more prevalent. You are welcome to disagree.
The Atlanta Police officer who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks at a Wendy's parking lot last week was charged with felony murder, and the other officer on scene was charged with aggravated assault, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced Wednesday.
The decision comes just five days after Brooks was shot twice in the back in Atlanta during an attempted arrest. Officer Garrett Rolfe, who shot at Brooks three times, faces 11 charges in all, and officer Devin Brosnan, who was also on scene, faces three charges. After shooting Brooks, Rolfe said "I got him" and kicked him, and Brosnan then stood on Brooks' shoulder, Howard said. The officers did not provide medical aid to Brooks for over two minutes after shooting him, Howard said. Their demeanor after the shooting "did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks, but reflected other kinds of emotions," Howard said.
Brosnan has agreed to be a state's witness, Howard said. "I don't remember a circumstance where we had an officer, particularly in a case this important, to step forward and say that they would cooperate with the state," he said.
Two of the counts against Rolfe are for aggravated assault related to a bullet he fired that hit an occupied vehicle nearby in the Wendy's lot. Brosnan's three charges include two counts of violations of oath of office. ...
with the felony murder charge, Rolfe could face the death penalty if convicted.
Not looking like a bench trial. "The Mob" will be pretty angry if this guy gets his job back.
(06-17-2020, 05:28 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Fred, this should speak for itself.
"What's becoming more & more obvious and has been for quite some time is the mantra of personal responsibility. There is virtually no such thing now.
It's always somebody else's fault."
I never said it was a new line of thinking just that I believe it's becoming more prevalent. You are welcome to disagree.
I'm willing to agree if you are talking about long-term tendency in US culture, but without examples it is hard to know what you mean.
Trump comes to mind as the poster boy for "no personal responsibility," but the trend certainly predates him, if we are talking about the same thing.
However, I do share Fred's puzzlement as to how it applies to the Brooks case. It could mean officers and police are not taking responsibility for bad decisions, or that those demanding justice for Brooks are mitigating Brooks responsibility, assuming his "failure to comply" makes him solely responsible for his death.
If the latter than I don't agree as that pretty much destroys police accountability.
(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Even if you disagree with the use of force, there is zero chance that a provable crime was committed. Not only that, but the officer is almost certainly going to get his job back based on the lack of due process in his firing. This is not a blatantly obvious abuse of authority like tasing those two college students. At worst this is a debatable shooting, there is no criminal conduct in this incident by the officer visible to any reasonable, fair minded person.
The officers knew that the victim had no viable weapon. He was no threat as he ran away. Deadly force was not authorized in that situation.
The officers shot Brooks in the back and also shot into the car where passengers were still seated.
Then after they shot Brooks in the back they kicked him while he was on the ground. Stood on him while he was dying, and then refused to render and medical assistance.
SSF is a perfect example of how a LEO can not see the truth and will do anything to defend the actions of a fellow LEO. He sees no crime when a law enforcement officer kicks a helpless defendant lying on the ground. He even thinks the officer should get his job back.
Any cop who supports a "bad apple" is a bad apple himself.
(06-17-2020, 04:53 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Turn the tv on it's everywhere. I was referring to the Rashard Brooks shooting when I posted it. But that line of thinking has become the norm.
As opposed to what, the 14th century where people were purchasing indulgences from the church? I tells ya, the notion that "being offended" and "blaming other people" is some sort of new fad is the biggest political lark of 'em all.
(06-17-2020, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The officers knew that the victim had no viable weapon. He was no threat as he ran away. Deadly force was not authorized in that situation.
The officers shot Brooks in the back and also shot into the car where passengers were still seated.
Then after they shot Brooks in the back they kicked him while he was on the ground. Stood on him while he was dying, and then refused to render and medical assistance.
SSF is a perfect example of how a LEO can not see the truth and will do anything to defend the actions of a fellow LEO. He sees no crime when a law enforcement officer kicks a helpless defendant lying on the ground. He even thinks the officer should get his job back.
Any cop who supports a "bad apple" is a bad apple himself.
Seems I've seen you post thoughts contrary to this in the past. Seems I recall you once said "Once you assault an officer all bets are off"
![[Image: BP37US3E2VB3DIWZ4EZSB6AHOE.PNG&w=32]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BP37US3E2VB3DIWZ4EZSB6AHOE.PNG&w=32)
![[Image: EZdOkW4WAAAvTXS?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZdOkW4WAAAvTXS?format=jpg&name=small)
![[Image: EZ8kaFtUcAE045o?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ8kaFtUcAE045o?format=jpg&name=small)
![[Image: EZ4UhNuUcAAL2D-?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ4UhNuUcAAL2D-?format=jpg&name=small)
![[Image: EZ4UiSfVAAA4irM?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ4UiSfVAAA4irM?format=jpg&name=small)
![[Image: q_gHe4qLJKdiEY6K?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/1267853756496064515/pu/img/q_gHe4qLJKdiEY6K?format=jpg&name=small)
![[Image: qlBSpnu-?format=jpg&name=600x314]](https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1272656112312090624/qlBSpnu-?format=jpg&name=600x314)
![[Image: EZyfNb1XkAEzod6?format=jpg&name=360x360]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZyfNb1XkAEzod6?format=jpg&name=360x360)
![[Image: EZyfNb1XkAArVUh?format=jpg&name=360x360]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZyfNb1XkAArVUh?format=jpg&name=360x360)
![[Image: EZyfNb1WsAI0il3?format=jpg&name=360x360]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZyfNb1WsAI0il3?format=jpg&name=360x360)
![[Image: EZyfNb1XgAIkQgP?format=jpg&name=360x360]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZyfNb1XgAIkQgP?format=jpg&name=360x360)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
