Watch Live: Ferguson Police To Release Name Of Cop Who Shot Michael Brown
In the wake of protests besieging Ferguson, Missouri, police are to release the name of the officer who shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown last weekend.
Police Chief Tom Jackson said the name would be made public Friday morning.
Watch live courtesy of NBC:
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
82 responses to Watch Live: Ferguson Police To Release Name Of Cop Who Shot Michael Brown
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
R.J. Carter August 15th, 2014 at 09:48
Hear that crashing sound, Anonymous? That was your d0xxing credibility.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 09:53
It is because of Anonymous that this name was released.
R.J. Carter August 15th, 2014 at 10:00
What did we ever do before Anonymous when police were involved in shootings?
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 10:33
The police normally wouldn’t withhold the name of the cop, if the cop is truly justified in his shoot then they have nothing to hide. However, this was not a justified shoot and the cops knew it so they had to protect their fellow officer.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 10:59
His name was initially being withheld because of specific death threats. Regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, the Chief was practicing due diligence in first protecting the well being of his subordinate. We don’t throw people into the wind to be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. If found guilty, he will be punished, if found not guilty…well at this point he will still be punished. He really has no chance now regardless of the facts.
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 11:24
If you watched THE LAST WORD on msnbc last night you would have heard about an officer in NYC who committed a similar shooting and was successfully defended with the plea of TEMPORARY INSANITY. smdh FTW.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 11:46
So the perceived injustice of one case justifies the application of lynch mobs in another?
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 11:50
There are no lynch mobs there is only the injustice of a man being shot in the back.
If the shooting had happened in any other manner his name would have been released within minutes.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 12:08
The officer was specifically targeted with death threats, now that his name has been released, he is being specifically targeted by name with death threats, that is a lynch mob. In our country, no matter how heinous we perceive the act, the actor should be subject to an investigation, charges, trial, verdict, and sentence. You are still implying that fighting injustice with more injustice is somehow morally equivalent.
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 12:13
Death threats are a matter of everyday life in our country. It is reasonable actionable evidence that they could occur that is pertinent to the situation
I had a death threat made against me, living outside the city. I called city police and they asked where I lived they said call the state police.I called the state police, they asked where the threat was made I told them inside the city. Guess what there answer was?
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 12:29
Oh, well that changes everything. I’ve been a victim of theft, so I guess we should just chock it up as everyday life in our country.
I think rioting, looting, arson all qualify as reasonable, actionable evidence along when considered in relation to the threats. I don’t like the thought of living in a country where a police officer unjustifiably shoots and unarmed suspect (if that turns out to be the case here), but I loathe the thought of living in a country where vigilante justice, mob mentality, and people being tried and sentenced in the court of popular consensus before facts.
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 12:34
ICYMI the Gov.Nixon just stated the name of the officer should have been released immediately. If the death threats were truly credible his name would not have been released.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 16:35
Gov. Nixon is now head of the local police dept. ?
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 07:37
What’s your point, isn’t the gov allowed to issue statements on points of FOIA?
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:36
The point is Gov. Nixon has no more authority over that decision than you or I, therefore his ‘opinion’ on when the name should have been released and $5.00 will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 09:38
I never said he had the authority to release it just that it’s a matter of law that it should have been.
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:48
And like I said, the ‘ICYMI’ concerning Gov. Nixon holds no more sway than if the Pope came out and said the name should have been released immediately. It’s not a case of ‘missing it’, it’s a case of not caring what his opinion was.
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 08:08
Then you should be outraged over the large number of shootings/killings of black men across America by police that have decided they are judge, jury and executioner. This is not a perception, but a fact.
No one looted and/or set fires because they were outraged over this tragedy, a few opportunistic criminals (all but 2 from other cities) used the protests as a way to commit crimes.
The citizens of Ferguson are rightly outraged, this is hardly the first instance of police misconduct – and I’m being kind here. They can either keep their mouths shut and continue to be victims or raise their voices together to be heard. It’s not only a basic right in our Constitution but a human moral imperative. For decades these victims and their families have done things the right way; filed complaints, sought administrative and legal reprieve but are ignored, dismissed or outright re-victimized.
Fact of the matter is, had the shooting been justified the police would have immediately taken ownership but they didn’t. No attempt was made to assist the young man lay dying in the street – he wasn’t even approached for more than 4 minutes.
You should read this, he makes a far more credible and articulate case: http://davidsimon.com/the-end-game-for-american-civic-responsibility-pt-iii/
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:43
If you have read my posts, you would see that I have not made a judgement or expressed outrage one way or the other. I have no more ‘facts’ about the incident than you or anyone else sitting on the sidelines. Everything to this point has been filtered speculation. Liberals are always standing up for rule of law, yet have no problem going in en masse and preemptively influencing the judicial process with speculative and inflammatory words and actions assisted by a more than willing media. The likelihood of fair adjudication is pretty slim at this point.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 09:55
The likelihood of fair adjudication is pretty slim at this point.
———————————————————————————– ……It was right from the start in a town w/the record of Ferguson.
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 10:06
You may be spot on with that statement, however, it doesn’t excuse the level of pre-facts, pre-charge, pre-trial, pre-verdict, pre-sentence, assumptions being splashed nationwide. I said previously that our judicial system is imperfect, yet no one has yet offered an example of a better one.
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 10:30
That was my whole point – the police did not say anything. They should have – immediately – but instead chose to hide. You railed about the looters, inferring somehow that we liberals were justifying this criminal behavior. This is ot the case at all. Fact is – if the police had handled this as they should have – as described in the link I provided the chances of the situation getting to this point is unlikely. I find it difficult to find any credibility in the Police Chief or law enforcement for Ferguson based on their behavior and the Chief’s comments.
Jeff Allen August 17th, 2014 at 08:22
I never implied that liberals justify the looting, there are folks on here who clearly seem to think it’s just. I was referring to way it is being publicized with it’s emphasis on “already guilty”. The officer may be 100% guilty and if so, the death penalty would not be inappropriate, however, we have a system (warts and all) that decides that, not public consensus.
Carla Akins August 17th, 2014 at 08:32
I think we’re closer to the same side, than not. Certainly I don’t want to see anyone wrongly convicted of any crime. History has shown, that’s never really the case when it comes to these types of police involved shootings. After the Rodney King video surfaced they filed charges, but the jury still let them off the hook. I can see why the folks of Ferguson feel they won’t get a fair shake.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 14:21
He should of thought about the death threats before he shot a young man in his back multiple times and killed him. When you do something, there are repercussions and that is what gives us a “civil” society. And do you really believe there would be a “lynch mob” going after this officer? He would have no protection? Seems a little like bullshit to me.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 16:39
I just prefer to rely on the admittedly imperfect yet unequalled justice system. Show me one that, though flawed, strikes a better balance between freedoms and protections and I’ll take a look at it.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 17:15
You seem to prefer which ever “facts” support your argument and I prefer to leave you with that.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 17:29
I’m not showing preference to any facts since there are so few available at this point. That’s kinda how it’s supposed to work, get the “facts” first, then pass judgement, I’ll leave you with that.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 18:55
“get the “facts” first, then pass judgement” bit late for that, don’t cha think?
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 20:11
Yes it is, you have already proven that. I on the other hand have made no assertion either way, or even speculated as to what occurred between the officer and Brown in terms of guilt or innocence. Go back and read my posts.
Suzanne McFly August 16th, 2014 at 09:00
Pure assumptions and not “facts” in this first post…”His name was initially being withheld because of specific death threats. Regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, the Chief was practicing due diligence in first protecting the well being of his subordinate. We don’t throw people into the wind to be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. If found guilty, he will be punished, if found not guilty…well at this point he will still be punished. He really has no chance now regardless of the facts.”
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:45
Correctly summed up, those were facts released by the authorities. I hold no expectation that you or many on here give one whit of credibility to anything the police say, so it’s really a moot point.
CanterburyTom August 15th, 2014 at 22:10
Shot in the back? Have they released the autopsy report yet?
Suzanne McFly August 16th, 2014 at 09:02
No they have not, but if you simply listen to what the people on TV have said, you will not only see the police chief but the eyewitnesses say he was shot in the back, I feel that is pretty good evidence that he was in fact shot in the back.
CanterburyTom August 16th, 2014 at 09:52
Try listening to this, it’s about as credible as anything we’ve heard from the scene. http://danaloeschradio.com/alleged-friend-of-officer-darren-wilson-offers-his-side/
I’m sure the story will come out as soon as the DOJ after it has worked every angle to fit the “racist” narrative.
CanterburyTom August 15th, 2014 at 22:00
An interesting theory. Has the autopsy been released?
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 10:19
It by law, a matter of public information, Anonymous had nothing to do with it.
R.J. Carter August 15th, 2014 at 09:48
Hear that crashing sound, Anonymous? That was your d0xxing credibility.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 09:53
It is because of Anonymous that this name was released.
R.J. Carter August 15th, 2014 at 10:00
What did we ever do before Anonymous when police were involved in shootings?
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 10:33
The police normally wouldn’t withhold the name of the cop, if the cop is truly justified in his shoot then they have nothing to hide. However, this was not a justified shoot and the cops knew it so they had to protect their fellow officer.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 10:59
His name was initially being withheld because of specific death threats. Regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, the Chief was practicing due diligence in first protecting the well being of his subordinate. We don’t throw people into the wind to be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. If found guilty, he will be punished, if found not guilty…well at this point he will still be punished. He really has no chance now regardless of the facts.
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 11:24
If you watched THE LAST WORD on msnbc last night you would have heard about an officer in NYC who committed a similar shooting and was successfully defended with the plea of TEMPORARY INSANITY. smdh FTW.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 11:46
So the perceived injustice of one case justifies the application of lynch mobs in another?
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 11:50
There are no lynch mobs there is only the injustice of a man being shot in the back.
If the shooting had happened in any other manner his name would have been released within minutes.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 12:08
The officer was specifically targeted with death threats, now that his name has been released, he is being specifically targeted by name with death threats, that is a lynch mob. In our country, no matter how heinous we perceive the act, the actor should be subject to an investigation, charges, trial, verdict, and sentence. You are still implying that fighting injustice with more injustice is somehow morally equivalent.
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 12:13
Death threats are a matter of everyday life in our country. It is reasonable actionable evidence that they could occur that is pertinent to the situation
I had a death threat made against me, living outside the city. I called city police and they asked where I lived they said call the state police.I called the state police, they asked where the threat was made I told them inside the city. Guess what their answer was?
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 12:29
Oh, well that changes everything. I’ve been a victim of theft, so I guess we should just chock it up as everyday life in our country.
I think rioting, looting, arson all qualify as reasonable, actionable evidence along when considered in relation to the threats. I don’t like the thought of living in a country where a police officer unjustifiably shoots and unarmed suspect (if that turns out to be the case here), but I loathe the thought of living in a country where vigilante justice, mob mentality, and people being tried and sentenced in the court of popular consensus before facts.
edmeyer_able August 15th, 2014 at 12:34
ICYMI the Gov.Nixon just stated the name of the officer should have been released immediately. If the death threats were truly credible his name would not have been released.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 16:35
Gov. Nixon is now head of the local police dept. ?
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 07:37
What’s your point, isn’t the gov allowed to issue statements on points of FOIA?
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:36
The point is Gov. Nixon has no more authority over that decision than you or I, therefore his ‘opinion’ on when the name should have been released and $5.00 will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 09:38
I never said he had the authority to release it just that it’s a matter of law that it should have been.
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:48
And like I said, the ‘ICYMI’ concerning Gov. Nixon holds no more sway than if the Pope came out and said the name should have been released immediately. It’s not a case of ‘missing it’, it’s a case of not caring what his opinion was.
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 08:08
Then you should be outraged over the large number of shootings/killings of black men across America by police that have decided they are judge, jury and executioner. This is not a perception, but a fact.
No one looted and/or set fires because they were outraged over this tragedy, a few opportunistic criminals (all but 2 from other cities) used the protests as a way to commit crimes.
The citizens of Ferguson are rightly outraged, this is hardly the first instance of police misconduct – and I’m being kind here. They can either keep their mouths shut and continue to be victims or raise their voices together to be heard. It’s not only a basic right in our Constitution but a human moral imperative. For decades these victims and their families have done things the right way; filed complaints, sought administrative and legal reprieve but are ignored, dismissed or outright re-victimized.
Fact of the matter is, had the shooting been justified the police would have immediately taken ownership but they didn’t. No attempt was made to assist the young man lay dying in the street – he wasn’t even approached for more than 4 minutes.
You should read this, he makes a far more credible and articulate case: http://davidsimon.com/the-end-game-for-american-civic-responsibility-pt-iii/
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:43
If you have read my posts, you would see that I have not made a judgement or expressed outrage one way or the other. I have no more ‘facts’ about the incident than you or anyone else sitting on the sidelines. Everything to this point has been filtered speculation. Liberals are always standing up for rule of law, yet have no problem going in en masse and preemptively influencing the judicial process with speculative and inflammatory words and actions assisted by a more than willing media. The likelihood of fair adjudication is pretty slim at this point.
edmeyer_able August 16th, 2014 at 09:55
The likelihood of fair adjudication is pretty slim at this point.
———————————————————————————– ……It was right from the start in a town w/the record of Ferguson.
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 10:06
You may be spot on with that statement, however, it doesn’t excuse the level of pre-facts, pre-charge, pre-trial, pre-verdict, pre-sentence, assumptions being splashed nationwide. I said previously that our judicial system is imperfect, yet no one has yet offered an example of a better one.
Carla Akins August 16th, 2014 at 10:30
That was my whole point – the police did not say anything. They should have – immediately – but instead chose to hide. You railed about the looters, inferring somehow that we liberals were justifying this criminal behavior. This is ot the case at all. Fact is – if the police had handled this as they should have – as described in the link I provided the chances of the situation getting to this point is unlikely. I find it difficult to find any credibility in the Police Chief or law enforcement for Ferguson based on their behavior and the Chief’s comments.
Jeff Allen August 17th, 2014 at 08:22
I never implied that liberals justify the looting, there are folks on here who clearly seem to think it’s just. I was referring to way it is being publicized with it’s emphasis on “already guilty”. The officer may be 100% guilty and if so, the death penalty would not be inappropriate, however, we have a system (warts and all) that decides that, not public consensus.
Carla Akins August 17th, 2014 at 08:32
I think we’re closer to the same side, than not. Certainly I don’t want to see anyone wrongly convicted of any crime. History has shown, that’s never really the case when it comes to these types of police involved shootings. After the Rodney King video surfaced they filed charges, but the jury still let them off the hook. I can see why the folks of Ferguson feel they won’t get a fair shake.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 14:21
He should of thought about the death threats before he shot a young man in his back multiple times and killed him. When you do something, there are repercussions and that is what gives us a “civil” society. And do you really believe there would be a “lynch mob” going after this officer? He would have no protection? Seems a little like bullshit to me.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 16:39
I just prefer to rely on the admittedly imperfect yet unequalled justice system. Show me one that, though flawed, strikes a better balance between freedoms and protections and I’ll take a look at it.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 17:15
You seem to prefer which ever “facts” support your argument and I prefer to leave you with that.
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 17:29
I’m not showing preference to any facts since there are so few available at this point. That’s kinda how it’s supposed to work, get the “facts” first, then pass judgement, I’ll leave you with that.
Suzanne McFly August 15th, 2014 at 18:55
“get the “facts” first, then pass judgement” bit late for that, don’t cha think?
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 20:11
Yes it is, you have already proven that. I on the other hand have made no assertion either way, or even speculated as to what occurred between the officer and Brown in terms of guilt or innocence. Go back and read my posts.
Suzanne McFly August 16th, 2014 at 09:00
Pure assumptions and not “facts” in this first post…”His name was initially being withheld because of specific death threats. Regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, the Chief was practicing due diligence in first protecting the well being of his subordinate. We don’t throw people into the wind to be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. If found guilty, he will be punished, if found not guilty…well at this point he will still be punished. He really has no chance now regardless of the facts.”
Jeff Allen August 16th, 2014 at 09:45
Correctly summed up, those were facts released by the authorities. I hold no expectation that you or many on here give one whit of credibility to anything the police say, so it’s really a moot point.
CanterburyTom August 15th, 2014 at 22:10
Shot in the back? Have they released the autopsy report yet?
Suzanne McFly August 16th, 2014 at 09:02
No they have not, but if you simply listen to what the people on TV have said, you will not only see the police chief but the eyewitnesses say he was shot in the back, I feel that is pretty good evidence that he was in fact shot in the back.
CanterburyTom August 16th, 2014 at 09:52
Try listening to this, it’s about as credible as anything we’ve heard from the scene. http://danaloeschradio.com/alleged-friend-of-officer-darren-wilson-offers-his-side/
I’m sure the story will come out as soon as the DOJ has worked every angle to fit the “racist” narrative.
CanterburyTom August 15th, 2014 at 22:00
An interesting theory. Has the autopsy been released?
Jeff Allen August 15th, 2014 at 10:19
It is by law, a matter of public information, Anonymous had nothing to do with it.
Khary A August 15th, 2014 at 09:51
Dammit I didn’t get to hear any of it.
The last of the Thousad Sons August 15th, 2014 at 09:51
Dammit I didn’t get to hear any of it.
NW10 August 15th, 2014 at 09:53
Darren Wilson.
Khary A August 15th, 2014 at 09:54
Thanks
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) August 15th, 2014 at 09:53
Darren Wilson.
The last of the Thousad Sons August 15th, 2014 at 09:54
Thanks
CanterburyTom August 15th, 2014 at 21:58
Here’s another side of the story: http://danaloeschradio.com/alleged-friend-of-officer-darren-wilson-offers-his-side/
CanterburyTom August 15th, 2014 at 21:58
Here’s another side of the story: http://danaloeschradio.com/alleged-friend-of-officer-darren-wilson-offers-his-side/