bmags Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 11:15 PM) What would camera audio do? Is the mic powerful enough to pick up noise outside the car? I am not certain what the great expectation is there. I think the video tells the whole story what more is needed? Would like to hear the dialogue of the officers on the scene if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 05:11 PM) It wouldn't ultimately be their decision though. I'm sure they wouldn't want it released, but they're not the ones that decide. This is Emmanuel trying to cover his own ass at this point...he's in full damage control mode. It is just like when he was in the Clinton White House. Instead of making a stand early to do what is right, he waited until the political winds of popular opinion shifted, and that is why his opinion changed. Same thing with firing McCartney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 That was kinda weird. I went to the Irish Fellowship Club luncheon today. Rahm, McCarthy AND Alvarez were there. McCarthy got the loudest applause with a standing ovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 4, 2015 -> 02:48 PM) That was kinda weird. I went to the Irish Fellowship Club luncheon today. Rahm, McCarthy AND Alvarez were there. McCarthy got the loudest applause with a standing ovation. He was pretty well liked across the board especially as an outsider that came into Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 There was a document dump last night showing all of the other police interviews. Hint: they all lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 11:15 PM) What would camera audio do? Is the mic powerful enough to pick up noise outside the car? I am not certain what the great expectation is there. I think the video tells the whole story what more is needed? Maybe something was said after the shooting where the officers were discussing how to cover it up and what to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 10:22 AM) Maybe something was said after the shooting where the officers were discussing how to cover it up and what to say Would also provide what verbal directives were given to McDonald. We all at least assume he actually was told to drop the knife. What if even that wasn't true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) There was a document dump last night showing all of the other police interviews. Hint: they all lies. Charge them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 3, 2015 -> 01:47 PM) No, the Chicago PD did not try to cover this up...that's not how such investigations work. This is what Rahm wants people to believe, however. But when evidence is collected, including internal investigations, it's handed off to a 3rd party and/or locked up/tagged so that the CPD has no control over, or extremely restricted access too. Rahm is trying to use the CPD (and it's chief) as a scapegoat for a coverup he himself had a hand in architecting because this shooting occurred right before his re-election...and had this come out then, he'd have lost to Garcia. OK, so cops telling a different story to what actually happened after the shooting doesn't constitute an attempt at a cover up...alrighty then. Anyways, the point I wanted to make is just imagine how many times something like that has happened before when witnesses tell a different version of the events than what the police say. Without video evidence, Van Dyke would have gotten away with this, no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 05:27 PM) Charge them all. Police cannot be charged for their testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 09:51 PM) Police cannot be charged for their testimony. Of course. Fire them all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 08:04 PM) OK, so cops telling a different story to what actually happened after the shooting doesn't constitute an attempt at a cover up...alrighty then. Anyways, the point I wanted to make is just imagine how many times something like that has happened before when witnesses tell a different version of the events than what the police say. Without video evidence, Van Dyke would have gotten away with this, no doubt about it. Yes this was definitely an attempted cover up. Its disgusting what the cops did here and it was similarly disgusting when all the race baiting witnesses lied about what Darren Wilson did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 While were at it, heres one from yesterday of the cops killing a guy seemingly after he was going down from being tased. For some reason I doubt this one will get as much press though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 06:44 PM) While were at it, heres one from yesterday of the cops killing a guy seemingly after he was going down from being tased. For some reason I doubt this one will get as much press though. He had more time than Laquan McDonald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 6, 2015 -> 09:12 PM) He had more time than Laquan McDonald Ya thats probably why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 5, 2015 -> 08:04 PM) OK, so cops telling a different story to what actually happened after the shooting doesn't constitute an attempt at a cover up...alrighty then. Anyways, the point I wanted to make is just imagine how many times something like that has happened before when witnesses tell a different version of the events than what the police say. Without video evidence, Van Dyke would have gotten away with this, no doubt about it. As with most eye witness accounts, they (the officers at the scene) may truly believe they saw what they claim to have saw in their reports...the question is, did they? It's very possible they collaborated and made up this story together, but it's also possible they didn't. Do they really believe the story they told, DESPITE video evidence on the contrary? These are important questions. With all the money the city seems to have to pay off families for things like this, maybe they should start spending that money on better dash cameras, body cameras, and a taser for every officer on the street...and these situations would instantly be brought to an absolute minimum and we wouldn't have to be asking these questions. Point is, I'm not sure there is some grand conspiracy from the officers at the scene to help cover this up...but they key words there is "I'm not sure". If it can be proven they made up this story together, I'd have NO issues going after all of them...but I do have an issue with speculating they did and witch hunting them just because they're the police. I bet some of these officers at the scene didn't even like this Van Dyke guy. Edited December 7, 2015 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I am more skeptical of police accounts being faulty than regular witness accounts, as their training would, hopefully, allow them to observe in high stress situations better than a witness in that situation for a first time. Police testimony and reports are often treated with greater deference because of this, and if that's not accurate either, than that is concerning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 If you don't think the Blue Wall of Silence had an effect on this case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I'm very happy the DOJ is reviewing the CPD. I really think the time is right, and that is the right approach, to providing some honest to God reforms that will help the city and police longterm. To me, it will be the same kick that Pat Fitzgerald provided to the state govt. They may not be better in policy, but I truly believe the state gov't is cleaner than ever before thanks to his efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2015 -> 11:26 AM) I'm very happy the DOJ is reviewing the CPD. I really think the time is right, and that is the right approach, to providing some honest to God reforms that will help the city and police longterm. To me, it will be the same kick that Pat Fitzgerald provided to the state govt. They may not be better in policy, but I truly believe the state gov't is cleaner than ever before thanks to his efforts. Keeping in mind of course the DOJ is being run/overseen by the same circle of people as Rahm. Do we really think the DOJ is going to come out with some damning report that would screw him? No chance. Too much politically at stake here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Please, aside from the fact that the same "circle of people" do not run the DOJ, we are talking about years of abuse we've all "heard" about but now have subpoena's to back up. If anything this allows him to offset blame and solutions to a federal group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 7, 2015 -> 12:04 PM) Please, aside from the fact that the same "circle of people" do not run the DOJ, we are talking about years of abuse we've all "heard" about but now have subpoena's to back up. If anything this allows him to offset blame and solutions to a federal group. Lynch was appointed by Obama. Obama also appointed her as US attorney back in 2010. They have a history, much like he had with Holder. If you think that's just some coincidence, like he wouldn't appoint people he knows, or people of people he knows, you're crazy. I'm sure Rahm will try to offset blame, but he's been in office for 4 years now. That's not exactly "oh i just inherited this mess and had no time to do anything about it." He also appointed the last superintendent, so if any of the DOJ comes back with any findings for the last 4 years, how is that not on Rahm too for his appointment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 7, 2015 -> 01:40 PM) Lynch was appointed by Obama. Obama also appointed her as US attorney back in 2010. They have a history, much like he had with Holder. If you think that's just some coincidence, like he wouldn't appoint people he knows, or people of people he knows, you're crazy. I'm sure Rahm will try to offset blame, but he's been in office for 4 years now. That's not exactly "oh i just inherited this mess and had no time to do anything about it." He also appointed the last superintendent, so if any of the DOJ comes back with any findings for the last 4 years, how is that not on Rahm too for his appointment? Jenks, you know the AG's office is apolitical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Is there any direct connection between Lynch and Rahm? If there isn't, I wouldn't see her putting her career on the line to protect Rahm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 7, 2015 -> 12:43 PM) Is there any direct connection between Lynch and Rahm? If there isn't, I wouldn't see her putting her career on the line to protect Rahm. She was originally appointed by Clinton as a US attorney and then again twice (US attorney and AG) by Obama. Rahm has played integral roles in both administrations. Are they best buds? I dunno. But I have no doubt there's a familiarity there. Edited December 7, 2015 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts