home

New Michael Brown Witness Statements

Two workers, one of whom agreed to be interviewed, say they witnessed the shooting of Michael Brown. They didn't see the confrontation at Officer Wilson's vehicle, but according to the description of the one who is now speaking out, they did see what happened thereafter.

His account largely matches those who reported that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing; that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire.

The worker said Brown stopped to talk to him around 11:00 am. Later, the worker heard a shot: [More...]

The worker heard a gunshot. Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned.

The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded.

The worker also said:

The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

But he said he was sure Brown hadn't rushed at Wilson. The article says "No witness has ever publicly claimed that Brown charged at Wilson." It also recaps the statements of previously known witnesses.

CNN has a video someone captured showing the worker's reaction to the shooting. I'm not linking because it automatically plays the video.

< Oscar Pistorius Verdict Reading | Oscar Pistorius: Final Verdict >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Everyone should (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 09:10:00 PM EST
    Watch the video.

    A link to the video (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 09:36:13 PM EST
    ... and article from Slate - it does not play automatically.

    Witness quote at the end sums it up (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:14:18 AM EST
    "he was like a walking dead guy".

    These statements are very convincing to me - they are the most contemporaneous I have heard.

    Parent

    "He had his f-'ing hands in the air!" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    yelling this to the cops with a picture of the guy yelling this demonstrating what Brown was doing.

    No lawyering up for that recap from that witness, contemporaneous with the immediate aftermath of the shooting. I think it's very persuasive, at least for the grand jury's purposes.

    Parent

    We don't have Wilsons actual account, but (none / 0) (#126)
    by leftwig on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    doesn't the account relayed by the friend say that Brown lowered his hands before coming towards him, implying that the officer also states Brown had his hands up or outstretched?

    If the worker is mimicking what he saw, I'd say Browns hands were more outstretched than up.  The forensics should be able to provide some information as to the position of Browns arms when they were struck by bullets.  

    I've only heard one account that seems to account for all of the shots fired as they are captured on the audio (burst of 6 shots, 2 second pause and burst of 4 more) and also matching that all injuries were described by forensic specialists as coming from the front (Brown facing officer).  Why do few here quote that account?


    Parent

    You do understand that its not the (none / 0) (#148)
    by leftwig on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    construction worker on that video who is yelling that "he had his f-ing hands in the air", correct?  During that video, the construction worker is talking on the phone and someone in the back ground of the video is yelling that.  The construction worker is making a gesture with his hands out to the side, but we don't even know what he's doing that for in the Salon video.

    Parent
    "We" don't? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    The construction worker is making a gesture with his hands out to the side, but we don't even know what he's doing that for in the Salon video.


    Link

    CNN has obtained a video, taken shortly after Michael Brown was shot, that shows a contractor who had been working near the shooting site describing the incident in a manner that matches other eyewitness testimony--raising his arms and shouting "man, he was going like this," as if to suggest that Brown had adopted a posture of surrender before he died.


    Parent
    A handwritten note (none / 0) (#157)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    has recently come to light, thought to have been made by one of the construction workers.  It contains a small diagram, depicting the location of the witnesses relative to Brown's body.  A notation indicates a separation of 40 to 50 yards.  I haven't really had a chance to explore its authenticity.

    Parent
    Not coincidentally, ... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    ... the price of tea in China just spiked.

    Parent
    Here we go: (none / 0) (#162)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    "He [the construction witness] also drew a diagram showing him and his co-worker about 50 yards away"  (Construction workers describe police shooting of Michael Brown, Chris Hayes, Fox2now, 9-8-2014.)  The note on the diagram, however, indicates a distance of "40-50" yards.  You can find a copy of the note on Yahoo News, but it's to small to read.  Blown up copies are out there, but you have to search for them.  In any event, 40 yards is far too great a distance to refute testimony that Brown was instructed to halt.

    Sorry, can't post links.

    Parent

    Waaaaay too far (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    In any event, 40 yards is far too great a distance to refute testimony that Brown was instructed to halt.

    No idea whose conclusion this is or what the source is, but they're probably right.  It's waaaay too far to hear a whispered/softly spoken command to halt.

    All of which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the original point that he saw Brown raise his arms up.

    Parent

    Distressing, (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    isn't it, when witnesses you thought were "pure gold" end up blowing you out of the water?  Wilson can live with the "hands up" business.  He need only show that he could not allow Brown to come within lunging distance, without great risk to himself.  What kills the prosecution, in view of the assault that had occurred only moments earlier, is Brown's advance on Wilson, from a distance of only 10 feet, continuing for 25 feet as Wilson fired, retreating.  You can't "stumble," inadvertently, 25 feet.  Such an advance speaks of hostile intent, whatever the position of the hands, and they were quickly lowered.  No way you can reconcile all this with the claims of Dorian, Piaget, etc.  I seem to recall someone here suggesting Wilson should have fled.  I think we expect rather more "spine" in our peace officers.  And few, on that grand jury, are going to doubt that Brown was instructed to halt.  

    Parent
    Not really - just funny (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    Not only do you try to make up facts to support your claims, but now you're reduced to imagining the thoughts of other posters.

    But when your claims about imaginary drug usage are exposed, not to mention your claims that witnesses couldn't hear commands to halt from a distance of 40 yards, I guess you have to work with what you've got.

    Nothing.

    Parent

    Oh, (none / 0) (#176)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 01:47:12 PM EST
    so you're suggesting Mike's lyrical effusions weren't informed by "real life" experience?

    Parent
    I'm not "suggesting" anything (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    I'm pointing out that your effusions are complete and utter BS based on zero evidence.  Are you assuming that writing about something in a rap song means you have personal, "real-life" experience with it?  Brown also wrote rap songs about being rich, so using your logic, he must have "real life" experience being wealthy.  More importantly, you're now suggesting that Brown was under the influence of drugs (illegal and/or illegal) at the time of the shooting because he wrote about drugs in a rap song?!?

    Now you're just trying to be funny.

    Parent

    Why, oh why, can't some folks (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 11, 2014 at 11:10:35 PM EST
    seem to 'get' this?

    The article says "No witness has ever publicly claimed that Brown charged at Wilson."


    Rhetorical (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:32:47 AM EST
    I assume?

    Parent
    Admissibility of Video (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    I'm just going to throw this out for what it's worth--probably not much.  It occurred to me to wonder how the issues might be framed should Eric Holder take over this case and proceed with the prosecution as a violation of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242 (think Rodney King.)  As happenstance would have it, I came across a 7th Cir. Court of Appeals case, U.S. v. David Brown and Bruce Troxel, 00-2565 and 00-3026, 5-16-2001, which addresses the admissibility of the prior violent conduct of a couple of cops accused of unlawful use of force.  (They had previously roughed up a 'nude dancer').  The court ruled that the trial court properly let this evidence in.  The discussion is interesting. Here, of course, the issue is the latitude a defendant may be given in getting into evidence the prior conduct of the "victim," when he claims to have been assaulted by the "victim."  It's my lay impression, from leafing through other discussions, that the courts are inclined to give such defendants rather more leeway here.  Again, for what it's worth.  

    or "OK, I'm going to get you ..." (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by CityLife on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:29:33 AM EST
    I think we don't have all the facts yet I see far too many people making assumptions. If we look at some of the things the worker said there are things that back Wilson's case whether people want to admit that or not.  The part were the worker says he couldn't tell what Brown's movements indicated, that it could have been "a stumble to the ground" or "OK, I'm going to get you you're already shooting me." And the part were he says Wilson was backing up.

    Remember, with this video of a witness describing Brown: He "KEPT COMING TOWARDS the police" I do recall tantrums in the YouTube comments claiming that Brown DIDN'T keep coming towards the cop yet this worker is saying that Brown came towards the cop for 20-25 feet.

    We really have to keep in mind that witnesses aren't always accurate and that there are already contradictions in statements. Crenshaw makes the claim "at no time did I see him move towards officer, he may have taken one centimeter of a step forward." BUT the workers says Brown came 20-25 feet. I think the worker characterizes that as Brown doing it "while dead" but we should remember that the family autopsy said only the last two shots were fatal so he wouldn't have ben "dead" and it is possible if he hadn't kept coming at the cop he could have lived. Who walks "dead" for 20-25 feet? Doesn't sound possible.

    As far as hands up: "According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force." We don't have all the facts yet many have decided this case already.

    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 06:20:01 AM EST
    says that Brown advanced on Wilson 20-25 feet, as he retreated.  The Post-Dispatch, however, which actually interviewed the construction worker, says 25 feet, without qualification.  It takes a tall man a good 10 strides to cover 25 feet.

    Parent
    The interview with Johnson that I mostly (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by leftwig on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 08:43:29 AM EST
    use as reference was conducted with Sharpton 3 days after the event and with a lawyer standing next to him.

    I do agree that I tend to give Brady more credibility and his time estimates make much more sense, but Johnson is adamant that he was standing right next to Brown and within an arms length of Wilson when the first shot was fired from inside the SUV and it was from that position that he saw the blood on Browns shirt.  From an 8/12 MSNBC article, "I could see so vividly what was going on because I was so close, said Johnson, who said he was within arm's reach of both Brown and the officer when the first of several shots was fired at the teen."  

    I believe Johnson said he and Brown both ran after the first shot and Johnson ducked behind a parked car and it was from that position that Brown ran past him and, according to Johnson, yelled at him to keep running.

    I think the timeline you posted is probably fairly close.  I don't know about the first contact with jay walkers being exactly 12:01, but its probably close enough for use in discussion.  Also, we don't know that all clocks are in sync, but again, probably close enough for discussion.  

    I am going to guess that with police arriving at Canfield just seconds after the shooting that they were on arrival from the earliest call Wilson made and not the call of a disturbance.  My guess is that Wilson probably didn't call in about seeing a couple of jaywalkers, but more likely to report that he saw someone that he suspected might have been invovled in something more serious and was calling for support.  Some believe that he may have called in after the "scuffle" before taking pursuit and this would explain why Dorian says it took him 2-3 minutes to get out of the vehicle.  I tend to agree that Johnson doesn't literally mean 2-3 minutes but is his expression for some time passing and is an indication that Wilson didn't pursue immediately.  Could be he was dazed, could be he was calling in support.

    There is still a lot more information that would help evaluate the situation and to be able to cross check witness statements and frankly without all of the information, its way too early to draw any conclusions.  I am quite certain that we don't have all witness statements.  For example, Johnson indicates he hid behind a car that had a couple of people inside.  To my knowledge, we haven't heard publicly from either of them.  We've also heard the voice of the man in the black Canseco video, but haven't heard him speak anywhere else.  We still don't know how many shots were fired, or how many shots actually struck Brown (we've heard 6 frontal entry wounds, but not whether one bullet may have caused multiple entry wounds).  We don't know what injuries Wilson sustained if any and while we have a story relayed from a friend that has been described as being similar to the account Wilson had provided investigators, we don't have anything official.  We don't have any DNA analysis from the struggle (DNA/prints on the car, inside the car, on the gun, etc.).  We don't know what evidence was tagged and where its located at the scene.  

    Let me (3.00 / 5) (#5)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 06:15:32 AM EST
    come at it this way:  What evidence is there to refute, beyond reasonable doubt, Officer Wilson's expected testimony that he feared for his safety when he fired those last shots, despite the fact that Brown's hands were raised, and that he had instructed Brown to halt?  As to the latter issue, the construction workers say they heard no such demand.  But just how conclusive is this?  One of them told the Post-Dispatch that they were 50 feet removed from the shooting.  In the CNN video, however, taken minutes later, they are shown some 200 feet away from Brown's body.  In any event, 50 feet is fully sufficient to call into reasonable doubt testimony that Brown was not told to halt, or get on the ground.  This takes us to the raised hands, the "universal sign of surrender."  It seems certain Wilson will testify he was assaulted at the squad car, as a result of which his firearm was discharged.  Did Brown have a motive to assault Officer Wilson?  He did indeed.  He knew that he had just been caught stealing cigars, and had laid hands on the clerk.  He had abundant reason to fear that Wilson was about to arrest him for these offenses.  Moreover,it now seems that a BOLO about this incident had been dispatched.  (The jury may be instructed that they are not permitted to draw the inference, from the now infamous video, that Brown was predisposed to violence, but that bell can't be unrung.)  With this background, might Wilson reasonably have feared that he could not safely allow the 290 lb.  Brown, even with raised hands, to again come within striking distance?  I would suggest that's a "no brainer."  Crucial, here, is the fact that, according to the Dispatch, the witness says Wilson did not resume firing until AFTER, from a distance of 10 feet, Brown began to advance on him.  The witness also states that Brown continued to advance another 25 feet, as Wilson retreated.  He had only to stop, to avoid that last, fatal shot.      

    I cannot read beyond two lines in a screed (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 08:23:57 AM EST
    like that but I will say that of course you cannot refute that someone was afraid. You can however make a judgement that his fear was unreasonable and no good reason for killing someone.

    Parent
    Your surmisals regarding the inaudibility (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:07:49 AM EST
    of Officer Wilson's demands from 50 feet and 200 feet, Whitecap, are completely illusional.  Have you never listened to a modern cop "ask" a citizen to do anything?  They don't speak, they shout like domestic-disturbance crazed methheads.  They freakin' shout.

    50 feet or 200 feet.  It doesn't matter.  Anybody who's ever lived in Suburbia knows how far your neighbor's voices carry outside, especially voices raised in anger and argument.

    Parent

    As near as I can tell from what we (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    do know, Officer Wilson did not make one good police decision from the moment he spotted Brown and Johnson walking in the street.

    Not one.

    All of the choices he made increased the chances that the situation would deteriorate; his choices did nothing in service of a goal of peaceful resolution of whatever was happening at any given moment.

    If anyone had a reasonable expectation of fear, it was Brown (and Johnson);  that expectation was, I believe, why he ran away from the police vehicle as soon as he could extricate himself from the cop who seemed out of control.

    Here's the other thing:  there is no prosecution - yet - and there is no trial ongoing.  You can play this little game of who can be expected to testify to what, but I don't know what purpose it serves.

    Probably the most offensive message you continue to send is that, in spite of it being glaringly obvious that this entire confrontation was driven by an out-of-control police officer who seemed determined to assert his power and control by means that were way out of proportion to the originating incident and which he continued to escalate, it's Michael Brown's fault that he's dead.  

    Parent

    To me, it seems premature to arrive at such (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:02:42 AM EST
    a definitive conclusion.

    Parent
    Which conclusion is premature? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:39:25 AM EST
    That Wilson made no good decisions? I don't think that's premature. You are free to point out a good decision.

    That it is Brown and Johnson who had a reasonable expectation of fear? It don't think that's premature. As someone who has heard guns being drawn when pulled over for basically driving a low rider later at night, I assure you that was not a premature conclusion.

    There is no ongoing trial? That's definitely not a premature conclusion.

    That whitehat continues to imply that it is Michael Brown who is responsible for his own death? That is far from a premature conclusion.

    So which conclusion exactly is "premature"? Or is your comment just a reflexive give-police-leeway-that-civilians-don't-have response from a former prosecutor?

    Parent

    The whole comment (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:42:22 AM EST
    screams "facts not in evidence."

    Parent
    Again: (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    Which "fact"?

    Parent
    The entire post (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:48:14 AM EST
    is pure conjecture.

    Since what she's basing her opinions on (even though she states them as fact) is on the witnesses who have come forward and have been willing to speak to CNN. But that doesn't mean it's actually the story.

    She's probably right, but the entire post is her opinion and NOT fact.

    Parent

    All witnesses could be lying.... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    and the audio timestamped at the time of the murder could be faked?

    Is your threshold for fact an elevator video, or can you piece known bits to draw a conclusion.

    Parent

    And yet (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:57:06 AM EST
    There's no audio or video of the events that took place before.  (There's also audio of two men talking contemporaneous to the event mentioning that Brown charged the officer.  Is that good evidence?  I have no idea, but that's just as much of a "fact" as your list).

    That's why, as we discussed above, the grand jury is hearing the evidence - not discussing it on a blog with commenters who all have too much time on their hands during the day and accepting the words of edited interviews on cable news.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    The post is analysis not conjecture. Analysis based on current information available. This is the approach that she always takes -- it's nothing new.

    And this is not a court of law. One of the conclusions that Anne made in her original post, so your "facts not in evidence" statement is eye-rolling at best.

    Refute a point based on your own analysis, that's fair. But saying "pure conjecture" is firstly, wrong, and secondly, knee-jerk pro-authority. Anne's comment is analysis. This comment of mine, however, is pure opinion.

    Parent

    People feel free to talk about the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    choices that Brown made, so it seems reasonable to discuss the choices Wilson made - especially since he is the police officer, presumably trained on how to interact with members of the community in ways that do not escalate situations and increase the possibility of violence.

    Oh, and just so you know, when someone says, "it just seems to me that..." what follows is clearly opinion.

    If you can point to any good decision Wilson made, I'd love to consider it.  I'd love to know how you think he should have handled the fact of two young men walking in the street.  If you think there's any possibility that the way Wilson handled that encounter was an example of "good policing."  If you think that if, in fact, Wilson did hear a call about the cigar incident, he should have called in for more information if he had suspicions, or if he should have called in for assistance.

    Because, what I think is that these are decisions he should have been trained to make in a responsible way that as much as possible put no one's life in danger.  And I think he failed to do that at pretty much every point along the way.

    [Note the use of "I think;" that means this is my opinion.]

    Parent

    As you know, my perspective is (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    whether Officer Wilson's use of force against Michael Brown was objectively reasonable.  Wilson's perceptions immediately before and during his continued use of force are essential factors (although not definitive) in assessing whether his use of force was objectively reasonable. To my knowledge, we are not yet privy to this information.

    Parent
    Ferguson policy on the use of deadly (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    Wilson's perceptions immediately before and during his continued use of force are essential factors (although not definitive) in assessing whether his use of force was objectively reasonable. To my knowledge, we are not yet privy to this information.

    But we are privy to the department's use of force guidelines that read accordingly  with objective and subjective elements:

    "An officer may use deadly lethal force when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officers own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The officer should have exhausted every alternative means of apprehension before using deadly force and lethal force will not be used if there's a clear risk to the safety of a third person."

    The back half of the policy also requires that the suspect committed or attempted to commit a felony, the crime involved the use or threatened use of deadly force, and if there's a substantial risk the suspect will kill or seriously hurt someone if the suspect is not stopped.


    Parent

    Deadly Force (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 06:14:30 AM EST
    Missouri law seems to authorize the use of whatever force a peace officer deems necessary to prevent the escape of a violent felon (Mo. Revised Statutes 563.046. 3 (2) (a), Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.)  This would seem to defeat the complaint that Wilson acted unlawfully when he fired on the fleeing Brown.

    Parent
    A simple, "plain reading" ... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 07:58:06 AM EST
    ... of 563.046 in a vacuum is not dispositive of the issue.  The statute needs to be read in light of established precedent/case law.  I haven't seen any MO cases directly on point, but there is always the US SC case of Tennessee v. Garner:

    This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

    Then there are the MO jury instructions - 306.14, which are designed to blend the application of the underlying statute with applicable case law:

    306.14 JUSTIFICATION: USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (in part:

    But in making an arrest or preventing escape, a law enforcement officer is not entitled to use deadly force, that is, force which he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or that the person may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay...

    Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay).

    Wilson can make the argument he was justified (if he is charged), but the issue is far from resolved by a plain reading of 563.046.

    Parent

    Consider the words (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others

    contained in that quote.

    What exactly did Brown do in the store?

    Did he aim a weapon at the clerk? No he did not. He was unarmed.

    Did he punch, hit or beat the clerk during this encounter? No he did not.

    Did he do anything that would under normal circumstances cause death or SERIOUS injury to the clerk? No he did not.

    He pushed the clerk into the display case.  

    Parent

    The clerk (2.25 / 4) (#106)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    could lawfully have blown his head off.  And having been mauled by Brown, seconds earlier, it would have been foolhardy of Wilson to again let him get within striking distance.  The arm shots, apparently, just infuriated Brown.

    You may as well get to sharpening your pitchforks.  This case will never reach the softly modulated lights of a court room.

    Parent

    Mauled?? (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    All accounts state that Brown pushed the clerk. No official report stated that the clerk was mauled by Brown. The word mauled is your verbal attempt to distort what actually happened.

    On your point that this case will never be tried in court, I thoroughly agree. As Milbank clearly stated, McCullough doesn't want the GJ to charge Wilson and is taking all necessary action to make sure he is not charged.

    Parent

    Maul.... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by magster on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    maul
    môl/
    verb
    verb: maul; 3rd person present: mauls; past tense: mauled; past participle: mauled; gerund or present participle: mauling

        1.
        (of an animal) wound (a person or animal) by scratching and tearing.
        "the herdsmen were mauled by lions"
        synonyms:    savage, attack, tear to pieces, lacerate, claw, scratch
        "he had been mauled by a lion"

    Parent

    Or as in (2.25 / 4) (#111)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    "officer Wilson, having just been mauled by the 290 lb. Brown, prudently refused to again allow him to get within lunging distance."

    Parent
    Mauled by Brown? Oy. (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Oh, (3.00 / 2) (#114)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    You're supposing the 290 lb. Brown struck him softly?  

    We've played this game before.  When the fact of Wilson's injuries becomes undeniable, you guys will claim they were self-inflicted.

    Parent

    Please provide verifiable proof that (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    Brown struck anyone. Links to following would be acceptable:

    A time and date stamped photo of Wilson immediately after he shot Brown showing his injuries. A time and date stamped report from the hospital showing Wilson's injuries indicating that Wilson's injuries could only be caused by Brown. An autopsy report showing injuries to Brown's hands that proved that he struck Wilson.

    Parent

    No, we're supposing that, with his (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    head/neck area in Wilson's grip, having been pulled inside the window opening of the vehicle, and having seen Wilson's gun, Brown did what he needed to do in defense of his life, and as soon as he could took the opportunity to get away.

    He ran.  Away.

    If Wilson had the injuries you think he did, there's no way there aren't pictures/reports being used to support that Wilson was in mortal danger; have yet to see you explain how it is that Wilson was so badly injured he managed to stroll around the crime scene for as long as he did, and was never attended to by any of the medical personnel on the scene.

    ::rolling eyes::

    Parent

    What fact of Wilson's injuries? What proof (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 10:21:47 PM EST
    Brown struck him? Ya know, if there was some compelling visual evidence on Wilson's body, you would think it would have "leaked" long before now, perhaps around the time the not-so-requested store video was "leaked" . . .

    Also, what are Wilson's stats as far as height and weight? Looks like a big guy to me . . . capable of "mauling" Brown when he pulled him through the window . . .

    You really need to give up your embellishments.

    Parent

    Oh my God, are you fking kidding me? (4.40 / 5) (#110)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    "[H]aving been mauled by Brown just seconds earlier?"  Guess you forgot the part where Wilson's forcibly got Brown by the neck trying to pull him in through the window opening, after he nearly ran the two over with his car - seems like that's when any "mauling" started, but I guess that doesn't fit as well into this little story you're writing where Wilson is Super-Cop, intent on saving the good people of Ferguson from criminal teenagers.

    The arm shots "infuriated" Brown?  Where'd you dream up that conclusion?  Not from the witness reports, apparently.  Seems to make more sense to the rest of us that the arm shots injured Brown, and since he couldn't have known how badly he'd been hurt, he thought he'd have a better chance of living if he just gave up and surrendered. Oops - that didn't work out too well, did it?  Who knew he'd encounter the one cop who didn't know that "arms up" meant "I give up-OK, you've got me?"  Who would think it meant, "hey, this guy's crazy mad and now he's coming for me?"

    Hey, here's a scenario for ya: maybe Wilson kept shooting after Brown indicated surrender because he was afraid Brown's side of the story was going to be very, very bad for him - but if Brown was dead, well, he wouldn't be able to tell his side of the story, would he?  Maybe he thought no one would take the side of a black kid over a white cop.

    There is nothing about your "analysis" of the sequence of events that makes any sense.  Am only surprised that you haven't asserted that Brown "charged" Wilson in the vehicle when Wilson first stopped.  If we believe your scenario, Brown must have believed that Wilson was the one and only cop in Ferguson or the greater county area, and all he needed to do was take him out and he'd "get away with" his petty theft of some cheap tobacco products.

    Good God, man, just stop, would you?  The embellishments you keep adding to the story aren't even making for good fiction anymore.


    Parent

    Okay, fine (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:32:12 PM EST
    But what does that have to do with Anne's comment?

    Parent
    We have no information (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    from Officer Wilson as to his subjective rational for use of force. Therefore, in my opinion, it is premature to determine at this time whether such use of force was objectively reasonable.  

    Parent
    Thanks to the right against self-incirmination (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    We may never hear from him. Still premature then?

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    Objective and subjective are (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    two different things, as you note yourself. His subjective "rationale" has no bearing on whether or not it was objectively reasonable. And objectively, drawing a gun for a jaywalking offense is unreasonable to any thinking person.

    Okay, maybe not to a prosecutorial mind set.


    Parent

    Rhetorical question.

    Parent
    Are you talking subjective (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    or objective?

    Rhetorical question.

    Parent

    Don't be difficult. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:35:00 PM EST
    Who is (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    being "difficult"?
    And yes, that's a rhetorical question.
    Take it in what sense thou wilt.

    Parent
    If Officer Wilson thought processes at the time (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    become available to the trier of fact, this evidence will be what the trier of fact considers in reaching a decision as to whether his use of force was objectively reasonable.

    Parent
    Can you point me to any instance where (4.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    a cop charged with shooting and killing someone has ever said anything other than some version of "I was in fear for my life?"  Aren't those the magic words that have to be said to justify a shooting/killing?

    I mean, it's kind of the cop equivalent of "name, rank and serial number," isn't it?

    I can't recall ever hearing a cop who just shot and killed someone say "I have no idea why I started shooting - guess it was a heat-of-the-moment kind of thing and I got carried away."  

    I rather imagine Officer Wilson's "thought processes" are mentally tattooed on his brain: "I was in fear for my life and took measures to protect myself."

    I have no expectation of getting the truth of Officer Wilson's actual thought processes.

    Parent

    Of course, also relevant is whether his thought (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    processes also included fear for the safety of others.

    Under your theory, no officer-involved shooting would ever be justified as all cops could recite the necessary info true or not. I just can't go with that generality.

    Parent

    Safety of others? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    If he was concerned about the safety of others he wouldn't have taken all of those shots at Michael Brown while he was in the midst of so many bystanders.  

    Parent
    Because probably (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    Of course, also relevant is whether his thought (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:14:46 PM MDT

    processes also included fear for  the safety of others.

    Others were safer with bullets flying than they were with a couple of kids jaywalking. Seriously? Your comments are getting all GZ meta.

    This isn't theory to me. This is a dead 18-year-old. My guts fill with horror when I put myself in the position of his family. Based on your comments your gut tells you to defend the police until it's no longer possible.

    Parent

    Actually, my gut tells me to stop (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:37:00 PM EST
    commenting here. A total waste of time.  

    Parent
    I can (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    "...point to a[ny] "good" decision Wilson made."

    "Good" meaning (sarcastically) for Wilson; He, after stopping his shooting barrage for 3-4 seconds, decided that killing Brown was "good" (for himself.)  

    I think, if this case ever really goes to trial, the prosecutor will spend considerable time on that pause, and, will have expert witnesses who will testify as to the thought processes a highly stressed shooter goes through during a shooting.

    Since we can only use speculation in trying to determine what occurred, and, why, I ask this speculative question:

    At the point of "the pause," realizing he had driven this event so far out of control, would Officer Wilson be in a better legal position taking Brown into custody, or, killing him?

    Parent

    I don't think you quite understand what the (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by leftwig on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 12:51:46 PM EST
    responsibilites of a police officer are.  It seems undisputed that Brown and Johnson were walking down the middle of the street.  Telling them to get off of it is unequivocally a good decision.  Whether he chose to back up to them because they didn't comply or because he thought they might be suspects in the strong armed robbery, that decision was also the correct one.

    Those are the only 2 decisions he made in which the facts don't seem to be in question.  The decisions made from that point forward can only be questioned through speculation.  Did the officer attack Brown and Johnson first, or did they attack him?  We don't know.  You happen to believe Johnson and based on his full stories (yes he's provided multiple accounts), I tend not to give his statements much weight.

    I think everyones actions should be scrutinized based on all of the evidence.  Unfortunately, not a lot of evidence is currently known.  It is interesting that many mention the audio tape capturing the sounds of shots fired.  That audio tape appears to capture 6 shots within 3 seconds, a couple of seconds pause, then 4 more shots in less than 2 seconds and assuming its authentic it can help establish some timeline.  IT will be interesting to see exactly how many shots were fired from Wilsons gun and where the shell casings ended up.  

    Parent

    Casings (none / 0) (#92)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 05:57:39 AM EST
    If the orange cones we see in the photos mark the casings, it would appear that Officer Wilson was retreating, when he fired the final shots.

    I believe the WaPo analysis has it that there was a 3 second pause before the last 4 shots.

    Parent

    I would say its a possible explanation (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by leftwig on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:43:23 AM EST
    and probably the most likely explanation, but ejected shell casings are not all going to bounce the same way when hitting asphalt.  Now, if officer Wilson's weapon ejects shell casings like most hand guns (upward, to the right and slightly back), and the evidence cones near to the side of Browns body do mark shell casings, then yes, it does appear that Wilson would have been retreating slightly as

    Parent
    Give it up already. (3.83 / 6) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 06:33:19 AM EST
    The now-numerous eyewitness accounts do not support what you're saying, and nobody has thus far been willing to go on the public record to back up your increasingly inflammatory hearsay and evermore baseless contentions. At this point, you're simply embarrassing yourself here with your AM squawk-radio delivery of white-wing shtick -- and trust me, it most definitely IS white-wing shtick.

    Parent
    Not so Fast (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by RickyJim on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:20:25 AM EST
    You are relying on people who have "come forward", meaning desire to talk to the media (after hiring a lawyer) and videos and audios of doubtful authenticity.  And the interviews of these people by "investigators" like Anderson Cooper have been incompetent.  Cooper was the same guy who got sensational (but false) accounts of the Trayvon Martin shooting from two neighbors.  I would prefer to know all the evidence the Grand Jury sees before passing judgment.  Yes, I am suspicious of Officer Wilson's actions.

    Parent
    The audio has been authenticated as to time... (4.50 / 2) (#15)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    by the computer program company. These witnesses cooperated with authorities right away, and only just stepped forward publicly.

    Every eye-witness has said Brown was running away at first and then surrendering. Every eye-witness except one, Darren Wilson.

    I, personally, don't see how there is not enough evidence to indict. At that point, let the jurors decide.

    Parent

    How do you know what Officer (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    Wilson saw?

    Parent
    We don't. That's the point.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:33:02 AM EST
    Perhaps (3.00 / 5) (#9)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:50:44 AM EST
    I may be indulged in reminding some of you that I accurately identified the reasons the Zimmerman prosecution would become a farce.

    Parent
    It became a "farce"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:35:47 PM EST
    And for the very reasons you predicted?!?

    Must've missed that newsflash.

    Parent

    I think you have been indulged quite (3.25 / 4) (#44)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 01:44:35 PM EST
    enough, so I think I'll pass.

    Just curious: did you accurately predict who shot J.R.?

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    We have an old down-home saying, back in Missouri (actually, more southern Missouri, where some of Mr. Zorba's relatives reside):  "Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile."

    Parent
    Whitecap333 (none / 0) (#12)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    I may be indulged in reminding some of you that I accurately identified the reasons the Zimmerman prosecution would become a farce.

    This is not the Zimmerman case -- far from it.

    Brown was not sitting on top of Wilson raining blows down on his bleeding head when he was shot to death.

    He was running away from a confrontation not fomenting it.

    And by this time Zimmerman had told his story atleast a dozen times.

    We have yet to get as much as a peep out of Wilson and have only heard from some anonymous bimbo wearing blue eye shadow and sunglasses.

    Parent

    Speak of the devil.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    I can't believe we (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    Are treating as anything but a sad ridiculous joke a person who brags about being "right" about Zimmerman.

    Parent
    Whitecap333 (none / 0) (#11)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 08:25:37 AM EST
    What evidence is there to refute, beyond reasonable doubt, Officer Wilson's expected testimony that he feared for his safety when he fired those last shots, despite the fact that Brown's hands were raised, and that he had instructed Brown to halt?

    I think all of us would like to hear from officer Wilson. We were so hoping for an Incident Report from either him or the FPD -- but alas nothing to date but an empty  piece of paper with a heading but nothing else on it.

    That's why we are hoping that the GJ does the right thing and offers officer Wilson a fair trial with the right to take the witness stand.

    Don't you think he should have a fair trial in this matter or are you saying that officer Wilson should be denied his right to tell his side of the story in a court of law???

    BTW the two witnesses might have seen the shooting from 50 feet away and then gone back to make a call at their truck in the parking lot where the video was taken a few minutes later.

    Did that occur to you???

    Parent

    The Grand Jury doesn't do that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    That's why we are hoping that the GJ does the right thing and offers officer Wilson a fair trial with the right to take the witness stand.

    They only vote as to whether and indictment will be handed down (and as the saying goes, especially popular with defense attorneys - "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich, if that's what you wanted.")

    Parent

    ".... if that's what you wanted." (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    There's the rub. The DA reportedly isn't too keen on indicting hams wearing badges.

    Parent
    Doesn't really look like it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:39:43 AM EST
    Looks like this Grand Jury is getting a heck of a lot more evidence to use to make their decision than is normal in most cases, so I think your comment is a bit misplaced.

    Parent
    I thought I had read... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:43:42 AM EST
    so I can't swear to this statistic, that there had been 11 police shootings in the county since this DA took over, and zero indictments.

    The national spotlight and the personal attention of one Mr. Holder might be compelling the DA to be a bit more thorough this time around.

    We shall see. Nothwithstanding my cynicism, I think there is plenty of evidence for an indictment.

    Parent

    I can only find information (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    on one police shooting since he took over where charges were not brought - in 2000.

    What some have been worried about is that they think he is "too close to the police":

    McCulloch's father was a police officer and was killed on the job in 1964 by an African-American man, when McCulloch was 12, McCulloch's spokesperson Ed Magee confirmed to CNN. In addition to his father, McCulloch's brother, an uncle and a cousin all served with the St. Louis Police Department, and his mother worked as a clerk at the department, Magee said.

    If you have other information as to all these other police shootings where no charges were filed by Prosecutor McCullough, I'd love to see a link, please.

    Parent

    I'll see if I can find where I read it. (none / 0) (#23)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    It was about a week ago though and I spin through a lot of blogs.

    Parent
    Still looking, but I found this link.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    that says the DA is using the grand jury as an investigatory arm instead of rubber stamp, which is legal but very rare in MO.

    Interesting.

    Parent

    Not finding it, and I have to call a client.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    so as for now, I disavow comment #20.

    Parent
    Re-avowing #20. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:49:53 PM EST
    During his tenure, there have been at least a dozen fatal shootings by police in his jurisdiction (the roughly 90 municipalities in the county other than St. Louis itself), and probably many more than that, but McCulloch's office has not prosecuted a single police shooting in all those years. At least four times he presented evidence to a grand jury, but -- wouldn't you know it? -- didn't get an indictment.

    Washington Post article.

    Parent

    JMO, but this would lead me to believe that (none / 0) (#47)
    by leftwig on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    the prosecutor doesn't really want to charge in the case, but that convening a grand jury was the result of some other influence.

    Parent
    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by magster on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    If the DA doesn't push for a charge the GJ is much less likely to do so.

    Parent
    Dana Milbank on (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    Ferguson tragedy becoming a farce

    What happened in Ferguson, Mo., last month was a tragedy. What's on course to happen there next month will be a farce.

    October is when a grand jury is expected to decide whether to indict the white police officer, Darren Wilson, who killed an unarmed black teenager by firing at least six bullets into him. It's a good bet the grand jurors won't charge him, because all signs indicate that the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, doesn't want them to.

    The latest evidence that the fix is in came this week from The Post's Kimberly Kindy and Carol Leonnig, who discovered that McCulloch's office has declined so far to recommend any charges to the grand jury.



    Parent
    Well, there's always a civil suit. (4.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 09:01:11 AM EST
    Guess we can see why it was that many people called for McCulloch to recuse himself from this process, but I don't think there's anything that can be done about it now.

    The whole article is worth reading, if only to confirm that the system of justice and law enforcement in St. Louis County is rotten from top to bottom.

    Parent

    The only hope (none / 0) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    for a fair outcome rests with the Federal investigation. Robert McCulloch's refusal to recuse himself is, IMO, proof positive that the "fix" is in with local authorities.

    There are well grounded protocols, and, common sense precedence as to when special prosecutors, or, outside attorneys are called for. If the appearance of impropriety is as important as impropriety itself, then McCulloch's dug-in heels can only mean one thing.

    Stinks to the high heavens.

    Parent

    Well, I guess I've given folks enough rope (2.67 / 3) (#206)
    by leftwig on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    now.  From one of Dorians early interviews with Sharpton, he states that the officer opened his door and that the door bounced off both he and Mike and back into the officer.  Now I don't really trust DJ in his motives, but here he is admitting that he was involved in the door slamming back shut against the officer.  He says the door barely got open an inch or so, but "bounced off" he and Mike and bounced back on the officer.  So you want your statement about DJ's potential involvement in the confrontation, here he is giving it to us in his own words that he was involved in the door closing back on the officer.

    Here is the video of Johnson saying he did at least have physical involvement in the door slamming shut on the officer.  (starts around the 3:00 mark of this interview with Sharpton).

    So again, my question, which contains hypotheticals/speculation on both ends since not all the facts are known, is which is more likely to have occurred; two individuals (or one if it makes you feel more like answering the question) involved in a strong armed robbery 10 minutes earlier would attack a police officer out of fear of getting busted, or that a police officer would pull out a gun and want to shoot and kill 1 or 2 guys in broad daylight simply because they were jaywalking?

    No matter the answer, the shooting still may or may not have been justified.  It seems really odd to me that most here seem to think it had to be the police officer that instigated the physical part of the confrontation and not the guy(s) who were just involved in robbing a store in plain view of the workers, then pushing one of them around when they tried to stop them and just strolled out of the store like it was no big deal.  There seem to be only 2 witnesses to have an account of how the confrontation started and their stories seem quite different, though we have no idea what they've actually said in sworn statements.  The oddity again is that most here seem to believe the known liar over the police officer.  Maybe we should wait for some forensic evidence to help us in that determination?

    There's an elephant (2.60 / 5) (#26)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    squatting in the corner here that everyone pretends not to see:  Mike Brown's conduct inside that store.  I'm not talking about "lifting" those Swishers, or even manhandling the clerk.  I'm talking about Brown's refusal to hand them over, when he knew he had been caught red handed.  Why on earth, on the cusp of promising academic and musical careers, would he risk having a criminal complaint brought against him?  His associate, Johnson, prudently placed his box of cigars back on the counter.  Why didn't Brown do the same, instead of belligerently swaggering through the door with his handfull?  Resentful accusations of "character assassination," or "blaming the victim" can't finesse this problem.  If his behavior was irrationally self-destructive here, the mind can't be prevented from advancing to the conclusion that he may well have so acted several minutes later.  But what could explain such irrationality?  Might those Swishers suggest a clue?

    Your comments are (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:32:24 AM EST
    becoming increasingly despicable. I don't know why anyone bothers to try and refute any individual "point" you think you are making because your whole goal seems to be to make Michael Brown responsible for his own death for the "crime" of jaywalking.

    You should be ashamed of yourself. I know you aren't. But you should be.

    Parent

    Seriously, you know there's no (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    point in this when someone refers to Mike Brown's friend as his "associate."  Surprised he didn't say "partner in crime."

    Interesting, isn't it, that there doesn't seem to be the same concern about "conclusions" and "facts" when they come from those who want to blame Brown for his own death.  

    Parent

    True dat (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    Interesting, isn't it, that there doesn't seem to be the same concern about "conclusions" and "facts" when they come from those who want to blame Brown for his own death.
    Have any of whitehead's screeds received the "premature conclusion" or "facts not in evidence" spanking? Where is the concern trolling then, I ask you ?

    Parent
    The elephant squatting (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    in the corner here that everyone pretends not to see:  Mike Brown's conduct inside that store.

    I thought you would have learned something from the Zimmerman case but apparently not.

    The only thing that ultimately mattered in that case was not Martin's fighting history, not his school expulsions, not his marijuana useage, not his juvenile record, not what happened at the 7 Eleven, or any time after that until the assault.

    The only thing that mattered in court was what happened during those few short minutes before the fatal shot.

    And so it will be in this case.

    It will come down to what happened from the time/place Wilson first spoke to the two jaywalkers to the time/place a mere 75 seconds later when he fired his last of 13 bullets into his head.

    What happened during those 75 seconds is all that will ultimately matter.

    Parent

    I think you are getting ahead of (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:13:23 PM EST
    yourself to assume what happened at the 7/11 will not be admissible at trial, assuming there is a trial.

    Parent
    Agreed. If the officer gets charged and there is (none / 0) (#49)
    by leftwig on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    a subsequent trial, the video and what occurred at the Quickie Mart will make it into evidence. Wilson is a LEO, not a civilian and the illegal activities of Brown 10 minutes earlier will almost certainly be admissible.

    Parent
    As will the officer's treatment of (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:37:45 PM EST
    other individuals with whom he has been in contact in his capacity as a LEO.

    As will Wilson's "troubled" youth.

    As will the patterns of behavior at the Ferguson PD and at the one that was disbanded and from which Wilson came.

    The truth can be a knife that cuts both ways, so I wouldn't get to feeling too smug.

    Parent

    If there are previous complaints against (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    Officer Wilson which were sustained following investigation, I would anticipate the trial court will examine the files and rule as to each and any whether evidence of said complaint is admissible against Wilson in this case.

    Parent
    That is a pretty broad interpretation of the rules (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    of evidence. Too broad. The character of the criminal defendant is  not relevant, subject to statutory exceptions.

    Parent
    Interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    The character of the criminal defendant is  not relevant, subject to statutory exceptions.
    So what of the character of the victim? Is that supposed to be relevant? Or are they free to [continue to] smear the victim?

    I just wonder because that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

    Parent

    I really, really wish you stop (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    conjuring what you think I think.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:47:18 PM EST
    The character of the criminal defendant is  not relevant, subject to statutory exceptions.
    I can only go by what you actually say. So I will rephrase:

    I notice you don't push back against assessments made regarding the character the victim. Unlike the pushback you do against assessment of the character of the cop. The cop, who is not at this time even a defendant. And may never be.

    Parent

    In my opinion, Michael Brown's (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 03:56:06 PM EST
    Character, history, whatever, is irrelevant to whether the officer's use of force is found to be justified or criminal. With the exception that if it is established the officer had information before or during his use of force leading him to reasonably Michael Brown was suspected of committing a strong arm robbery a very short time and distance before he used force, this is relevant. I think if those prerequisites are established to the trial court's satisfaction, evidence ,of that event will be admissable.

    Parent
    See here is the difference (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 04:52:02 PM EST
    You are using (hiding behind?) whether or not Wilson's use of force was "justified" in the legal sense. Most people  are viewing it as to whether it was justified in the "common-sense" sense and that is how it is being discussed here. Even the despicable whiterobe only falls back on your definition when there is no other way to make Michael Brown responsible for his own death.

    If "common-sense" sense had been used, there wouldn't even have been a legal sense justification because there would have been no shooting.

    In my opinion.

    Parent

    This is a legal blog and I am a lawyer. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:39:13 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#77)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    I think it will come in as evidence of motive, and perhaps state of mind, on the issue of whether Brown assaulted Wilson, as alleged.  Academic, really, since you would have to plunge into the depths of the Amazon Rain Forest to find jurors who haven't been exposed to it.

    Parent
    No. (2.33 / 3) (#50)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 02:26:39 PM EST
    There is more than enough here to incline a reasonable juror to the belief that Brown was "out of control."  Obviously, no rational explanation is available for the question I pose.

    Parent
    You are 100% correct (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 07:43:39 PM EST
    Obviously, no rational explanation is available for the question I pose.

    And that would apply to many of the "questions" you pose, including your specious attacks on Brown posed as "questions":

    If his behavior was irrationally self-destructive here, the mind can't be prevented from advancing to the conclusion that he may well have so acted several minutes later.  But what could explain such irrationality?  Might those Swishers suggest a clue?


    Parent
    Questions (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 08:12:29 PM EST
    Some questions demand an answer.  Why Mike Brown risked a criminal complaint by shoving the clerk aside and departing with the cigars is one of them.  That is relevant to issue of whether he assaulted Officer Wilson, minutes later.  That, in turn, is relevant to whether Wilson reasonably believed Brown to be a violent felon, justifying the use of whatever force was needed to prevent his escape, as he fled, and also justifying, at the time of the final confrontation, his perception that Brown might do him harm, if given the chance.  So answer the question:  Give me an innocent explanation for why Brown risked a criminal complaint, by leaving with the cigars, over the protests of the clerk.  

    Parent
    Sorry, counselor (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    So answer the question:  Give me an innocent explanation for why Brown risked a criminal complaint, by leaving with the cigars, over the protests of the clerk.

    This is not a court room, and you don't get to demand answers to specious attacks posed as questions.  I couldn't care less about the web of silly connections you're struggling to construct, but suggesting that the Swishers might "offer a clue" as to Brown's "irrational" behavior (wink, wink) is despicable and shameful.

    Come back when you have some actual evidence  - as opposed to "questions" - to back up your attacks.

    Parent

    Yman, my dear, (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:22:07 PM EST
    arguing with whitey is like spitting into the wind.  It isn't going to get you anywhere, because he/she already has their mind (such as it is) made up.

    Parent
    Oh, (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:30:07 PM EST
    I'm no lawyer, but I recognize "admission by silence" when I see it.

    Parent
    If you're trying to call ... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    ... that an "admission by silence", you should be glad you're not a lawyer.  At least this way, you can't be sued for malpractice.

    But your silence about your "swisher" question says a lot about your lack of facts to back up your claim.

    BTW - Using your twisted logic, any minor, irrational act by a teenager "risking a criminal complaint" would mean their "irrationality" would make them more likely to - while unarmed - charge a police officer shooting at them.

    That's seriously funny.

    Parent

    Bizarre, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 05:44:59 AM EST
    these assurances that the behavior we see on the video is deemed quite unexceptional in this community: "no big deal."

    I'm quite out of touch with the folkways of our urban youth.  Anyone want to explain to me what a "blunt" is?  What's this "dipping" business about?

    Parent

    Bizarre reading (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:03:58 AM EST
    But your attack on the deceased and his status as an "urban" youth (wink, wink) and their "folkways" is par for the course with you.  Since you have so many "questions", why not try answering the most obvious one?

    Where is your actual evidence to back up your  accusations posed as "questions"?

    Parent

    You're obviously not getting the answers you (none / 0) (#101)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    want here.  Why don't you try Redstate?

    Parent
    Wow, I am not sure I've ever heard (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by leftwig on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    anyone describe a strong armed robbery as a minor irrational act.  Its not like he lifted a pack of gum and stuck it in his pocket and tried to sneak out the door.  He asked for a box of cigars and took them off the counter in full view of the store workers and tried to walk out with out paying, then shoved the store worker out of the way and came back at him in a threatening manner before the store worker backed off.

    To say that Browns actions from 10 minutes earlier and state of mind on encountering a LEO while still carrying his ill gotten booty is irrelevant seems prejudicial to me.  Its unclear whether Wilson suspected Brown and Johnson in that robbery when he went back to them, but regardless, Browns actions in that store are quite relevant to how he may have acted during the encounter with Wilson.

    Parent

    Wow, I'm not sure ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    ... I've ever heard anyone do that either, but then again was talking about the fact that the willingness to "risk a criminal complaint" demonstrated Brown's "irrationality" - and was off to the races from there.  My point was that there are many such acts (i.e. ones which "risk a criminal complaint") committed on a daily basis and a hee-YOOOOGE majority of teens commit minor acts of theft or (gasp!) pushing.  To jump from these (minor, IMO) acts and jump to the wild conclusion that - because he was willing to engage in conduct which could result in a criminal complaint - he was therefore more likely to attack an armed police officer or he was taking drugs (as whitecap was suggesting) is, IMO, ridiculous.  Virtually every teen has engaged in "irrational acts which could result in a criminal complaint".

    To say that Browns actions from 10 minutes earlier and state of mind on encountering a LEO while still carrying his ill gotten booty is irrelevant seems prejudicial to me.

    Who said that?


    Parent

    To risk (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:03:13 AM EST
    being caught stealing is one thing.  To brazenly perfect the theft by manhandling a clerk, after being caught, quite another. It is the height of impudence to suggest otherwise.  Even Dorian had sense enough to realize this meant serious trouble, and returned his cigars to the counter.

    Parent
    Either way, ... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    .. you are (in your words) performing and "irrational act" and "risking a criminal complaint", therefore demonstrating ... well, ... something, in your mind.

    Your logic, your verbal embellishments and your interpretation of the law all fail.

    Parent

    I will further (2.00 / 2) (#120)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    point out that Brown's apparent indifference to being charged with criminal misconduct is strongly suggestive of a troubled past.  I see that Crump is now accusing the Post-Dispatch of "racism" for persisting in its efforts to obtain Brown's juvenile records.  (The Dispatch, apparently, is not satisfied with the bland representation that Brown has not been involved in any 'serious' offenses.)   Not to stir the pot, but what is Crump worried about?

    The juvenile record may not be relevant to the criminal case, but is certainly relevant to the image of Brown that has been so artfully spun here:  an exemplary youth, an inspiration to all.

    Parent

    So now you're down to ... (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    ... an imaginary juvenile record, which even you admit is irrelevant to an (as yet) imaginary criminal case, because you don't like an attorney saying positive things about Brown?!?

    Heh.

    That's quite the imagination you have.

    Like your other claims, no actual facts to back it up, but you go with what you've got, right?

    Parent

    Imaginary record? (none / 0) (#134)
    by unitron on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    So it might not exist, but instead of just saying "There is no record", whatever government entity is in charge of that sort of thing is coming up with legal arguments for why they can't release it?

    Parent
    Yes - imaginary record (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 09:17:36 PM EST
    it might not exist, but instead of just saying "There is no record", whatever government entity is in charge of that sort of thing is coming up with legal arguments for why they can't release it?

    Because the attorney was making comments at a hearing in which they were fulfilling their obligations under the law of MO.  More specifically:

    Cynthia Harcourt, a lawyer for the juvenile officer of St. Louis County Family Court, said after the hearing that she could neither confirm nor deny the existence of a juvenile record for Mr. Brown. Missouri state law prohibits the records of most juvenile court proceedings from being released to the public. But she said Mr. Brown had no juvenile cases involving serious felony charges or convictions, including murder, robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Those felony records would not be required to be confidential and would have been released, but none exist for Mr. Brown, Ms. Harcourt said.

    So, yeah ... imaginary.  Unless, of course, you have some evidence to the contrary.

    Parent

    BTW - Fiction writer? (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    Your verbal embellishments always seem to work in one direction.

    Is "manhandling" supposed to sound scarier than pushed or shoved?  And "mauled"?!?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Are you capable (3.50 / 2) (#121)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    of representing, with a straight face, that the clerk does not appear to be terrified?

    Parent
    According to reports, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    the clerk was so terrified that after Brown pushed him

    The clerk tried to stop him again.



    Parent
    What Brown did to the clerk... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by unitron on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:36:58 PM EST
    ...was reprehensible, regardless of the level of the clerk's courage or fear.

    Parent
    What Michael Brown did to the clerk (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:51:42 PM EST
    was push him.

    All witness statements and official reports state that Brown pushed the clerk.

    Parent

    I'm capable of representing ... (4.25 / 4) (#123)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    ... that your narrative and descriptions are based on speculation, leaps of logic, completely baseless claims, and your own, personal prejudices rather than actual facts.

    ... with an entirely straight face.

    Parent

    I have pressed, (2.50 / 4) (#142)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:50:24 AM EST
    at considerable length, for an innocent explanation for Brown's extraordinary conduct inside the store--specifically, departing with his cigars, shoving the protesting clerk aside, with apparent indifference to the risk that his "strong-arm robbery" would be reported to the police (as indeed it was.)  The only response has been that this brazen act represents "typical" youthful behavior.  This is utterly frivolous.  There comes a point at which it must be said: Brown was likely "on" something when he swaggered through the door and, minutes later, encountered Officer Wilson.  Prescription medication, perhaps?  

    Parent
    More silly fairy tales (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 07:40:17 AM EST
    There comes a point at which it must be said: Brown was likely "on" something when he swaggered through the door and, minutes later, encountered Officer Wilson.  Prescription medication, perhaps
    ?

    But I guess when you have absolutely not a single shred of evidence to support your attacks on Brown, that's where you have to go.  Or, you can go back to your earlier, specious claims about "urban youth".

    Pffftttt ...

    Parent

    Life Imitates Art? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 09:37:27 AM EST
    I haven't listened to any of Mike's efforts as a "rapper."  If I'm to believe the LA Times, however, his lyrics are heavy on "money, success, drugs and sex" (Michael Brown's raps, Matt Hausen, 8-17-2014.)

    I heard a young woman, introduced as a "congressional aide," being interviewed the other day.  She spoke of Brown as "that little boy," with a catch in her throat, and tear in her eye.  She expressed resentment that the officer hadn't been armed with a weapon that shoots "some kind of sticky net."  I don't attempt to "dialog" with people who have retreated into such mawkish fantasies.  I prefer to deal with those who know they are trying to "spin" this situation.  

    Parent

    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 09:50:11 AM EST
    You don't want to deal with anyone spinning fantasies, all the while spinning your own baseless fantasies about Brown being high on drugs?

    Heh - (white, enameled) pot meet kettle.

    Parent

    Have we actually gotten the whole (4.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    story of what happened in the store, or are you writing a story to go along with the parts of the video you've seen?

    I only ask because I don't believe the police were called by store owner, manager or employee to report this "strong armed robbery."

    I would be curious to know what this store's history was in terms of whether people knew that it was a place where products could be easily taken, with no repercussions.  I've been thinking that maybe that's why Brown and Johnson didn't go running out of the store after allegedly strong-arming the clerk, but casually walked in the direction of "home," and showed no fear or concern about being initially stopped by Wilson.

    And again - if, at some point in the seconds before this encounter with Wilson went to DefCon 1, Wilson heard something about a theft, it's interesting that - as far as we know - he didn't call in for more information, nor did Johnson report that Wilson said one word to them about where they had been, what they had been doing or "hey, where'd you get the cigarillos?"  Wouldn't those be normal questions asked before taking action that rose to the level where 2 young men were running for their lives?

    As much emphasis has been placed on Brown's state of mind with regard to what happened in the store, I find it kind of interesting how little interest some people have shown in questioning Wilson's policing decisions.  "We don't know what he was thinking" is true - on both sides of the confrontation - but to those who want to infer only the negative from Brown's actions, I think much that is negative can be inferred from the history of the Ferguson police department and the example of how the police acted in the wake of the shooting, especially during the protests.  

    Parent

    The reports from patrons in the store (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by leftwig on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    as well as both store workers are available for anyone to read.  The video should have been enough, but the store workers said Brown stole the cigars, then shoved the clerk out of the way when he attempted to block his exit was blocked.  

    Teens do dumb stuff.  I know of very few that are brazen enough to steal right in front of store workers then shove them out of the way and walk out of the store like it was no big deal.  

    Parent

    How many patron's were in the store? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 04:32:47 PM EST
    How many employees were in the store?

    Since you claim that these statements are available for everyone to read, please provide links to the statements by all the patrons and by both employees that you claim were in the store at the time of the robbery.


    Parent

    Hmm, lthe police report from the store (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by leftwig on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 08:47:51 AM EST
    incident has been online for weeks.  That you won't even bother to look it up speaks volumes.  Look it up, then come back and argue a point.

    Parent
    Maybe you are seeing double or triple? (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    I have  read the police report. Once again, according to  the report, how many employees were in the store  and how many patron's?

    Please provide the text of the statements with links  of the multiple employees and patrons who were in the store at the time of the robbery.

    Should be easy for you to do unless you made it up.

    Parent

    Here I will help you out (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    Here is the link to a post that Jeralyn put up on the police report.

    Jeralyn provides a summary of the report and the section from the police report which outlines the witness statements.

    One clerk and one patron. Now you provide the text with links of the other employees and patrons you claim were there.

    Parent

    Actually, (3.00 / 2) (#129)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    it was a customer who spotted what was going on, and called the police.  Where this becomes almost comic is the denial of the store owner, through his lawyer, that anyone connected with the store contacted the police.  He was obviously hoping that this declaration would deter the torching of his store.  It did, but it was looted anyway.  The store which was believed to be the locus of the robbery did get torched.

    Parent
    Maybe you want to answer the questions (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    How many patron's were in the store?

    How many employees were in the store?

    Maybe you can help out  leftwig and provide links to the statements by all the patrons and by both employees that he claims were in the store at the time of the robbery and so ready available for all to read.

    Parent

    All (none / 0) (#132)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 06:23:22 PM EST
    I know is that the owner said, through his lawyer, "It was a customer, see?"

    If's it's your intention to reopen the issue of whether a robbery occurred, that horse has been flogged to death.

    Parent

    Whitewash334 (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    So now you are calling the store owner a liar --

    According to you, everybody is lying here -- all the witnesses who have spoken on the record as well.

    All except for people like you who were never there and still pretend to speak for the officer who still has said nothing on the record.

    And yet here you are putting words in his mouth telling us what he said that nobody heard.

    Maybe you would like to fill out that blank incident report since Wilson probably never will.

    You blabber away incessantly but never cite a source for your blabber.

    Knowing your propensity for prefabrication could you please cite your sources.

    Parent

    Let me (3.00 / 3) (#194)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    spell it out for you: It was a customer who reported the "strong-arm robbery" to the police.  The store owner announced, through his lawyer, that he had nothing to do with this, in the hope that his property would be spared the orgy of rioting and looting that took place.  It wasn't.  If you missed any of this on TV, that's just too bad.

    We know, in broad outline, what Officer Wilson says happened here.  You have somehow come by the notion that he owes you a statement, detailed to your complete satisfaction.  You are just playing "head games."  Such statements are not released, while the investigation is ongoing.

    The worst mistake Zimmerman ever made was to give detailed statements which would quickly find their way to the media.  Such statements are a windfall for those who would "assist" witnesses recall what they saw.  Preserving the integrity of the process is far more important than satisfying your invidious curiosity.  If you don't believe (based on your vast experience) peace officers are capable of truth, that's just too bad.  The public is going to give Wilson the benefit of doubt, whether you like it or not.      

    Parent

    Mr. smmerman's many pre-trial (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    statements did not apparently damage his criminal defense.

    Parent
    On the contrary, (3.00 / 3) (#196)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    they led to his criminal prosecution, based largely on picayune "inconsistencies" in those statements.  (See, here he says 3 feet, but over here, he says 2, so we know he's lyin'.)  It was an obscene affair, with less than impressively credible eyewitness testimony.  And that's all I'm going to say about that.  

    Parent
    Whitewash 335 (none / 0) (#198)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:20:40 PM EST
    The store owner announced, through his lawyer, that he had nothing to do with this, in the hope that his property would be spared the orgy of rioting and looting that took place.

    Did he say that that was the reason or are you just doing your usual mindreading???

    In case you missed it looters and vandals hit over a dozens establishments and yet Brown was never in any of their establishments. They were equal opportunity looters.

    And incidentally -- all of those shopowners including the ones not vandalized supported the Brown family and still do.

    So once again you don't know what you are talking about.

    Parent

    You bet (2.67 / 3) (#202)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    they support the Brown family.  They know what's good for them.

    I assume you're trying to breath life into the meme that Brown did not commit a "strong-arm robbery" in this store.  I believe our host has instructed that bandwidth is not to be wasted on so frivolous a claim.

    Parent

    Whitewash 336 (none / 0) (#203)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    We know, in broad outline, what Officer Wilson says happened here.

    Once again you demonstrate your stupidity as he has said nothing on the record and neither has anyone else from his department.

    And of course officially from the PC the body was only 35 feet from the SUV -- and you will agree with me that that's a lie, right???

    The Chief got caught in so many lies in the first five days that he finally just shut up.

    You should take a lesson.

    The only reason we know anything are because of the 8 witnesses who have given official statements, and the videos and audios.

     You have somehow come by the notion that he owes you a statement, detailed to your complete satisfaction.

    The law says that -- the law that he is violating by not doing so.

    You are just playing "head games."

    Atleast I have one.

    Such statements are not released, while the investigation is ongoing.

    Wrong --

    The worst mistake Zimmerman ever made was to give detailed statements which would quickly find their way to the media.

    Nope --

    It was the smartest thing he ever did because then he never had to take the witness stand to be cross-examined, but simply let his initial statements and video reenactments speak for themselves and for him -- and they did big time.

    I thought you said you knew something about the Zimmerman case -- apparently you were mistaken about that as well.

    You really should give it up --

         

    Parent

    It would be if he wasn't serious (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:52:46 PM EST
    And had plenty of company.  It's actually not funny at all.

    Parent
    All you're doing is asking a version (4.40 / 5) (#85)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    of "when did you stop beating your wife." I hate to break it to you, but the fact that no one's playing along doesn't hand you any kind of victory, it just means your tactics aren't fooling anyone.

    At this stage, I'm not sure you're able to tell the difference between your a$$ and a hole in the ground, so the chances you actually recognize what you think you do are somewhere between slim and none.

    Parent

    out of control (3.50 / 2) (#87)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 12, 2014 at 11:11:10 PM EST
    There is more than enough here to incline a reasonable juror to the belief that Wilson was "out of control."

    There fixed it so we can all agree with you just once.

    Parent

    Occam's Razor? (2.00 / 5) (#102)
    by leftwig on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    What is more likely to have occurred at the beginning of the encounter.

    Two men involved in a strong armed robbery minutes earlier attack a police officer out of fear of being arrested,

    or

    Police officer tries to pull a 6'4", 300 pound man into his SUV through the window because he refused to get onto the sidewalk?

    We have not heard from all of the witnesses nor seen all the forensic evidence.  I am not sure why some are acting like we have.

    Parent

    leftwig (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 01:21:20 PM EST
    We have not heard from all of the witnesses nor seen all the forensic evidence.  I am not sure why some are acting like we have.

    We have heard from 8 credible witness thus far plus the Black Canseco video, the gunshot audio, and others --- and they are all corroborative of each other.

    The only thing thus far that is at odds with the prevailing evidence is some anonymous bimbo with blue eye shadow and sunglasses who wasn't there, and an empty incident report.

    Are we missing anything else???

    Parent

    In this (3.00 / 3) (#130)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 05:44:23 PM EST
    curious little corner of public discussion, Officer Wilson's version of events, as disclosed by his chief of police, is to be disdained and sneered at, largely on the basis of a priori judgments about "institutional racism," and witnesses who obviously nurse manifold grievances against law enforcement.  There is a much larger world out there.  

    Parent
    Whitewash333 (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 06:39:02 PM EST
    In this curious little corner of public discussion, Officer Wilson's version of events, as disclosed by his chief of police

    Officer Wilson has no version yet and may never "find" his version. He's waiting until he gets a look at all the witness statements before he will figure out what to say if anything.

     So what does that say about the Chief and anything he has to say???

    witnesses who obviously nurse manifold grievances against law enforcement.

    Is that an accusation against the witnesses of the incident???

    Are you a mind reader???

    Where have any of the witnesses, even Johnson, indicated that they nurse any grievances against law enforcement???

    Parent

    Officer Wilson's (none / 0) (#135)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 08:20:25 PM EST
    version of events, as disclosed by the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments, is that, shortly after he admonished Brown and Johnson to remove themselves from the middle of the street, he became aware they might be the subjects of a robbery BOLO, and confronted them, at which time Brown assaulted him, and tried to grasp his weapon which, by accident or design, discharged; that Brown then fled, with Wilson in pursuit, and that Brown then turned and advanced on Wilson who, fearing for his safety, took him down.  Cites to the various press conferences may be found in Wikipedia.  You may spare yourself the trouble of declaring you believe this to be an invidious pack of lies, because I already know that.  As for the rest of it, you guys have worn out creation with the claim that this entire community is seething with hostility to the police.

    Parent
    Hey, it's Saturday night... (3.67 / 3) (#140)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 10:42:20 PM EST
    don't you and your whitecap have some sort of meeting to go to?

    Parent
    Whitewash333 (none / 0) (#141)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:01:44 PM EST
    Officer Wilson's version of events, as disclosed by the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments, is that, shortly after he admonished Brown and Johnson to remove themselves from the middle of the street, he became aware they might be the subjects of a robbery BOLO

    No that is not true. Only the FPD addressed that issue as the St Louis County Police realized at that point that Wilson had lied to them and had ceased to speak with them and had lawyered up at the recommendation of his union rep.

    Furthermore the FPD Chief said that he thinks that Wilson put 2 and 2 together when he saw the cigarillos -- not heard the BOLO if there even was one for a handful of cigarillos -- a slow day in Ferguson that morning I guess.

    To date the FPD has not released it's copy of the dispatch, and there is a strong possibility that they know that he did not log on to get whatever description was there.

    at which time Brown assaulted him

    It's pretty tough to assault someone when there is a car door between them, and all the guy in the car has to do is put his foot on the pedal and drive off.

     Do you people who make these claims have the brains to realize that??? All Wilson had to do was put his foot on the pedal and drive off if he didn't like what was going on at the window.

    Brown then fled with Wilson in pursuit, and that Brown then turned and advanced on Wilson who, fearing for his safety, took him down.

    So he shoots at him because he is running away and then shoots at him because he is walking toward him.

     It sounds like Wilson and his defenders have mental problems and don't know whether they happy with someone coming or going.

    It sounds like you are only happy when someone is staying still -- with 8 bullet holes in them.

    Parent

    Yawn (2.67 / 3) (#143)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:52:41 AM EST
    Don't get tangled up in the web you're weaving there.

    Parent
    Seriously? (3.50 / 2) (#145)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 07:41:40 AM EST
    That's the last argument you should be making.

    Parent
    To comment even more to the absurd (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by fishcamp on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 07:55:17 AM EST
    maybe Brown had a charge account at the little store.

    Parent
    The community store (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 08:55:53 AM EST
    Yep

    The store owner made it clear through his lawyer that the 911 call came in from a customer not the clerk -- and that the store owner did not want to file charges regarding the shoplifted cigarillos  until he was leaned on by the police to do so and give them the security tape.

    That is one of the 3 community stores in that neighborhood where everybody and their grandmother  shop -- including the kid's grandmother who he probably feared more than the police.

    I'm sure the next time she came in for groceries the cost of those cigarillos would have been added to her bill and she would have been irate -- not at the storeowner but her grandson.

    And as soon as she got home he would have wished that he was facing the police instead of his grandmother.

    5 days it took for the police to finally get a copy of the security tape because the store owner did not want to give it to them and make an issue out of this because communities like this know how to handle it amongst themselves keeping the police out of it.

    The police have the time to chase down this heist of a handful of cigarillos during the 5 days when they should have and could have been working on an incident report on a body laying in the street and clearing up some of the misinformation that they deliberately mislead the public.

    To date the FPD Chief has not cleared up his lie that the body was 35 feet from the SUV. For that correction we have to rely on the Black Canseco video showing it to be about 120 feet down the street -- a long way for a guy in fear of his life to run.

    And on the Black Canseco video the size of Wilson is quite evident -- also not addressed by anyone yet.

    He's taller than Brown by 2 inches at about 6-6 and probably weighs just as much with arms down to his knees.

    So much for "fear for your life" from an unarmed man walking toward you, who as large as he was, still turns out to be smaller than you and bleeding from the bullets you just put in him.

    Parent

    "To comment even more to the absurd"? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    Dude.
    You got a high bar there.  This thread has gone off the deep end it's like a train wreck.   I want to stop reading it but I can't.

    To get more absurd you would have to speculate that the poor man accidentally discovered that the store clerk was secretly an alien (not the "illegal" kind) and that the cigars were really plans for the invasion of earth and that he was walking in the street  to get the attention of a policeman only to find Wilson was in league with the aliens.

    I not trying to be funny.  It makes every bit as much sense as some of the other despicable ridiculous krap in this thread.

    I keep checking to make sure I haven't been redirects to RedState or Townhall.

    Parent

    You think (none / 0) (#156)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    we're bad, check the reader comments on, say, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  

    CNN still isn't permitting reader comments.  Guess they got tired of being called "shills," even by their usual readership.

    Parent

    Commenting rules prohibit me (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    From saying what I think you are.  Sadly.  

    Parent
    I'll do it (none / 0) (#163)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 11:18:31 AM EST
    for you:  I'm an unlettered, unreconstructed, amoral, bitter-clinging "fundie," with a microchip implanted in my skull by Karl Rove.

    Parent
    Not even close (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    If that's what I thought I would have said it.   Clearly your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought.

    Too.

    Parent

    How 'bout (none / 0) (#174)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    I add "tout a fait odieux"?  That's the best I can do.

    Parent
    IMO this meets all standards for a troll comment (4.25 / 4) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 13, 2014 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    Talk about making stuff up and distorting what actually happened.

    Please provide some proof that TWO men attacked Wilson.

    Got anything, anything at all, other than your need to make stuff up (otherwise known as lying) that indicates that Johnson attacked Wilson.

    Parent

    Troll Comment? (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    Why is his or her comment any less fantasy than the ones who are arguing Brown's POV?

    Because you think something else happened?

    How can anyone here knows what happened? Yet we all are fairly certain about the version we have come up with based on public reports, including me.

    Parent

    Because he stated that TWO men (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    attacked the police officer.

    We do have comments made by the police and by witnesses.

    Did the police claim that the police officer was attacked by two men? Did any witness claim that the police officer was attacked by two men? If both Brown and Johnson attacked Wilson, why wasn't that mentioned by the Ferguson police chief since it would more than anything else provide creditability to Wilson fearing for his life. If Johnson also attacked Wilson, why wasn't he arrested for assaulting an officer?

    Maybe you would like to provide me with a link to any statement from the police or any other witness that indicates that Wilson was attacked by two men to substantiate his claims.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#165)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    is it that little detail (which is vaguely stated, at best)? Or is it that the commenter in question believes that Wilson was justified to kill Brown?

    IMO, it is the latter as operative regarding your name calling, not the former.

    Parent

    The response seemed clear enough (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    But to add to it, it's not so much the conclusion that Wilson was justified as it is the exaggeration/misstating of facts to try to support their conclusions.  One customer becomes two.  One store employee becomes two.  A push/shove becomes "manhandling" and an alleged scuffle between Brown and Wilson becomes a "mauling" by Brown.  The fact that Brown took Swishers means he was on drugs (either blunts or prescription) because, hey ... that part of the "folkways of our urban youth."

    IMO, it's the former.

    Parent

    They Were Hypotheticals.. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    To say that s/he is a troll because s/he put to hyperbolic statements together is silly, IMO.

    And to make believe that a implied statement because of the poor grammar, was a the a cogent point, was the reason for calling the commenter a troll is equally silly.

    But par for the course..

    Namecalling as a form of argument is not uncommon at TL.

    I have indulged in that myself.. although I do not think I have ever called someone a troll because I disagreed with them, and know I have never troll rated a comment.

    Parent

    Ohhhhh.... "hypotheticals" (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    So baseless accusations in the form of "questions" and specious/exaggerated statements aren't trolling if they're "hypotheticals".

    To say that s/he is a troll because s/he put to hyperbolic statements together is silly, IMO... I have indulged in that myself.. although I do not think I have ever called someone a troll because I disagreed with them, and know I have never troll rated a comment.

    Good for you.  I guess other people have different opinions.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    So called hypotheticals and accusations in (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    the form of questions are a pattern leftwig has used to promote the baseless claim that Brown and Johnson attacked the officer. IOW, two men attacked the officer.

    Direct quote from comment #40 by leftwig who you continue to defend in this comment.

    Did the officer attack Brown and Johnson first, or did they attack him?(emphasis mine)


    Parent
    Trolling? (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    Still do not get it.

    The answer to the question would be a simple: Did you mean they or him...

    To me it is an obvious grammar snafu...

    to call the commenter a troll is silly.

    But I am sure you feel good about it.

    Why not report the TROLL to Jeralyn as she insists that there is zero tolerance for trolling at TL..

    ahhahaha...  

    weal case MO Blue. and sad that you think you have to resort to the lowest form of discourse in order to feel good about your argument.

    Parent

    I think you mean ... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    ... obvious grammar SNAFUs, since Leftwig did it twice in the same thread:

    Did the officer attack Brown and Johnson first, or did they attack him?

    AND

    Two men involved in a strong armed robbery minutes earlier attack a police officer out of fear of being arrested

    Must be just an obvious, recurring, grammatical SNAFU consisting of an inability to distinguish between the singular and plural.

    Parent

    Still Not Trolling (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    OK... so where is the trolling?

    The commenters statements or questions certainly do not seem any more based in fact than other's who are relying on internet babble to make their case.

    It would seem to be more reasonable to ask the commenter if s/he believes that Johnson also attacked Wilson, rather than call the commenter a Troll.

    just saying...  

    Parent

    You are definitely an expert (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    on the lowest form of discourse as you employ it on a regular basis.

    Ha Ha Ha you are hillarious.

    At 11:10:19 you comment WTF and state I'm going off the deep end due to my statement of your wanting to defend leftwig's statements?

    11:17:20 you once again defend his statements to Yman as being hypotheticals or grammar errors.

    Once again, in your comment you above are defending his repeated accusations that two men (Brown and Johnson) attacked the officer as grammar errors.

    Grammar errors is such a weak defense for accusations that are repeated in more than one comment that it is no wonder you had to resort to your SOP of personal insults.

    Parent

    Nice (3.00 / 2) (#186)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    You can't help yourself.

    Why would I want to defend leftwig's statements?

    Were you at the scene?

    How do you know what happened?

    you do not know any more than leftwig, but s/he is a troll according to you because your fantasy of the events is somehow more popular here at TL?

    really silly stuff. But considering your response to me, you may as well sit in your own BS..

    Parent

    I have no idea why you continue (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    to defend leftwig's statements but you continue to do so..

    Your level of discourse is really deteriorating by the minute. It is understandable since you have nothing else to fall back on.

    Try to be more creative in your next insult since your current ones are becoming predictable and boring.

    Bye, bye now.

    Parent

    Defend? (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 04:06:34 PM EST
    Why would I want to defend leftwig's comment.

    My only point is that to call leftwig a troll because you do not like what s/he wrote, or disagree with him or her, is BS.

    Why are you any less of a troll? Is your version of what happened in Ferguson based on anything other than what you have heard or read about? Did you see the incident?

    No, but you believe you know what happened in Ferguson and leftwig does not have a clue. Based on what?  BS no doubt. Is  leftwig a troll because you are smarter or something (psychic).  

    Well the fact is that you do not know what happened anymore than anyone this thread know what happened in Ferguson.

    So stop making believe that you hold the keys to truth.

    Parent

    Well, there is the other difference (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    Apart from (presumably) reaching different conclusions, It's been clearly demonstrated that Leftwig is exaggerating/misstating the facts -  unless we're still stuck on the "chronic grammar problem" theory.

    Parent
    Facts? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    What facts?

    As far as I know it is not clear what happened at the car between Wilson, Brown, and Johnson.

    Do you have some facts?

    Parent

    I do (4.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    You don't?

    There is not a single shred of evidence suggesting Johnson attacked Wilson. - fact

    No witnesses have stated that either man attacked the officer. - fact

    Johnson has not been charged with anything - fact.

    Leftwig has repeatedly suggested that both men attacked the officer. - fact

    Parent

    Yes, really (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    That so called little detail that the police officer was attacked by two men is in no way substantiated by any report of the incident. It artificially raises the level of threat to the officer in question. This particular commenter is prone to distort (otherwise known as lying) the events in his defense of Wilson. Two men attacked the officer, two employees and patrons (plural) witnessed Brown robbing the store.

    Several people have stated that Brown attacked Wilson. I have not stated that their comments met the standard of a troll comment or rated their comments with a 1. While I disagree with that opinion, it is one possible scenario based on all information that is available.

    Once again if you want to defend his/her statements, please provide me with a link to a statement by the police or a witness that the officer was attacked by two men. Since you have assigned yourself as a defender of his/her statements, maybe you can also provide the links to the police reports that give the statements of all the patrons and the two employees that he/she claims were in the store during the robbery.  

     

    Parent

    WTF? (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 12:10:19 PM EST
    Once again if you want to defend his/her statements, please provide me with a link...

    Defend his or her statements?

    Really you are going off the deep end on this, imo.

    Parent

    Well you are entitled to your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    My opinion of who is going off the deep end on this differs from yours.

    Maybe you might want to consider Will Rogers' advise:

    When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.



    Parent
    Very interesting exchange. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    (I wanted to recommend the comment at issue but am intimidated by reaction here at TL.)

    Parent
    Are you of the opinion that two (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    men attacked the officer? Are you of the opinion that both Brown and Johnson attacked the officer? If you believe that Wilson was attacked by both men, would you please provide a link to the police information  or witness statements that made you form that opinion.

    Parent
    I don't know if either Johnson (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    or Brown or both attacked the officer. I also do not know if either Johnson or Brown or both were struck by the patrol car door when the officer opened it and/or if the officer attempted to pull either into the patrol car through the driver's side front window. Other unknowns:  whether Brown tried to or did grab the officer's service revolver; whether anyone pushed the officer back into the patrol car, whether any shot was fired inside the patrol car by anyone; whether Johnson had a gun, and, if so, at what point, if ever, did the officer know or have a reasonable suspician Johnson was armed; at what point did the officer know Brown was unarmed; at some point did the officer have a reasonable suspicion Brown had a dangerous and deadly weapon; whether and if so, at what point, the officer had a reasonable suspicion a strong arm robbery had been committed and a reasonable suspician who committed it. This is not a complete list of unknowns.

    Parent
    Have you read the police accounts of the (3.50 / 2) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:11:58 PM EST
    shooting? Are you aware of the fact that the police at no time stated that Johnson attached Wilson? Are you aware of the fact that no witness at the scene is on record stating that Johnson attached Wilson? Are you aware of the fact that Johnson has not been charged with assaulting Wilson? There are statement on record. While they conflict on what Brown was doing, none of them indicate that Johnson attacked Wilson.

    St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar - Sunday, Aug. 10

    Brown "allegedly pushed" Wilson back into the car and "physically assaulted" Wilson, Belmar said. Following this, it appeared there was a struggle over Wilson's gun, which was fired once inside the car, Belmar said.

    Witness Tiffany Mitchell

    Witness Tiffany Mitchell was picking up coworker Piaget Crenshaw for their jobs when she saw Brown and the officer "tussling through the window." Mitchell and Crenshaw said Brown appeared to be trying to pry himself from the officer's grasp. Brown had his hand on the police cruiser, trying to push himself away, Mitchell said.


    Josie

    In Josie's version, Wilson may have heard a call about a strong-arm robbery and saw the young men carrying something that might have been stolen cigars. According to Josie, when Wilson tried to get out of his car, Brown pushed him back in, and then punched the officer in the face. It was then that Wilson reached for his gun, Josie told the radio show.

    Missing in those accounts is any accusation that Johnson attacked Wilson. Also missing is an arrest of Johnson for assaulting Wilson.

    Parent

    Neither Josie nor Chief Belmar are eye- (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    witnesses. Although, if Officer Wilson made statements to either of them there is a possibility all or part of those statements might be admissible evidence as admissions against interest.

    In any event, I am waiting for the county's officer-involved shooting investigation.

    Parent

    So you would agree (4.25 / 4) (#200)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:30:17 PM EST
    Any claims that Johnson attacked Wilson are - at this point - completely baseless?

    Parent
    I recall reading here that Johnson was behind (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 14, 2014 at 06:35:31 PM EST
    some car though I don't know when   I am only interested in Officer awilson's perceptions and whether his actions were objectively reasonable.

    Parent
    If Johnson had had anything to do (none / 0) (#204)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:47:24 AM EST
    with the arm wrestling at the driver's side window then he would have been sitting on the curb after the shooting with his arms handcuffed behind his back.

    The fact that he was not arrested speaks loudly that he was not involved in the tussle.

    No witness puts him anywhere near  that window.

    AND one witness in particular, James Brady, says that at the time of the arm-wrestling at the front window, Johnson was on the other side of the SUV, at the front passenger side of the SUV -- nowhere near the tussle.

    This whole allegation was invented out of whole cloth by some nut who fell out of his own treehouse.

    Really (none / 0) (#205)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:00:28 AM EST
    The fact that he was not arrested speaks loudly that he was not involved in the tussle.

    So whoever adds details you like, that is what happened, and any other details is from a nut?

    Well by your own logic, Wilson is not guilty, because if he were he would have been arrested and sitting on the curb in handcuffs, as opposed to on leave WITH PAY.

    Not sure why my posts are disappearing (none / 0) (#207)
    by leftwig on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:53:29 AM EST
    but in response to these questions:

    How many patron's were in the store?
    At least 4 (the one who called 911, Johnson, Brown and man in white t-shirt standing at the door before the store clerk tried to block Browns exit.  We know that Johnson has talked to police about the incident and the person who called 911 gave a statement.

    How many employees were in the store?  At least 2 (I assume just 2).  The police said they met one employee in the parking lot when responding to the call and that employee gave a description and direction Brown was headed.  Then there was the clerk who Brown shoved out of the way and went back at before the clerk backed off.

    Not really sure I understand why this was relevant.  The video pretty much speaks for itself.

    Posts Not Disappearing (none / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:14:23 PM EST
    They are being downrated, check your comments here.

    If you have ratings turned on in your TL preferences, a rated comment will be moved in relation to other rated comments. Top rated first or top rated last, depending on your settings.

    In answer to another question/statement (none / 0) (#209)
    by leftwig on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    That so called little detail that the police officer was attacked by two men is in no way substantiated by any report of the incident.

    Dorian Johnson gave an interview to Sharpton on 8/12.  In that interview, he stated that as the officer backed up to them, they jumped out of the way because the SUV had come close to hitting them.  They were then at the officers door, only an inch away as the officer tried to forcibly open the door.  The door hit both he and Brown and bounced off of them and back into the officer.  In the interview, Johnson first said the door nearly knocked the wind out of him, then said that it barely touched him (which one is true, we have no idea).  So, yes, we do have information that Johnson was involved in the door bouncing back at the officer and the statement comes from Johnsons own account.  This interview is quite interesting as its always more revealing to listen to a witnesses own words than what an author of an article wants you to read.  

    Again, not sure why anyone was really hung up on a hypothetical whether 1 or 2 individuals were involved in attacking a police officer to avoid arrest.  The hypothetical doesn't change whether you believe Johnson had any involvement in the SA robbery or the door "bouncing" back at the officer or not.  Its a simple hypothetical question based on possibilities that exist in this case.  Is it more likely that someone involved in a strong armed robbery minutes earlier would attack a police officer, or that a police officer would want to shoot someone in broad daylight for walking down the middle of the street and refusing to get on the sidewalk?

    Johnson (none / 0) (#210)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    Again, not sure why anyone was really hung up on a hypothetical whether 1 or 2 individuals were involved in attacking a police officer to avoid arrest.

    Because your hypothetical is nonsense especially when compared to the historical.

    Johnson did not shoplift anything in the store or commit a crime for which he had to fear arrest. If he had they would have had him in handcuffs instead of letting him give interviews to the press that afternoon.

    And the car door bouncing off of Johnson's leg is not the struggle that the Chief of Police noted took place at the front window of the cruiser. The Chief did not say that the struggle was between Wilson and the other two.  He said it was just between Wilson and Brown. If he had any evidence otherwise then he would have said so right up front and Johnson would have been in handcuffs for that one.

    Instead Michael Brady who has given his statement to the FBI says that Johnson at the time of that struggle was standing at the front passenger side of the police cruiser. He was not involved in it.

    False accusations seem to be the order of the day among a whole lot of bloggers who claim to hold the Bill of Rights in such high regard -- except for others.

    The COP has said many things, some of (none / 0) (#211)
    by leftwig on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:50:29 PM EST
    which are demonstrably false.  I wouldn't count on all information he has provided is accurate and quite possibly intended to be that way.

    Johnson is the one who said the door bumping into him almost knocked the wind out of him.  Not sure how that happens if it just bumps his leg.  Also, Johnson had a warrant for his arrest for theft, giving police false information and then skipping court.  Whether he felt he was in the free and clear on lifting the cigarillos, he certainly knew the other issue would land him in jail.  Being associated with the man who committed the strong armed robbery, whether eventually charged or not would not be something he'd want to face.  As for jumping in front of cameras, some people just can't help themselves and I'm guessing he felt emboldened by others around him.  He doesn't strike me as terribly intelligent.

    But once again, it was a hypothetical question.  There are a bunch of hypotheticals flying around on the officers actions (I provided one as well) and I don't see you questioning them with any vigor.  Not sure why one on the other end, especially as insignificant as it is to the question, is an issue.  As I said, take Johnson completely out of the equation if it will help you answer the question.

    Meant to address Brady's statement as well (none / 0) (#212)
    by leftwig on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    Do you believe Brady or Johnson on his whereabouts?  Johnson says he was close enough to see the muscles in Wilsons arm and was side by side with Brown as the "tussle" occurred and had to step aside as the weapon was drawn and fired on Brown.  Brady says when he saw the struggle between Brown and Wilson that Johnson was on the opposite side of the car by the front bumper.  So who do you believe and why?

    Brady (none / 0) (#213)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:07:59 PM EST
    Usually when an event like this happens the police will wait 2 days to get the most accurate recall from witnesses.

    The name of the game is to piece it all together rather than as some are doing to try to prove that everybody except the one who is pleading the 5th is lying.

    Unfortunately for Johnson he was telling his story immediately and he sounded winded with adrenaline still pumping.

    He says Wilson did not follow Brown for 2 or 3 "minutes" at one point when he obviously meant 2 or 3 "seconds".

    But if you put what Johnson said and Brady said you get a better idea of how it went down.

    Brady said the Johnson was on the front passenger side of the SUV when the gun went off meaning that he would have ducked behind a car on that side.

    Johnson says that Brown ran past him. He couldn't have done that if he ran immediately to the back of the vehicle and then down the street because Johnson would have been on the other side of the SUV ducking down.

    So Brown then must have run the long way -- to the front of the SUV and around it and then past Johnson ducking down on his left and then down the street.

    That's how Johnson could say that he ran past him and he could see blood on his shirt.

    What corroborates all these witnesses is not so much each other but the 74 second timeline from when they met on the street per FPD to the last bullet fired 74 seconds later per the audio recording and the 2nd FPD officer arriving 8 seconds later.

    You might stretch the truth but you can't stretch time.

    There is no time in that timeline for a prolonged struggle for a gun in the front seat of the cruiser, or for a bull rush at the end of the chase.

    Timeline for the shooting (none / 0) (#214)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:08 PM EST
    74 Second Timeline --

    Wilson made contact with jaywalkers at 12:01:00
    Disturbance on Canfield first reported 12:01:50
    Glide recording of shots created at 12:02:14
    2nd Ferguson PD unit arrived 12:02:22

    The "disturbance" would have been while they were tussling with each other at the front window of the SUV.

    24 seconds after the tussle breaks up and 120 feet down the road Wilson fired his last bullet into Brown.

    Johnson (none / 0) (#216)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:16:57 AM EST
    That's the interview I think where Johnson said that Brown handed him the cigarillos.  

    Though he can't be in two places at once it is possible that the tussle lasted long enough for Johnson to run from the door to the right headlight where Brady saw him, and then back again to the front door to grab the cigarillos, and as he does so the gun goes off.

    So both could be right.

    It would be nice to know just how long that tussle lasted. My guess would be about 20 seconds -- long enough for someone to see it and then call 911 and then stay on the line long enough for it to be logged into the computer. My guess is that it began at 12:01:30 and at 12:01:40 the caller connected with 911 and the incident was posted by dispatch at 12:01:50 about the time when Brown ran.

    That first shot was peeled out of a window frame down the road -- so if that one hit Brown at all it would have to have been the one that grazed his upper arm providing the blood that Johnson saw.

     I'm sure that the tee shirt that he was wearing would be able to tell if he was shot in the arm and ran for 20 seconds or if he was shot there and then fell flat.  

    The 12:01:00 time for the initial encounter comes directly from Ferguson PD and they have said it multiple times. I think it's accurate since they know exactly when he left the sick call -- 12:00:00 and they do have GPS on those vehicles.

    I would think and hope that if Wilson called in at all then that call and it's time would be part of the timeline the police gave us, but it's not.

    For example we know that the left the sick call at 12:00:00 because he called in to say so at that time. In other words they posted that call to central -- but nothing after that.

    A 30 second response time for a disturbance call in Ferguson is about right, but a minute and ten second response time for an officer calling for assistance in the apprehension of suspects that the police were currently looking for would be unacceptable.

    Well, he called in at 12:00 to say he left (none / 0) (#217)
    by leftwig on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    the sick call.  He may have actually left some seconds or minutes earlier and was calling that in as he began patrolling again.  I agree that the GPS positioning of his vehicle will provide and extremely accurate timeline for his location.

    On Johnson, he is very specific in stating that he was less than an arms length from Brown and Wilson when the shot was fired.  Unless the "tussle" continued after that shot giving Johnson time to get around to the other side of the vehicle, I'm not sure how both Brady and Johnsons stories could be accurate.  

    On the shot that was taken from the window frame, I'm struggling with how that shot could have been the initial shot that hit Brown.  With Wilson facing Brown while they struggled at the driver side door, the window that they took the bullet from is in the opposite direction from where Wilson would have been firing through the drivers window.  If that bullet came from the first shot fired in the car and hit Brown, it would have had to make a 180 and gone through the passenger side window of the police SUV, or Brown would have had to been far inside the car with the weapon pointing away from him, grazing him on the wrist as it went through the passenger side window.  I think I do recall from Wilsons story that the weapon at one point was pointed back towards him.

    "Josie alleged that Brown reached for Wilson's gun and, at one point, had it completely turned against the officer's hip. When the officer shoved the weapon away, it fired, she said."

    IT has been reported that Wilson testified (none / 0) (#218)
    by leftwig on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    before the GJ on Tuesday.  We have no idea of the questions and answers and whether he pled the 5th on any line of inquiry, but I'm guessing he didn't go before the GJ to refuse to answer questions.

    View to a Kill (none / 0) (#219)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    Those numbers all come from the FPD and I am assuming that before they released them they cross-checked them with their GPS and everything else for accuracy.

     I don't know what could be more definitive than the FPD's own numbers.

    On Johnson, he is very specific in stating that he was less than an arms length from Brown and Wilson when the shot was fired.

    Would being at the front bumper of the SUV while they are wrestling at the front driver window be considered by him as an "arms length"??? More than likely.

    He's at the window with Brown at 12:01:30 when the tussle begins, scurries around to the passenger side bumper getting ready to run where Brady sees him at 12:01:40. Brown calls to him to take these cigarillos and so he hustles back around the front bumper where he reaches over and grabs the cigarillos from him at about 12:01:50. He grabs them and on his way back around the front bumper at about the front left headlight, he looks up toward the front window and the gun goes off.

     He may have been further than an arms length but that's how he describes the distance in order to point out how close he was when the shot went off and the view that he had. It's a minor point.

    On the shot that was taken from the window frame, I'm struggling with how that shot could have been the initial shot that hit Brown.

    Have you seen how the SUV was parked diagonally in that video. I'm struggling with how a gun could have been fired inside the SUV and hit that window frame unless the gun was outside the SUV.

    With Wilson facing Brown while they struggled at the driver side door, the window that they took the bullet from is in the opposite direction from where Wilson would have been firing through the drivers window.

    Not so -- check the Black Canseco video again -- where the cellphone user is  videoing is where that bullet went -- into the apartment just to his left.

    "Josie alleged that Brown reached for Wilson's gun and, at one point, had it completely turned against the officer's hip. When the officer shoved the weapon away, it fired, she said."

    Then there would have been a hole in the driver's side door or in someone's leg or abdomen but there wasn't -- so that is simply not true like most of what the anonymous was not there storyteller "Josie" says.

    Trees landscapers were working on??? (none / 0) (#220)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Sep 18, 2014 at 10:48:30 PM EST
    Trees landscapers were working on???

    Trees relative to body

    If these are the trees that were being cut down then they were indeed within 50 feet of the shooting.

    Bracelet (none / 0) (#221)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Sep 18, 2014 at 11:06:44 PM EST
    Bracelet on the ground by SUV

    It could be this:

    HipHop slide bead bracelet strung on leather, string or gold mesh bracelets and worn by rappers and marijuana/recreational drug users

    and could have belonged to Brown and fell off his wrist during the tussle, or dropped when he handed the cigarillos to Johnson.

    Interview with tree worker -- (none / 0) (#222)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Sep 19, 2014 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    Most notable in the interview is that the worker says that two other officers were on the scene before the final shots went down.

    Are the Ferguson police hiding something from us???

    According to FPD the 2nd unit arrived on the scene at 12:02:22 -- 8 seconds after the final shot at 12:02:14.

    Are they lying about the time of these arrivals????

    Is it possible that the 2nd and 3rd units were there sooner before the last 10 shots and ... well you know the next question.

    The yellow tape sure got up fast -- all the way around in a matter of a few minutes.