By Bob Stone
The myth about Wilson engaging Brown strictly for Jaywalking has been officially destroyed.* When Wilson says “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car,” he has identified Brown and Johnson as matching the the description of the suspects fleeing from the QuckTrip robbery. Thus Wilson engaged Brown as a robbery suspect and not a “jaywalker.” This also helps explain why Brown would block Wilson from exiting the vehicle and fight him for control of his gun.
*Hat-tip to Elaine.
(N.B. You can play the audio for the radio calls by clicking on the actual text in the Post Dispatch article)
FERGUSON • The Aug. 9 fatal shooting here that sparked three months of protests and calls for change from around the world happened in less than 90 seconds, interviews and an analysis of police and EMS records shows.
The records, obtained by the Post-Dispatch via Missouri’s Sunshine Law, provide the best timeline yet for the events surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown Jr., 18. Also released were police station surveillance videos that provide the most recent images of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who has not been seen publicly since the shooting. Wilson left the police station for the hospital two hours after the shooting, accompanied by other officers and his union lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGc0kXrOcrI
Full article here: Darren Wilson’s radio calls show fatal encounter was brief
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
Ah, the grievance syndicate.
You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
OK, I read it, I watched it, and I heard it.
What was the actual purpose of the videos? Some guys very briefly walking around?
There’s nothing in there that adds any info to what we’ve already heard.
None of it points to anything, without the accompanying narrative made by a reporter that claims Wilson testified.
No, buckaroo, we’re not going to know the truth.
On the eve of the grand jury refusing to indict Officer Wilson, there will be much released, and everything will seek to frame things to justify the non-indictment. Propaganda hard at work!
Spent some quality time with a few police officers. Learned a lot about “over committing” (entering a situation without proper backup) and how, when approaching pedestrians while remaining in the patron car, always keep one’s car in drive … not park and certainly not reverse. Keeping the car in drive helps in getting away quickly should the pedestrian try to trap you in your car. And, if the pedestrian is a “suspect” remember that he or she may be armed and the best part of a patrol car to offer protection is the engine … keep it between you and the suspect as you are assessing the situation. Also, unlike we see on television, suspects who flee usually do so at sprintp speed which means they tire abruptly so keep your pursuit at about 60% so that you aren’t caught unawares without time to assess whether they are surrendering.
This is the sort of basic stuff Wilson didn’t practice that day. Amazing lack of training for a guy with 8(?) years on the job. Or … maybe not.
“The myth about Wilson hassling Brown for Jaywalking has been officially destroyed.”
Excerpt:
While there is no official report from Officer Wilson currently available, we do have his version of the events as related to a friend who called into a radio show identifying herself only as “Josie.” According to CNN, this version has been “confirmed by a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation.”
JOSIE: Okay. So he said that they, you know, they were walking in the middle of the street and he rolled his window down and, you know, said “Come on guys out of the street. They refused to, and were yelling back and saying, “We are almost where we are going.”
**********
So…did Officer Wilson hassle or speak to Brown about jaywalking or not?
All fixed Elaine. *
Speaking of Josie, I clearly stated in my article that her story as told on that radio show was “confirmed by a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation” according to CNN. And yet you continued to deride said version of events as
“the first shot in the right-wing news campaign to smear Michael Brown.”
You even derided me for using Josie’s narrative; despite my mention of CNN confirming it.
When we combine the radio transcripts linked above with Wilson’s story as related to the Grand Jury…
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/source-darren-wilson-says-michael-brown-kept-charging-at-him/article_d2cf8b20-c517-592b-96ba-77d8a5f46fef.html
It turns out that Josie was simply telling the truth.
Care to comment Elaine?
Bob,
You’re the one who used Josie as a reliable source. Her explanation of what happened the day that Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown conflicted with what you wrote at the top of this post. You wrote, “The myth about Wilson hassling Brown for Jaywalking has been officially destroyed.” Yet, according to Josie, Wilson did confront Michael Brown about jaywalking. Did Officer Wilson confront Brown about jaywalking? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.
Bob,
You claim that Josie was “simply telling the truth.” Here’s an excerpt of what she said to the radio host:
Excerpt:
JOSIE: Okay. So he said that they, you know, they were walking in the middle of the street and he rolled his window down and, you know, said “Come on guys out of the street. They refused to, and were yelling back and saying, “We are almost where we are going.” There was some cussing involved, and then he just kept rolling up and he pulled over, and I believe, at that point, he called for a backup but I am not sure. But I know he pulled up ahead of them and he was watching them and then gets the call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery, and they get the description, and he was looking at them and they got something in their hands that looks like it could be, what, you know, those cigars or whatever, so he goes in reverse back to them and tries to get out of his car and they slam his door shut violently — I think he said Michael did.
*****
Did Officer Wilson receive the call about the convenience store robbery before or after his first encounter with Michael Brown?
“You even derided me for using Josie’s narrative; despite my mention of CNN confirming it.”
I trust everything CNN reports as long as it agrees with my viewpoint.
Caller says she has the officer’s side of the Ferguson shooting
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missouri-teen-shooting/
Excerpt:
According to the version on KFTK, phoned in by a woman who identified herself as “Josie,” the altercation on August 9 began after Officer Darren Wilson rolled down his window to tell Brown and a friend to stop walking in the street.
Bob originally wrote: “The myth about Wilson hassling Brown for Jaywalking has been officially destroyed.”
Bob updated the post by changing that sentence: “The myth about Wilson engaging Brown strictly for Jaywalking has been officially destroyed.”
*****
There is no note to readers in the post that it was updated.
Elaine,
That asterisk above was just for you; and your later comments here show why.
Josie did turn out to be a reliable source; since her version of events are backed up by the Grand Jury testimony leaked to the press, the radio transcripts as well as the forensic evidence; e.g. Brown’s blood on the gun, the bullet lodged in the car door and the gunshot wound to Brown’s hand.
She was even correct about the gun being pointed towards Wilson’s hip:
Josie: “And Michael grabs the gun. At one point he has the gun totally turned against his hip”
Wilson’s Story: “During the struggle, Brown handed the cigarillos to Johnson, then swung his left hand and hit Wilson on the right side of the face. Wilson said he almost lost consciousness, the source said. Brown then began to use his left hand in the struggle for the gun, and turned the pistol until the barrel was against Wilson’s hip.”
Do all right wing smear merchants tell such detailed truths?
Bob,
You continue to avoid answering the questions that I asked you.
– So…did Officer Wilson hassle or speak to Brown about jaywalking or not?
– You wrote, “The myth about Wilson hassling Brown for Jaywalking has been officially destroyed.” Yet, according to Josie, Wilson did confront Michael Brown about jaywalking. Did Officer Wilson confront Brown about jaywalking? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.
– Did Officer Wilson receive the call about the convenience store robbery before or after his first encounter with Michael Brown?
Did Officer Wilson receive the call about the convenience store robbery before or after his first encounter with Michael Brown? – Elaine
I suppose we have to stick with the source Bob S gave us which is the article from the St Louis Post Dispatch which reads:
“Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call.
Wilson then asked dispatch for backup and backed up his SUV next to Brown and Johnson.”
From that bit of reporting all I can garner is that Wilson knew of the robbery report but did not initially connect the two guys walking in the middle of the street who he had told to get out of the street until he was driving away from them. Wilson then had an “Aha!” moment and at 12:02 made the call, reversed his car and by 12:03 we have the first tweet – I JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG – followed at 12:03:13 by an unidentified officer who has arrived and asks, “Where’s the other one?”
Now, if this reporting is accurate then the jaywalking bit is not myth and it took, at the most, 73 seconds for Wilson to go from his Aha moment to Brown dead on the street. During that 73 seconds Wilson reverses his car, has an altercation with Brown through his car window, chases Brown and fires off at least 6 shots.
Sit in your chair and count off 73 seconds remembering that the 73 seconds is on the dispatch clock. If the tweet time is accurate then the time from Aha to dead body was only 61 seconds.
And don’t forget that before Wilson killed Brown he, Wilson, was saving a baby. 😉 What a guy.
Blouise,
You should have been a detective!
Elaine,
I particularly appreciated the totally irrelevant baby saving call the Dispatch put in their article. They failed to mention whether the baby was black. Would it be too cynical to opine that the KKK Awards Granting Committee might have a problem awarding Wilson more medals if they knew he had saved a black baby. Yeah, that’s way too cynical.
Blouise,
You should have been a detective! – Elaine
There’s a thought. I can see the news headlines:
Detective Shanda Lear, A Bright Light in Crime Detection
Yesterday Detective Shanda Lear was overheard remarking, “No one would ever accuse Officer Darren Wilson of being the brightest bulb in the chandelier.” …..
“Wilson knew of the robbery report but did not initially connect the two guys walking in the middle of the street who he had told to get out of the street until he was driving away from them.”
Is there any another rational way to interpret the recordings? Because I interpreted Elaine’s insistence on me answering her question as a forest for the trees dodge.
N.B. The premise which the grievance syndicate relied so heavily on — i.e. of Wilson being an aggressive racist cop who stopped two black kids for jaywalking to initiate a needless struggle and “executing Mike Brown” — has vanished completely.
And you know what got that going … see the early news quotes from Chief Jackson:
“Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer did not know the teen was a robbery suspect at the time of the shooting and stopped Michael Brown and a companion ‘because they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic.’ … -Johnson has told reporters that the officer ordered the pair to move onto the sidewalk, then grabbed his friend’s neck and tried to pull him into the car before brandishing his weapon and firing. He said Brown started to run and the officer pursued him, firing multiple times.” – Associated Press AUGUST 15, 2014
These statements were made early in the day on August 15th … Brown was shot early in the afternoon on August 9th. SIX (6) days after the shooting and that was the story Chief Jackson was giving the media. He has since changed that story. Blame the mob or blame the grievance syndicate all you want but the info came from Wilson’s boss.
“The premise which the grievance syndicate relied so heavily on — i.e. of Wilson being an aggressive racist cop who stopped two black kids for jaywalking to initiate a needless struggle and “executing Mike Brown” — has vanished completely.”
“Grievance syndicate” Bob? Perhaps they lie in juxtaposition to the “Racist Cartel”. You persist in using inflammatory name calling to make your case, which could lead one to suspect that your case without ad hominem attacks wouldn’t seem so airtight. I’m not calling you a racist, because I think you’re not. However, you’re calling those I side with, perhaps myself, to be insincere “liberal types”, who unfairly attack the work of the police. Do you think the characterization of “mob” advances the discussion to any degree?
And by the way. Let’s say for arguments sake that Wilson was aware of the store robbery incident and had been assaulted by Brown, does that really justify shooting at him running away multiple times? The theory used to be in this country that police shot at fleeing criminals only if they were armed, dangerous and their escape would be a danger to the community. At worse, all you got on Brown was he was an aggressive shoplifter, neither a felony not a capital offense.
Don’t let me confuse you … Jackson is the Chief who said Wilson didn’t know about the robbery. Johnson is the guy who was with Brown and collaborates Jackson’s comment that they were stopped for jaywalking.
Mike,
Well, if Wilson knew about the robbery, his boss hadn’t been informed.
Mike,
Here’s a paragraph from a post I’m working on:
The grievance syndicate exists on both ends of the political spectrum; be it on the right at the Bundy Ranch or on the left in Ferguson. Whether it’s a deadbeat anarchist rancher cheating the Federal government and his fellow ranchers out of millions in grazing fees or a fifteen year old black girl faking her own rape and racist humiliation just to escape punishment from her parents; the grievance syndicate will exploit the situation to the point where the actual facts are barely recognizable.
It was the grievance syndicate, Mike, which convinced you that racism played any part in the shooting of Mike Brown.
If the Prosecutor keeps his word and releases the grand jury transcripts there’s going to be a wealth of controversy
“It was the grievance syndicate, Mike, which convinced you that racism played any part in the shooting of Mike Brown.” Bob Stone Well, that was not what convinced me. It was reading articles about the history of the Ferguson PD that convinced me.
Grievance syndicates, mobs, mother-may-I rules. I’ve never received a reply to my initial question:
“What planet did this happen on?” Not in this space/time continuum, surely.
An unarmed man was shot to death by a police officer. No police report was filed. No meaningful account of what transpired was given by the police, until months after the incident, after all of the eyewitness accounts could be studied, and a scenario could be constructed. I have never heard of an officer-involved killing, in which the officer’s account of what happened was not immediately related by authorities. We were told one thing, only, by the chief of police. The officer was unaware of the capital-felony theft of cigars, before the killing. And then he was retroactively aware of the theft, before the killing, just recently.
The fix was in from the beginning. It’s still in, and law enforcement is preparing for the civil unrest (probably by mobs and grievance syndicates) which will ensue when the long-ago-agreed-upon verdict is announced.
It was history and knowledge of what goes on/has gone on in this country that led Mike and others of us to think that race may have played a part in the shooting of Michael Brown. Those who claim we are a mob/grievance syndicate have closed their minds to the thought that race may have played a part in the officer-involved shooting of an unarmed black teenager.
Michael Brown shooting: Darren Wilson radio call segment missing
Police have no record of officer calling ‘shots fired, send all cars’ with accidental change of radio channel given as reason
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/15/michael-brown-shooting-darren-wilson-radio-call-segment-missing
Excerpt:
A call for backup that a police officer claims to have made seconds before he killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, reportedly cannot be found in police recordings. The officer blames the problem on his radio.
Darren Wilson has told investigators he radioed “shots fired, send all cars” after a struggle at his SUV with Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, following the officer’s stop of Brown and a friend for jaywalking in Ferguson on 9 August, according to the St Louis Post-Dispatch.
Yet a set of recordings released to the newspaper by police did not include the call. Wilson is reported to have stated that “during the struggle his radio had been jarred and the channel changed”, meaning it was not broadcast to his fellow officers in the St Louis suburb.
second
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.)
An unarmed man was killed. The local people along with witnesses said: this is just another entry in the long running police war against our community. Per the many precedents, and per the witnesses , they said that the killing was not justified. They rallied as a community to call for the end of the oppression of their community and the random killing of their youth and an inquiry into this killing.
When the authorities blames the kid for being killed, and tried to obfuscate and refuse inquiry, the local populations saw the all too obvious signs of the usual, knowing that Officer Wilson was being shielded as many before him were. When their outrage was reported on, the whole of the country reacted with compassion and outrage, knowing also that the fix is in. That is all a natural, normal reaction that any group/person across any ethnicity or social class would have been afforded the right to. Interesting though that the one group most subject to random killings by police is the one least afforded that right. Just one more instance of the blame the victim mentality.
Those intent in making this a racial thing are actually those defending Officer Wilson.
The Poor Paula mentality
Po,
Do you believe Dorian Johnson’s story?
Johnson: “Me and my friend was walking down the street in the middle of the street. And we wasn’t causing any harm to nobody. We had no weapons on us at all. … A police officer squad car pulled up and when he pulled up these were his exact words: ‘Get the F on the sidewalk.’ … He reversed his … car in a manner to where it almost hit us. … He tried to brush his door open but he was so close to us that it ricocheted off us and it bounced back to him, and I guess that, you know, got him a little upset. And at that time … he didn’t get out the car, he just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck and … as he was trying to choke my friend, he was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and he grabbed his arm to pull him into the car. … His weapon was drawn and he said, ‘I’ll shoot you’ or ‘I’m going to shoot,’ and in the same moment the first shot went off. And we looked at him, he was shot, and there was blood coming from him, and we took off running, and as we took off running, I ducked and hid for my life because I was afraid for my life …” St. Louis Post-Dispatch 8-11-2014
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/different-versions-of-the-encounter-that-led-to-a-fatal/article_29f84765-24f3-53bb-8ca3-77f780f79d8f.html
And remember, Johnson also said Brown “did not reach for the officer’s weapon at all”, and was attempting to get free of Wilson rather than attack him or take his weapon from him.
Do you believe him Po?
Bob Stone:
What kind of car did Wilson use that day? What kind of arm length does he have? If he was driving a regular patrol car, there is no way he could have grabbed a 6′ plus individual by the neck unless the man had arms down to below his knees.
http://www.ape-index.com/
“Do you believe Dorian Johnson’s story?”
Which part of it?
“Johnson: “Me and my friend was walking down the street in the middle of the street. And we wasn’t causing any harm to nobody. We had no weapons on us at all. … A police officer squad car pulled up” This is consistent with the police story and the news account.
“and when he pulled up these were his exact words: ‘Get the F on the sidewalk.’ ” This is certainly possible, I definitely heard worse when I lived in DC.
“… He reversed his … car in a manner to where it almost hit us. …” This is possible, I have seen undercovers in DC swerve in from of suspect cars, without warning, in a manner that nearly caused an accident, and only then identified themselves and that they were ordering a police stop.
“He tried to brush his door open but he was so close to us that it ricocheted off us and it bounced back to him, and I guess that, you know, got him a little upset.” If the previous witness statement is true then this is entirely plausible.
“And at that time … he didn’t get out the car, he just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck and … as he was trying to choke my friend, he was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and he grabbed his arm to pull him into the car. ”
This gets to the essence of the controversy doesn’t it: did Brown reach in and grab the officer or did the officer grab Brown. As I see it we have conflicting testimony and little to resolve the question. It seems to me ones view depends on where you see credibility. If you think officers are likely to report the truth then you probably believe the officer and think Brown grabbed for the officer or his weapon. If you have ever seen a furious officer take a swing at a citizen then it is an open question if the officer grabbed Brown. BTW I have seen an office standing behind a citizen swing into the ribs of the detainee – it happens.
“… His weapon was drawn and he said, ‘I’ll shoot you’ or ‘I’m going to shoot,’ and in the same moment the first shot went off. And we looked at him, he was shot, and there was blood coming from him, and we took off running, and as we took off running, I ducked and hid for my life because I was afraid for my life …”” Is this even controversial? Isn’t this largely consistent with the stories told by both citizens and official police report?
As I see there are two important questions. First: what evidence is there to tell us whether it was Brown who grabbed for the officer or the weapon or was it the officer who grabbed for Brown?
Second: does any of this inform our view of whether there was reasonable belief of imminent threat of death of serious bodily injury at the time the fatal shots were fired?
Finally, to answer the question “Do you believe Dorian Johnson’s story?”, most of the story here is either not controversial or consistent with the official story.
Bob
I have no idea whether Johnson is truthful or lying. Frankly, there is no reason why I should doubt his story, he was there! I have yet to hear from Officer Wilson, perhaps if I heard his side, from himself, I might think it makes more sense than Johnson’s.
All I know is this, one unarmed man is killed! That alone, puts the burden of proof on the killer/authority. Once the person is trusted with the authority via the office, badge, the gun and the institutional support, the level of responsibility increases along with the moral burden.
Mike Brown’s life was his and his only, no one should take it unless he causes an imminent danger to others.
Not only have we no proof that Mike caused an imminent danger to others, including the officer, the officer is being shielded from being subjected to the process that would have ensured he offers his proof. And when there is popular outrage, it is due to black racism or lynch mob mentality?
What I don’t get, Bob, is why when the evidence is conclusive neither way, would you side so forcefully for the murderer while blaming the other side for doing what you and others doing?
Bron,
You’re on the right track; you’re envisioning the events exactly as Johnson described them.
FYI: The height of Wilson’s vehicle was 76.9 inches (to the top of the roof rack).
BFM,
“his weapon was drawn”
And everything before that; you have no problem with it?
Once again: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
“All I know is this, one unarmed man is killed! That alone, puts the burden of proof on the killer/authority. Once the person is trusted with the authority via the office, badge, the gun and the institutional support, the level of responsibility increases along with the moral burden.”
Po,
Ay but there’s the rub. With all the “evidence” presented in Officer Wilson’s defense, there is none to explain why a fleeing shoplifter (at most) was shot multiple times in the back, when the officer was in no danger. Much better it seems for those who support Wilson to denounce Brown’s “thuggery” than to explain why this wasn’t a murderous execution.
Po
“All of that being said, though, it’s impossible not to look at this evidence, such as it is, and conclude that the story that became popularized about the confrontation between Brown and Wilson that was popularized in the days immediately after it occurred and the protests began didn’t play out. Assuming the autopsy and forensic reports are correct, then it does indeed appear that there was a struggle for Wilson’s gun inside his vehicle, and that at least one of the shots that hit Brown, although not fatally, occurred while that happened. There doesn’t seem to be any other reasonable way to interpret the presence of his blood inside the car and on its exterior or the presence of close-range gunshot wounds and apparent gunpowder residue on Brown’s body. The autopsy report also seems to conflict with the claims that Brown was in the process of running away or surrendering, depending on who you listen to, when the fatal shots were fired and may be consistent with Wilson’s contention that Brown was moving toward him. Taken together, all of these tend to paint a far more complicated picture of what happened that afternoon than was being circulated by the media and protesters in the days immediately after the incident,”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/1024/Ferguson-shooting-Evidence-appears-to-support-officer-s-version-of-events
Mike,
Shot in the back?
You’re still so lost in the lie that you’re repeating a narrative that’s unsupported by two autopsies.
Po,
What I don’t get, Bob, is why when the evidence is conclusive neither way, would you side so forcefully for the murderer while blaming the other side for doing what you and others doing?
—–
Good question.
Bob
Obviously I won’t advance that argument as fact because I don’t know, however, if there was a struggle for the gun in the car, my first impulse is not to think that Mike tried to take away the gun from the cop, but as a defensive action. This would support Johnson’s claim that the gun was drawn while the cop was in the car and one hand on Mike Brown’s own arm. If that indeed was the case, Mike Brown may have put his own hand on the cop’s hand/gun to prevent him from firing it.
Knowing the rules in the urban jungle between cops and black youth, there is no precedent/reason for me to ever believe that Mike was trying to take the cop’s gun, or to assault him. That is a no no. That makes no sense at all.
Also, I think it is clear based on the autopsy reports and the witnesses’ statements that Mike tried to run away, and after being hit by one or more bullets, stopped, turned around and tried to surrender, before being finished off.
Mike, the “best” explanation that I found in defense of Wilson is that Mike Brown was hopped-up on adrenaline from the crime he just committed, and that adrenaline was what caused him to get out of control and punch the cop.
Yep, so the thuggery is thus brought in to explain everything, providing the causalitynecessary to justify the action, in the process breaking all rules of time and …yes…causality!
Knowing the rules in the urban jungle between cops and black youth, there is no precedent/reason for me to ever believe that Mike was trying to take the cop’s gun, or to assault him. That is a no no. That makes no sense at all.
“my first impulse is not to think that Mike tried to take away the gun from the cop, but as a defensive action.”
Impulse is a good word; since it’s not based in reason.
Thanks , Bob, for the proof showing the exception. Couldn’t you find the one where the guy took the gun rather than the baton?
Bob: “Impulse is a good word; since it’s not based in reason.”
How could it be based on reason? I do not know the facts, it is just gut reaction at this point based on life experience (subjectivity), just as it is not based on reason when you try to make factual your impulse to defend Officer Wilson (subjectivity.)
The difference between us is that I acknowledge my subjectivity and allow you yours.
http://6abc.com/news/michael-brown-family-says-new-tapes-contradict-cops-story/397412/
Excerpt:
The videos, which were obtained by the St. Louis-Post Dispatch, show Wilson, 28, leaving the police station with another officer and a police union lawyer two hours after the shooting, the newspaper reported.
“Information was leaked from within the police department that Wilson was severely beaten and suffered an orbital eye socket ‘blowout,’ indicating that Michael Brown somehow deserved to die. From the video released today it would appear the initial descriptions of his injuries were exaggerated,” a statement from attorneys representing the Brown family said.
The lawyers also said the audio tapes do not show Wilson making any connection between Brown and an incident at a convenience store shortly before that police later said Brown was involved in.
The Ferguson Police Chief released the Brown video against the wishes of the Feds. The Police Chief told the initial story which was collaborated by the man with Brown. The Police Chief then changed the story once the video backfired. In all these efforts the Police Chief was simply following Ferguson SOP which had served so many in power so well for decades.
How was he to know that the shooting of Michael Brown was going to become Ferguson’s Rosa Parks moment and that he, like so many others before him, would find himself on the wrong side of history..
Just ask William F. Buckley, Jr. The first item always cited to disparage Buckley’s legacy was his record during the decade between the Montgomery bus boycott and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “Buckley was not himself a bigot,” Tim Noah wrote in Slate the day Buckley died, “but he was at best blind and at worst indifferent to the bigotry all around him, and there can be no question that he stood in the way of racial progress.”
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Wash, rinse, repeat indeed!
Po,
You can’t even be honest with yourself long enough to admit that the radio transcripts prove the shooting had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with race.
Rosa Parks?
You mean professional agitator Anthony Shahid, don’t you Blouise?
““his weapon was drawn”… And everything before that; you have no problem with it?”
Are you suggesting the gun was not drawn?
I think we have evidence to suggest the gun was drawn. The question is why?
Did the officer grab Brown, or did Brown initiate a physical confrontation with the officer? If you see compelling evidence for either version please clue me in. Unless one believes that the word of LE is always more truthful and compelling than other witnesses I don’t see anything that sways decisively to one side or the other.
And again, how does the confrontation at the SUV illuminate our understanding of reasonable belief of imminent threat of death of severe injury at the time the lethal shots were fired? What is the relevance?
“The Ferguson Police Chief released the Brown video against the wishes of the Feds.”
Good for the police chief; Holder had no business telling him to suppress evidence that contradicted the story that “the cop” was an aggressive racist that shot Brown for jaywalking.
Bob S,
I had to Google that one as I didn’t know who he was.
Rosa Parks was just too tired to get up and give her seat to the white guy. She wasn’t trying to make a statement. She wasn’t trying to be part of any movement. She was just tired and her feet hurt. Look what happened.
Chief Johnson was just handling things in the usual Ferguson manner. He wasn’t trying to make a worldwide statement. Look what happened.
King and Buckley were contemporaries. King saw the opportunity for racial progress Parks presented and ran with it. Buckley was either blind or indifferent to the bigotry King was holding up for examination and fought the run.
In the end Buckley proved to be on the wrong side of history seated right next to the cop who arrested Parks.
One doesn’t have to look too deep to see it.
Good for the police chief for releasing the video when he stated during the press conference that Office Wilson hadn’t stopped Michael Brown because he was a suspect in the convenience-store robbery????? I don’t see the connection between what went on in the convenience store and Brown’s jaywalking.
———-
Ferguson police chief: Officer didn’t stop Brown as robbery suspect
By Greg Botelho and Don Lemon, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/
Excerpt:
Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) — The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn’t stop him because he was suspected in a convenience-store robbery, but because he was “walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic,” the city’s police chief said Friday.
Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson — hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the “primary suspect” in the store theft — told reporters the “robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown.”
So why did Ferguson police opt to release surveillance video of the convenience-store incident Friday — the same day they named, six days after the shooting, the white police officer who fatally shot the African-American teenager — if the two situations aren’t related?
Sorry … Jackson … my Kindle keeps inserting Johnson
Bob Stone says:
November 16, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Po,
You can’t even be honest with yourself long enough to admit that the radio transcripts prove the shooting had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with race.
——————————————-
Bob, how can the radio transcripts show that? Especially when we do not have the full transcript?
Unless the cop is heard clearly uttering something the like of “I am gonna kill that nigger”, which would show clearly what he has in his heart, we are only left to assume, not out of thin air, mind you, but out of the Ferguson police and county police’s tendency to mistreat and kill unarmed black youth.
I do not know that the shooting has something to with race, I only suspect it based on social circumstances and precedent.
The question is though how can YOU be so certain that the shooting has nothing to do with race?
And what BFM says!
“I don’t see the connection between what went on in the convenience store and Brown’s jaywalking.”
Blouise already explained it for you yesterday at 3:28. You told her that she should have been a detective. I even confirmed her analysis saying “Is there any another rational way to interpret the recordings?”
You don’t see the connection because you don’t want to see the connection.
Here it is once again in slow motion:
WILSON’S STORY
After he finished with a call for a sick baby, Wilson said, he spotted Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, walking down the middle of Canfield Drive, with traffic passing on both sides.
Wilson asked or ordered the men to move to the sidewalk, said the source, who did not want to be identified because a St. Louis County grand jury and the Department of Justice are still investigating.
Johnson pointed out the pair’s destination, over and behind Wilson’s marked police Chevrolet Tahoe SUV, and kept walking.
Brown walked by holding cigarillos in his hand, and cursed Wilson, the source said.
Wilson told investigators that after Brown passed by, Wilson realized that Johnson’s clothing matched a recent radio alert about a suspect in a robbery at a nearby market where cigarillos had been taken. Wilson radioed for assistance and backed up his SUV to Brown and Johnson.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/source-darren-wilson-says-michael-brown-kept-charging-at-him/article_d2cf8b20-c517-592b-96ba-77d8a5f46fef.html
Elaine,
It should also be noted that Captain Johnson (yep, another Johnson), the security officer brought in by the State, also advised against it. But Chief Jackson knew better.
Po,
Here it is in slow motion…
If Wilson didn’t know about the robbery, then one can attempt to claim that Wilson escalated a meaningless encounter over jaywalking into a fatal shootout and that Wilson’s “rage” was the result of racism; just as Johnson and Crenshaw implied over and over.
BUT, if Wilson was in the process of arresting the two for robbery, then the “raging racist cop” story disappears in a puff of logic.
Okay dear?
Bob S.,
We have to be a little bit careful here regarding Wilson’s story as that story, as we’ve heard it thus far, is from a reporter with the St Louis paper using an unnamed source. The story attributed to Chief Jackson and collaborated by Johnson is from their own lips and sourced directly to them.
The change in Chief Jackson’s story is also sourced directly to him.
That’s one of the reasons the grand jury transcripts will be so interesting. To which story are each of the tellers willing to swear.
Bob,
I think you missed my point. At the time the police chief released the video, he told reporters that Wilson had not stopped Brown because he was a suspect in the convenience store robbery. Yet, you defended the chief’s release of the video at that time. Why?
Bob Stone says:
November 16, 2014 at 11:20 pm
Po,
Here it is in slow motion…
If Wilson didn’t know about the robbery, then one can attempt to claim that Wilson escalated a meaningless encounter over jaywalking into a fatal shootout and that Wilson’s “rage” was the result of racism; just as Johnson and Crenshaw implied over and over.
——————————————————————————————–
Bob, I am not sure what to say to you, feels like you are operating in an alternate reality where you get to define the rules of the game and what standards we apply.
As Elaine said countless times, the Chief of Police himself said that officer wilson did not know about the store robbery! Is there anyone better suited to be listened to than the CO? If not, then why are you choosing to ignore that completely? Unless you can undermine that statement from the C.O by providing another just as qualified statement, you cannot just assume that it was never made and go on to forge your case.
Anything you say that ignore the fact that the C.O made the official claim that wilson did not know of the robbery incident is a dishonest attempt to forge a reality that is non-existent. It is rather obvious that your whole case relies on officer wilson having known of the robbery sometimes before he shot the kid, for he must have known it in order for you who side with him to ever be able to justify the murder. You know that claiming he was punched by Mike Brown stretches any measure of credibility, so your backup justification is any reason for the officer to exert his legal authority and not the randomness of abuse of power. Which you have in the robbery. Only, per the C.O, officer Wilson did NOT know about the robbery!
And
The DOJ didn’t want the video released when the officer’s name was announced “over concerns that the video would increase tensions in the community,” Captain Johnson, the guy brought in to help quiet the unrest, advised against the release for the same reason.
Capt. Johnson had mingled with the crowds on Thursday night and things had settled down
But Chief Jackson didn’t listen. He released the video on Friday and his town blew up. On Saturday Governor Nixon declared a state of emergency and implemented a curfew in Ferguson from midnight to 5 a.m.
Thank you Chief Jackson. Rush Limbaugh thinks you’re a hero so you have that going for you.
“Johnson: “Me and my friend was walking down the street in the middle of the street. And we wasn’t causing any harm to nobody.”
…except for the shopkeeper they’d just assaulted and robbed.
Funny how that conveniently slipped his mind until the surveillance video of them robbing the store was released to the press.
Interesting side note, the attorney that was representing Johnson at the time just had his license to practice law suspended indefinitely for mishandling client funds and writing bad checks… birds of a feather.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/law-license-of-freeman-bosley-jr-former-st-louis-mayor/article_6f52429c-f80e-5642-9be0-56efdb9d4855.html
“Interesting side note, the attorney that was representing Johnson at the time just had his license to practice law suspended indefinitely for mishandling client funds and writing bad checks… birds of a feather.”
Yes, so in truth, they all deserve to be killed. Shoplifting after all should be a felony offense.
Re D Johnson:
(Chief) Jackson said that Johnson was questioned and determined that he did not commit a store at the Ferguson Market and Liquor on West Florissant Avenue.
“Dorian Johnson did not commit a crime and he was not complicit in a crime,” Jackson said.
http://www.kctv5.com/story/26290847/michael-brown-suspected-of-punching-store-clerk-moments-before-death
So, by “birds of a feather” is the suggestion that Johnson’s lawyer has suffered a miscarriage of justice and did not deserve the suspension being not guilty of anything like Johnson or is the suggestion that Johnson should be charged with something.
Perhaps “birds of a feather” refers to the fact that both men are black.
Demonizing is tricky work.
“Brown was videotaped allegedly taking a box of Swisher Sweets and shoving the store’s manager. That video also shows Johnson placing some Swishers that Brown had handed him back on the counter. …As Brown pushed the clerk, Johnson is seen exiting the store.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-brown-and-dorian-johnson-the-friend-who-witnessed-his-shooting/2014/08/31/bb9b47ba-2ee2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html
It is also rumored that Johnson is under Federal protective custody which, if true, is probably the reason the St Louis paper that reported Bosley’s suspension didn’t mention the lawyer’s connection to Johnson. The Feds don’t appreciate the demonstration of their protected witnesses.
Blouise,
If someone is represented by a lawyer who had his license suspended, that must mean the client is guilty…of something.
Elaine,
I think that was the assumption we were supposed to make. I do believe we failed this latest mob test.
From all reports thus far, D. Johnson’s story is a thorn in the side of the Wilson saga thus Johnson must be discredited.
Blouise,
But D. Johnson is black…and doesn’t speak the Queen’s English…and his lawyer’s license was suspended. C’mon, he must be lying. We shouldn’t believe anything he says.
Oh for the good ol’ days when all one had to say was “the n***er did it” and find a suitable tree.
No matter how much obfuscation is thrown up and how much propagandistic nuance uttered with words like “mob” etc., there is still no clear justification for Michael Brown being shot multiple times. At worst the “evidence” shows him to be an “aggressive shoplifter”. Even taking Wilson’s story at face value, which is problematic, why was the justification to killing Michael Brown given what witnesses claimed. All the witnesses that support the killing as being unjustified by the situation are being attacked, demonized and/or deemed “unreliable”. I understand how for some the selective amnesia about how Blacks have always been treated in this country is a convenient way to deny their own pre-judgments. Another way that selective amnesia has worked is illustrated in this instance where we are to take this case as an abuse of police officer’s rights and forget why people may be skeptical of his acts. The sad, sad reality of this line of reasoning is the overwhelming evidence that since the Civil War, “free” Black people have been subject to far harsher treatment at the hands of law enforcement than the White majority
This is part of the reason that I’ve lost respect for the American Justice System because the ideals espoused about it do not represent the reality of its dispensing of equal justice.
MIke,
A Black teenager steals cigars…and some folks think that is justification for his being killed. Wall Street banksters tanked the economy…committed fraud…and got away with a slap on the wrist–fines that they didn’t even pay with their own money. Talk about unequal justice!
Preach it, brother Mike!
As simple as that. Those who refuse Blacks that right for suspicion and free of abuse of the police/judicial system are trying to operate within a moral structure that refuses blacks the horrendous legacy of their history. To cry the race wolf when the victim stands up against the abuse is to add insult to injury.
The same people doing it are the same advancing the excuse that more black men are killed by other black men than by the police! Idiotic!
Blouise, the moment I heard D. Johnson speak and give his version of the events, I was struck by how polite and well spoken he was. He sounded like a good kid, smart and responsible. To hear that he put back the swishers that Mike handed him on the counter confirms what I felt hearing him. Explains also why the machine did not go all ape on him to portray him as evil and violent, it couldn’t find anything on him!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/im-gonna-lock-your-ass-up ”
It does not directly show a penchant to use excessive force, but it certainly shows a tendency to abuse power and the details of the incident may show a willingness to make false claims to justify his actions. A short video emerged yesterday (video after the jump) of an incident in 2013 in which Darren Wilson, the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, arrested a man for videotaping him.
“If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up,” Wilson tells Mike Arman, who had asked for Wilson’s name. Arman replies: “Sir, I’m not taking a picture, I’m recording this incident sir.”
At that point Wilson arrests Arman. “
My general opinion at this point and time, and subject to change when additional, creditable information is released, is that both men panicked and that although Wilson was the older and far more experienced of the pair, his training deserted him allowing panic to cloud his judgement and dictate his actions.
The Law will allow “reasonable fear” to replace “reasonable doubt” and it is behind that allowance that Wilson will hide. But reasonable fear is very different from panic. Courage and honor are necessary to admit to the difference.
Agh! * …Blacks the right to be suspicious of the police/judicial system and to be free from its abuse…
po,
Oh they found stuff on him but it was in his past and couldn’t be adequately spun into the present. That’s why his lawyer’s problems are a godsend.
SwM,
Well, well …
What type of ethereal yarn could they find that they couldn’t spin it into heavy, dirty cloth? Where is Karl Rove when you need him? Has Fox News lost its touch?
The situation is greater than Ferguson itself, as this person puts it: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/17/law_enforcements_core_failing_why_the_solution_is_much_more_than_indicting_darren_wilson/ . America’s law enforcement history is a racist one countrywide and always has been. The denial of that fact is one of the underlying problems we have in this country.
Mike,
Don’t forget a history of unaccountability for abuses of power. That “Brotherhood in Blue” mentality is an anathema to justice and the Rule of Law.
“Johnson: “Me and my friend was walking down the street in the middle of the street. And we wasn’t causing any harm to nobody.”
…except for the fact that they were fleeing on foot from the liquor store where his “friend” had just assaulted and robbed the owner.
There, I fixed it for ya… and guess what, it’s STILL a lie.
Even Don Lemon over at CNN confronted Dorian’s lawyer for coming onto his program and lying about the situation. Now keep in mind as you watch this that the man being interviewed, the man who was advising Dorian on what to say to the press, has since been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for numerous ethical violations.
The (guilt by) association fallacy.
Dorian is not his attorney and vice-versa.
The world is full of bad clients with good attorneys, good clients with bad attorneys, bad clients with bad attorneys and good clients with good attorneys, however, one or the others bad acts do not reflect upon the other unless there is some form of collusion in furtherance of a bad act.
Gene,
Propaganda-guy. You’re apparently unaware of the firm of Shahid, Bosley & Gray running the ground game of the “hands up” meme just minutes after the shooting.
nivico,
Could you email me at solipsist@myself.com ?
I have a couple of questions about Crenshaw and Johnson I thought you might be able to help me with.
Bob,
This case is full of examples of information management (aka propaganda) from both sides (and the Feds).
It kinda reminds me of OJ, but the authorities are doing a much better job this time around.
Actually Gene, it’s much more than that.
nivico,
Correction, make that ensignpulver@hotmail.com
Elaine: “Yet, you defended the chief’s release of the video at that time. Why?”
As I stated before, the robbery video is relevant to show Brown’s state of mind during the altercation with Wilson.
The radio transcript goes to Wilson’s state of mind when confronting Brown.
Elaine: “But D. Johnson is black…and doesn’t speak the Queen’s English…and his lawyer’s license was suspended. C’mon, he must be lying. We shouldn’t believe anything he says.”
“He never told the truth,” Man describes run-in with key witness in Michael Brown shooting case
September 3, 2014
In 2011, Dorian Johnson pleaded guilty to lying to police in a theft case.
He still has a warrant out for his arrest.
In 2011, Kelly Lewis, a maintenance man, says he spotted Dorian Johnson carrying a FedEx box from a nearby apartment complex.
“He picked the package up off D section, which I knew the lady that lived there, so I knew it wasn’t his package,” said Lewis.
Lewis says he followed Johnson and called police.
Police records indicate 19-year-old Johnson said his “name was Derrick” and claimed he was 16-years-old.
Officers say he then gave them a date of birth that “would mean he was 17″ and told police he didn’t have any identification.
“I looked down at his sock. I remember that’s where people carry IDs,” Lewis said. “I told the police officer that. I said, ‘I think his ID is in his sock.’ So the police officer checked it. He got out his ID and found out who he was.”
Even after finding his ID, the police report says Johnson told officers that he was holding the ID for someone else.
“He never told the truth,” Lewis said.
“To me it was just a petty little thing that if he would’ve just stood up and told the truth, it would’ve been over,” he added.
Even at the jail, the police report claims Johnson signed a court summons with the name “Derrick.”
However, an officer who had previous run-ins with Johnson knew exactly who he was.
Johnson eventually pleaded guilty to making false statements.
Mike: “At worst the “evidence” shows him to be an “aggressive shoplifter”. Even taking Wilson’s story at face value, which is problematic,”
Problematic is still believing witness statements unsupported by forensic evidence and dismissing Wilson’s story which is supported by the evidence.
“Problematic is still believing witness statements unsupported by forensic evidence and dismissing Wilson’s story which is supported by the evidence.”
Bob,
More problematic is that you have provided no clear reason/evidence why Michael Brown should have been shot multiple times and the fact that Wilson’s story is not clearly supported by the evidence, every though you say it is. You disparage those of us who have come to a different conclusion and claim truth is on your side. It isn’t. I’m not part of a mob and I’m fairly immune from propaganda and it annoys me that you keep resorting to ad hominem statements to plead your case. You know very well that you couldn’t get away with it at court.
The “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” meme was a brilliant piece of theater in that it paused the action and made visible that which was perpetrated out of sight.
The suggestion is that no one was supposed to see what transpired between Michael Brown and the police. Thus it would be the police’s word against one other witness at best. Reasonable doubt is assured. Ferguson’s power structure remains intact.
Hands Up, Don’t Shoot blew that same ol’, same ol’ show out of the water.. It prevented the “nothing to see here, move on” approach.
It’s a refusal to be afraid … to reverse the violence by making it visible. Far more effective than the “Hoody” meme, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot went around the world in less than 18 hours and has become THE protest Selfie.
The Police responded with their military garb, armoured vehicles and assault rifles thus creating even more stunning visuals as they pointed them at unarmed citizens, hands raised chanting Don’t Shoot. Well over 2 billion people around the world have internet access. Social media took off.
When you combine that with the over 4 hours the police left Brown’s body in the street, well, that’s Ferguson.
I think Hands Up, Don’t Shoot is going to around for a long, long time. Just like another meme … the Nazi Salute
Po,
Explain to me again how the statements by the Police Chief as to Wilson’s knowledge can trump Wilson’s statement as supported by the radio transcript?
Most people would say “Hey, the chief was obviously mistaken; because here’s the record of what happened.”
Not you or Elaine.
Why?
” “To me it was just a petty little thing that if he would’ve just stood up and told the truth, it would’ve been over,” he added. ”
Interesting how those same words could so aptly describe the current situation.
Had Johnson simply been honest from the beginning… instead he told a lie and let it fester, and by the time the robbery video was released, people were so invested in the lie that they didn’t want to hear the truth.
Bob, what is Officer Wilson’s story? Seems whatever of it we know came from unknown sources. Do you have insight we don’t? Seems like the only thing we know for sure is that he said “Canfield, send another car!”
“Had Johnson simply been honest from the beginning… instead he told a lie and let it fester, and by the time the robbery video was released, people were so invested in the lie that they didn’t want to hear the truth.”
Perhaps then the problem is that Johnson should have also been shot multiple times. When you support a policy that raises shoplifting and minor battery into a capital offense, why not add lying to it. However, as we all know the police never lie and Santa Claus comes down chimneys even in apartment buildings.
“Do you have insight we don’t? Seems like the only thing we know for sure is that he said “Canfield, send another car!””
Po,
Bob’s “insight” is that when killing people of color, the poor, put upon police are always right and those who protest this state of affairs are simply self-serving members of a mob.
” Mike: “At worst the “evidence” shows him to be an “aggressive shoplifter”. ”
When force and intimidation are used during the commission of a theft, it’s classified as a robbery… period.
For example, if a 6’5″ 296 pound man grabbed you by the shirt collar and demanded your wallet, he’d be robbing you not ‘aggressively picking your pocket.’
“When force and intimidation are used during the commission of a theft, it’s classified as a robbery… period.
For example, if a 6’5″ 296 pound man grabbed you by the shirt collar and demanded your wallet, he’d be robbing you not ‘aggressively picking your pocket.”
nivico,
So I assume your point is that Brown deserved to be shot multiple times because of his size? That is the real question isn’t it?
Since the subject of Officer Wilson’s “state of mind” has been brought up: Let’s think about what it might have been at the time he shot Michael Brown multiple times. Could Wilson have been pissed off/angry because a couple of young black men gave him some lip when he told them to stop walking in the street? Could he have been angry enough to have lost control…lost judgment of how to react in the situation?
Gene,
Regarding the brotherhood of blue/blue wall: I suggest you read that Politico article written by Frank Serpico–if you haven’t already.
The chief was mistaken…or did the chief lie? The witnesses who tell basically the same story as Johnson are lying…but a friend of Wilson who was not a witness and who called into a radio talk show told the truth…the whole truth…and nothing but the truth.
“The chief was mistaken…or did the chief lie? The witnesses who tell basically the same story as Johnson are lying…but a friend of Wilson who was not a witness and who called into a radio talk show told the truth…the whole truth…and nothing but the truth.”
Elaine,
Do you get the idea that the irony you’re expressing in this goes right over the head of some people who see THEIR side of things as absolute truth.
New Ferguson audio, video recordings emerge ahead of grand jury decision
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-audio-video-recordings-fail-to-answer-crucial-questions-about-michael-brown-death/
Excerpt:
New evidence in Michael Brown’s death is creating more tension in Ferguson, Missouri.
New audio recordings of police radio communication before and after the teenager’s shooting and video released over the weekend are helping establish a timeline of events, but they fail to answer many crucial questions about what actually occurred.
The video shows Officer Darren Wilson leaving the Ferguson police department hours after he shot Brown. He is seemingly uninjured — a contradiction to what police originally said, reports CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller.
“If you got a blowout, a fracture to your eye socket, you’re not just going to be walking around holding your eye,” said Ben Crump, the Brown family’s attorney. “We don’t see him holding his eye anywhere in that video.”…
“Ninety seconds, by the way, can be considered a long time or a short time, and it all depends how it went into the grand jury,” CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman said on “CBS This Morning.” “What we have from these audio recordings and the video recording is certainly evidence that could support the Brown family lawyers saying, ‘Look, this officer never connected the robbery with Michael Brown.'”
15 Questions for Darren Wilson
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/21/1337729/-15-Questions-for-Darren-Wilson
Excerpt:
1. When your SUV pulled up alongside Mike Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking along Canfield Drive, did you tell them to “get the fuck on the sidewalk?”
2. When you pulled away from Brown and Johnson on Canfield Drive, why exactly did you decide to put your SUV in reverse to confront them again? Your chief says you did not know about the earlier convenience store incident where it is alleged Mike Brown stole some cigars. Was it to express your anger that they didn’t obey your earlier command to “get the fuck on the sidewalk?”
3. Four eyewitnesses report seeing and hearing your tires screech as you violently put your SUV in reverse on Canfield Drive, nearly hitting Brown and Johnson. Why did you reverse in such a reckless and provocative manner?
4. When you arrived back at where Brown and Johnson stood, if you did not know about the store incident, why exactly did you open your door to confront them? Did you intend to arrest them for jaywalking?
5. Precisely how far away was your door from Brown and Johnson when you flung it open?
6. Did you believe Brown or Johnson were armed at any point during your confrontation?
Elaine,
Re Wilson’s state of mind:
For the time being I’m going to stick with panicked based on Johnson’s comments that immediately after the shooting, Wilson seemed to have forgot all about him (Johnson) and was just standing there looking stunned. I also remember the comments from the young women who had just moved into the apartments and was taking a video with her phone. In the first part Wilson was just walking back and forth by the body and she made the comment about how he seemed stunned, stunned isn’t the word she used but something similar in meaning. Then another cop showed up. I remember wondering at the time where the other guy (Johnson) was.
I’m going to be paying a good deal of attention to what Johnson has to say.
Re 15 Questions for Darren Wilson
Those are the questions a trial would answer. The truth comes out through testimony.
Blouise,
I have little doubt that Wilson was “panicked” or stunned after killing Brown–but was he angry before he pulled the trigger and shot Brown several times. Remember, too, no police officer attempted to administer CPR…and police kept a woman who said she was a nurse from doing so.
Elaine,
That is why I’m going to be paying strict attention to what Johnson has to say. Wilson has much to lose and would be more apt to spin his testimony than Johnson who has nothing to lose. Wilson supporters know that so discrediting Johnson is important to them.
And that, in and of itself, speaks volumes.
When you chase someone for 100 feet while being the only one with a gun and the only one shooting, you are the imminent danger!
Thank God he did not hit a child with an errand bullet, Mike Brown would have been charged with murder posthumously!
This just in…
Supporters Of Ferguson Cop Plan ‘Pants Up, Don’t Loot’ Billboard
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pants-up-dont-loot-billboard-ferguson
Excerpt:
A supporter of Ferguson, Mo. police officer Darren Wilson recently launched a fundraising campaign to put up a billboard in the town that would read “#PantsUPDontLOOT.”
The supporter, who lists himself as living in Brentwood, Tenn., launched the campaign on Oct. 28 on the website IndieGoGo. As Gawker noted on Monday, it had already reached its funding goal.
Wilson is the police officer who in August fatally shot unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson.
The phrase “Pants Up, Don’t Loot” was popularized by the conservative National Review as a response to the chant commonly recited by supporters of Brown: “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”
Elaine,
Unsaid of course is the connotation “Pants Up, Don’t Loot Nigger.” The question still that any of Wilson’s supporters here avoid answering is why did Michael Brown deserve to be shot multiple times?
Mike,
Does it go over their heads…or do they just choose to ignore any eyewitness account or piece of evidence that doesn’t support Officer Wilson purported version of what happened that day?
“Does it go over their heads…or do they just choose to ignore any eyewitness account or piece of evidence that doesn’t support Officer Wilson purported version of what happened that day?”
Elaine,
What Bob and nivico still refuse to address is the question I keep asking: “Why did Michael Brown deserve to be shot multiple times?” What was the justification for the shooting seems to be an issue that elude Wilson’s defenders, or can we presume that a police officer is always justified in shooting someone who disobeys them?
Mike
The litmus test here is this: were Mike Brown your (Bob & al) kid or your friend’s kid, same circumstances, would you side with the cop? Would you think the shooting justified? Would you utter anything that would seem to suggest that Mike Brown deserved it?
No one in their right mind would for they know there is simply no justification.
Excerpt:
Simon Hemingway has an interesting article at Salon today about the death of Michael Brown titled Ferguson police’s other sin: Why grand jury must probe Brown shooting’s aftermath. Hemingway says that while people wait to hear the grand jury’s decision in the case, “one part of the horrific episode is getting way too little attention.”
Hemingway:
A fog of war has descended on the events that led to the Mike Brown’s untimely death in Ferguson, Missouri, on Aug. 9, 2014, a fog that local, state and federal authorities have made little effort to dispel. The goalposts for what appeared initially to be a clear-cut case of either manslaughter or second degree murder are increasingly obscured while the prospect of justice for Mike Brown seems correspondingly remote.
Supporters of the police and Officer Wilson quickly sought to equate Mike Brown’s very existence with the same racially tainted doctrine of deterministic criminality that was used to undercut the prosecution of George Zimmerman. The release of a convenience store surveillance video by the Ferguson Police Department was central to a strategy of “retroactively trying to justify Brown’s death” while, at the same time, tainting potential jurors with a narrative that is likely to be inadmissible in court. Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson initially said that the “initial contact with Mike Brown was not related to the robbery,” and then backtracked later the same day.
Here’s an excerpt from a New York Times article, which was written by Julie Bosman, John Schwartz, and Serge F. Kovaleski and dated August 15, 2014. It speaks to what Ferguson police did in the “aftermath” of Michael Brown’s shooting:
Mr. Stone ran outside and saw two police officers, both white men, standing near Mr. Brown, who was lying on his stomach, his arms at his sides, blood seeping from his head. Another neighbor, a woman who identified herself as a nurse, was begging the officers to let her perform CPR.
They refused, Mr. Stone said, adding, “They didn’t even check to see if he was breathing.”
Pants Up, Don’t Loot … day late and a dollar short
Over half the world’s population is under 30. These guys trying to play catchup don’t have a clue.
Fundraising Effort for Ferguson Cop Who Shot Michael Brown Gets Ugly
Donors praise the officer for shooting “a common street thug” and removing an “unnecessary thing from the public!”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/darren-wilson-donors-racist-ferguson
Excerpt:
The comments seen in the image above were written by donors to the online fund set up to support Darren Wilson, the cop who shot Michael Brown six times in Ferguson, Missouri, last week. Wilson has since been placed on paid administrative leave and is in an undisclosed location. The GoFundMe campaign to assist him was set up earlier this week by an unnamed supporter. “We stand behind Officer Darren Wilson and his family during this trying time in their lives,” the page reads. It has since raised nearly $150,000.
Among the comments left by donors:
“Ofc. Wilson did his duty. Michael Brown was just a common street thug.”
“Waste of good ammo. It’s my privilege to buy you a replacement box.”
“Black people can be their own enemy and I am not white…He was shot 6 times cause the giant wouldn’t stop or die. Evil people don’t die quick”
“All self-respecting whites have a moral responsibility to support our growing number of martyrs to the failed experiment called diversity.”
“I am so sick of the blacks using every excuse in the book to loot and riot.”
“I support officer Wilson and he did a great job removing an unnecessary thing from the public!”
” What Bob and nivico still refuse to address is the question I keep asking: “Why did Michael Brown deserve to be shot multiple times?” ”
He was shot the first time in the palm of his hand while attempting to assault and disarm a police officer… this is evidenced by his blood being inside of the cruiser and the GSR residue embedded in the wound.
He was subsequently shot again when he turned and charged at the officer who was pursuing him… the trajectory of the shots suggest a downward charging position (even the family’s experts-for-hire have admitted as much, though they’ve tried to present additional less plausible explanations for the shots to the top of the head).
The “he had his hands up” witnesses that you guys keep harping on backed off of that assertion months ago when the second autopsy was performed showing that he couldn’t have physically been able to lift his right arm in the manner they were claiming due to the numerous entry and exit wounds in that arm. Gone, too, were their claims that he was shot in the back when the autopsy revealed there were no shots in the back.
Bob,
While the evidence may suggest that Officer Wilson shouldn’t be charged (and I think you overestimate the strength of that evidence), the obvious bias in Officer Wilson’s favor taints the actions of the grand jury. As a result, I think neither Officer Wilson nor Mr. Brown are receiving justice from this process.
Also, in light of what Blouise said upthread (below), it is clear to me that either Officer Wilson should never be allowed to hold a job where he could be put in a similar situation again or the training that Ferguson police officers are given needs to be overhauled. Frankly, any outcome that explicitly or implicitly condones what happened as just is unlikely to be accepted by protesters (or anyone else). And it shouldn’t be.
Blouise said:
Missouri KKK Threatens ‘Lethal Force’ Against Ferguson Protestors
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kkk-lethal-force-ferguson-protestors
Excerpt:
A Missouri chapter of the Ku Klux Klan distributed fliers near Ferguson, Mo. and via social media threatening protestors with the use of “lethal force,” Vice News reported on Thursday.
The flier, which was addressed to “the terrorists masquerading as ‘peaceful protestors,'” was circulated by the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. It alleged that protestors had “awakened a sleeping giant” and claimed to be a warning.
Even before Michael Brown’s slaying in Ferguson, racial questions hung over police
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-before-teen-michael-browns-slaying-in-mo-racial-questions-have-hung-over-police/2014/08/13/78b3c5c6-2307-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html
Excerpt:
The department bears little demographic resemblance to the citizens of this St. Louis suburb, a mostly African American community whose suspicions of the law enforcement agency preceded Saturday afternoon’s shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old who this week had been headed to technical college.
But while the racial disparity between the public here and its protectors has come to define the violent aftermath of Brown’s death, the department’s problems stretch back years and include questions about its officers’ training and racial sensitivity.
The office of Missouri’s attorney general concluded in an annual report last year that Ferguson police were twice as likely to arrest African Americans during traffic stops as they were whites.
And late last year, the state chapter of the NAACP filed a federal complaint against the St. Louis County police department, whose officers are now assisting Ferguson’s force since the shooting, over racial disparities in traffic stops, arrests and other actions.
Slarti,
One of those men I discussed this with is a retired Chief from a town about the size of Ferguson. He was lividly disgusted by Chief Jackson’s decision to release the tape at the same time he announced Wilson’s name and to do so against the advice of the DOJ but, more importantly, the State security officer charged with the task of bringing order to the town. He called it a dereliction of duty. He’s the one who told me, “That *®^¥~ blew his own town up! All he had to do was hold for a couple more days to give the State’s security officer time to cement the good job he’d begun.” This was followed by lots of head nodding from the others present. During that conversation, which took place around a poker table (notice I didn’t say we were playing poker), there was some sympathy for Wilson but absolutely none for Chief Jackson.
Bob
You are certainly not making your case by posting these Anthony shahid posters! Who is he?
The only case it seems you are trying to make is the one looking to paint the community demanding justice as thugs, mob and racists.
None of that has anything to do with the case, and the more you try to link the two, the more obvious it is you do not have one to begin with.
Either the case is about Mike Brown and officer wilson’s actions right before the shooting, or it isn’t. The “mob’s” wishes and acts are just peripheral to the whole issue, and to make them play a central role in this seems only to be a necessity for those who couldn’t otherwise offer much in support of Officer Wilson.
“You are certainly not making your case by posting these Anthony shahid posters! Who is he?”
Who’s Afraid of Anthony Shahid?
He’s a hero to some, a pain to others. Either way, he makes people very nervous.
By Jeannette Batz Wednesday, Feb 19 2003
Excerpts:
[…] Shahid’s a professional agitator, an agitator who makes even his allies reach for water.
[…] By St. Louis standards, he’s an attention-seeker who shoves aside the boundaries other people have set for themselves, inflaming situations that should be handled with civilized restraint.
[…] Determined to shake loose some action in a city paralyzed by old racist ways, Shahid throws out the most shocking rhetoric he can invent.
[…] He was also driving the city cops crazy, showing up when they were trying to make an arrest and automatically haranguing the officers for unfairness. It’s said that on at least one occasion, he goaded onlookers to take the suspect back from the police, nearly starting a neighborhood riot.
[…] Shahid found inspiration in the political platform and easygoing style of Freeman Bosley Jr. Back in the ’80s, as Shahid’s religious convictions deepened, he’d decided to start the Tauheed Youth Group to work with young black men in the city’s roughest neighborhoods. Bosley had come to some of their meetings. When he campaigned for mayor, Shahid provided extra security, and after Bosley won the election in 1993, Shahid went to work for the city, helping defuse gang problems in parks and recreation centers.
[…]Shahid organized a press conference for Operation SUFYR — Stand up for Your Rights– uniting African-American police officers, firefighters and other public-safety workers. “White police officers shoot black police officers,” he charged. “We are family. We are united. We stand together. To attack any of us is to attack all of us.” He was joined by an old cohort, attorney Anthony D. Gray, who, as SUFYR’s advisor, called for a full-scale investigation into alleged violations of SUFYR members’ rights.
[….] Nebbitt calls Shahid “a pan-African black nationalist separatist,” meaning that “he sees all people from the black diaspora as part of one struggle. He believes in establishing a black nation within this country. And he’s separatist, in the way I hear even educated middle-class people in the suburbs speak of it, saying that desegregation might have damaged the black community and it’s time to go back to the inner city and revitalize it.”
[…]The Reverend B.T. Rice, pastor of New Horizon Church, hears Shahid’s name and murmurs, “Oh boy.” Then he recovers. “We’ve agreed about issues that needed to be addressed. Where we disagree is, I think he generally has a view where he just doesn’t like white people. There’s a disdain there.”
[…]For years, Shahid has involved himself in virtually every controversial city police shooting and court decision affecting African-Americans.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2003-02-19/news/who-s-afraid-of-anthony-shahid/full/
“None of that has anything to do with the case, and the more you try to link the two, the more obvious it is you do not have one to begin with.”
The advent of social media has vastly decreased the time it takes for any remotely reliable eyewitness pool to be spoiled. Social media can now operate as a substitute for the official identification process in the post identification feedback effect. (See also Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Misinformation Effect) A recent article in the Wall Street Journal examines a similar phenomenon in the field of clinical research. If the eyewitnesses do not remain “in the blind,” so to speak, taking to Facebook & Twitter, etc., to discuss what they saw, the authenticity and reliability of those potential eyewitness statements will plummet. Consider that there’s a shooting resulting in death in the middle of a street and before any sort of investigation is carried out, before any official statements have been taken, people are taking to Twitter and texting their opinions about what happened—the Rashomon Effect gone viral. When you combine that with the added detail of a white cop shooting a black man in a community rife with racial tension, and add to that national media attention, how long before the eyewitness accounts suffer from confirmation bias or the damaging effect of confirming feedback?
Bob,
You’re in one hell of a glass house regarding Anthony Shahid considering that the KKK (not to mention Chief Jackson) is on your side.
Kevin,
“how long before the eyewitness accounts suffer from confirmation bias or the damaging effect of confirming feedback?”
It’s a brave new world. Social media has changed everything and that change is moving faster and faster every day. I’m going to repeat the following …. Over half the world’s population is under they age of 30 and they are perfectly comfortable with change.
Bob,
So you agree that trying to smear the protesters because Mr. Shahid sympathizes with them is the same as trying to smear Officer Wilson’s supporters because the KKK are amongst them?
And what does the reliability of eyewitness accounts have to do with anything I’ve said?
Do you think that the propagandizing that has been done on Officer Wilson’s behalf is an appropriate defense of “your dog” even though the appearance of impropriety has rendered it impossible to establish his innocence in the eyes of the public?
Do you think that there is any need for justice for Mr. Brown, his family or the community?
“So you agree that trying to smear the protesters because Mr. Shahid sympathizes with them is the same as trying to smear Officer Wilson’s supporters because the KKK are amongst them?”
Nope.
“And what does the reliability of eyewitness accounts have to do with anything I’ve said?”
Eyewitness accounts have been the main attraction of this sideshow from the beginning. So, when those eyewitnesses are shown to be unreliable and the forensic evidence doesn’t support their claims….
“Do you think that the propagandizing that has been done on Officer Wilson’s behalf is an appropriate defense of “your dog” even though the appearance of impropriety has rendered it impossible to establish his innocence in the eyes of the public?”
Are you sniffing glue? Propaganda on behalf of Wilson??? Show me the “propagandizing” you’re referring to Kevin; that competes with endless barrage of “social engineering” done by Crump, Shahid and company.
“Do you think that there is any need for justice for Mr. Brown, his family or the community?”
Re-defining justice to suit a particular party is no justice at all.
Bob: “Redefining justice to suit a particular party is no justice at all.”
That’s the strange thing here Bob, you are acting as if you were a computer game creator who created this reality where something happened and everyone agrees that one party is actively and clearly trying to do something that is breaking the rules of the game. In that game, there is an established fact that the character Wilson did his duty (perhaps via video recording of the event that shows it without any doubt) , that the character Brown was justifiably shot and killed by Wilson, that everyone could clearly see those facts are certain and non-challengeable, yet some characters came together for the sole purpose of altering the reality you created by challenging those established facts and asserting new ones. These devious characters, that mob, is the one refusing this reality that the whole world of your game accepted without reservation and is trying, while knowing the truth, to redefine the meaning of justice for the sake of getting the character Wilson condemned for the killing that is unanimously judged as justified.
Your argument is fallacious beyond belief! Can’t you really see that the facts are not that clear cut, and are very much open to interpretation, and that based on where one’s affiliations lie, one can deduce very valid and a very different conclusion from another person?
“Your argument is fallacious beyond belief!”
Truth consists in the agreement of knowledge with its object. In determining which of the two competing narratives is the truthful one, we look to see which one is supported by the forensic evidence.
Just for starters:
There is no support for the claim that Brown “did not reach for the officer’s weapon at all” since the forensic evidence, i.e. the blood on the gun, in the car and the gunshot wound on Brown’s right hand containing foreign matter consistent with the products discharged from a firearm,” supports the contrary.
There is no forensic evidence supporting the claim that Wilson shot Brown in the back; much less multiple times.
Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw all claimed they saw Brown shot in the back while he was fleeing. However the autopsies show that all of the shots that hit brown’s torso were from the front to the back.
There is no conclusive forensic evidence supporting the claim that Wilson shot Brown while his hands were up surrendering
“it’s impossible not to look at this evidence, such as it is, and conclude that the story that became popularized about the confrontation between Brown and Wilson that was popularized in the days immediately after it occurred and the protests began didn’t play out. Assuming the autopsy and forensic reports are correct, then it does indeed appear that there was a struggle for Wilson’s gun inside his vehicle, and that at least one of the shots that hit Brown, although not fatally, occurred while that happened. There doesn’t seem to be any other reasonable way to interpret the presence of his blood inside the car and on its exterior or the presence of close-range gunshot wounds and apparent gunpowder residue on Brown’s body. The autopsy report also seems to conflict with the claims that Brown was in the process of running away or surrendering, depending on who you listen to, when the fatal shots were fired and may be consistent with Wilson’s contention that Brown was moving toward him. ”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/1024/Ferguson-shooting-Evidence-appears-to-support-officer-s-version-of-events
“Truth consists in the agreement of knowledge with its object. In determining which of the two competing narratives is the truthful one, we look to see which one is supported by the forensic evidence.”
Bob,
Bullshit. You still refuse to answer the question of whether the circumstances were such that Wilson was forced to shoot Michael Brown multiple times and if so under what justification. You dance around it and you obfuscate. You have no forensic answer to that question and that is really the key question, so you erect straw men that avoid the real issue.
“There is no support for the claim that Brown “did not reach for the officer’s weapon at all” since the forensic evidence, i.e. the blood on the gun, in the car and the gunshot wound on Brown’s right hand containing foreign matter consistent with the products discharged from a firearm,” supports the contrary. ”
There is also no support for the claim that Brown did reach for the gun.
We have two stories of about a confrontation at the SUV. In one story Brown attacked or initiated conflict with officer Wilson. In the other Wilson initiated contact with Brown.
We have evidence that Brow’s hand was near the weapon when the weapon fired. If anyone can tell us whether Brown was grabbing for the weapon or trying to pull back from the weapon, the officer and the SUV please explain in detail. How do we know the direction of movement and the intention for the movement.
I don’t think you can get that from forensic evidence. But there are many readers here with special skills. Maybe they have some ideas.
And Bob,
The pretense that you are operating simply from a disinterested logical view of the facts is completely disingenuous.
Bob: “Truth consists in the agreement of knowledge with its object. In determining which of the two competing narratives is the truthful one, we look to see which one is supported by the forensic evidence.”
No, the fact that truth is an agreement, makes it subjective by essence. When two narratives compete and the facts are very much in doubt, we assign one as likeliest, or most truthful, solely based on the agreement that it is that which is most likely to have happened.
That is why we rely on a combination of markers in assigning likeliest scenario, and not just relying on either autopsy results, ballistics reports, witnesses’ statements or forensic evidence.
In a courtroom where a jury is present, all of those would be featured, and depending on who is deemed more reliable, visual evidence, forensic evidence, police evidence… the accused may walk or not.
The preliminary autopsy report shows that the shot that entered his right arm might have been shot while Brown was running away from wilson. The witnesses almost unanimously saw wilson shooting at brown while he was running away. The fact that there was no bullet in his back doesn’t negate the fact that he was shot at from behind.
Did or did not Brown run a hundred feet away from the original scene of the confrontation?
https://storify.com/VeryWhiteGuy/shaunking-exposes-ferguson-pd-lie-about-distance-f
Lost a post
“operating simply from a disinterested logical view”
is called being objective.
Thus the requirement of “detached and neutral magistrates”
“operating simply from a disinterested logical view”
is called being objective.
Thus the requirement of “detached and neutral magistrates”
Ah Dear Bob,
But the problem you face is by your own many intemperate words, invective about mobs and even citing someones twitter ravings you have provided evidence of you own lack of objectivity. Now I’ve never claimed to be objective because the fact is I seem to understand myself and human psychology far better than you. The other part of this iare my own many writing on the subject of police violence against people of color and the poor.
If you deem yourself objective in this matter you are exhibiting the defense mechanism of denial by dint of your own words. In this I’m being charitable because I know you for an honest person, rather than someone who would disingenuously bolster a false viewpoint to shore up a pre-judgment. And by the way the whole legal fiction of a “detached and neutral” observer is merely the mythology of American jurisprudence sold to a naive public.
Po,
Fished it out for you.
“There is also no support for the claim that Brown did reach for the gun.”
Johnson’s narrative says Brown “did not reach for the officer’s weapon at all”
Wilson says Brown fought with him for the gun and it went off during the struggle.
The wound to Brown’s hand, the residue in the wound, the blood on the gun and inside the car can only be explained by Wilson’s narrative.
Federal officials briefed on the civil rights investigation “said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.”
How many different ways must it be said?
“The wound to Brown’s hand, the residue in the wound, the blood on the gun and inside the car can only be explained by Wilson’s narrative. ”
Except that it can also be explained by witness claim that Wilson grabbed Brown and Brown was pulling back trying to escape. If you have forensic evidence to demonstrate the direction of movement of Browns hand please present it.
But there is no such evidence, is there?
Mike: “invective about mobs and even citing someones twitter ravings you have provided evidence of you own lack of objectivity.”
First: When a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose “mob rule.”
Second: I’ve simply introduced you to Anthony Shahid. When I’ve finished the article you’ll understand what part he plays in all this.
Bob: “Truth consists in the agreement of knowledge with its object. In determining which of the two competing narratives is the truthful one, we look to see which one is supported by the forensic evidence.”
Po: No, the fact that truth is an agreement, makes it subjective by essence.
Not quite.
“The question, famed of old, by which logicians were supposed to be driven into a corner, obliged either to have recourse to a pitiful sophism, or to confess their ignorance and consequently the emptiness of their whole art, is the question: What is truth? The nominal definition of truth, that it is the agreement of knowledge with its object, is assumed as granted; the question asked is as to what is the general and sure criterion of the truth of any and every knowledge.”
Po: “The witnesses almost unanimously saw wilson shooting at brown while he was running away. ”
Wrong:
“More than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post.
“Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Post’s sources said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
Bob,
The problem is that you aren’t being objective—you have clearly and consistently shown favoritism towards Officer Wilson. You’re acting like a defense attorney, not a “detached and neutral magistrate”. Like Mike, I don’t claim to be totally objective, but I do think I’m far more objective on this matter than you as I don’t really care about the outcome, I just want the process to be unbiased, thorough and not have the appearance of impropriety (although I doubt I’ll get any of those) while you are clearly emotionally invested in Officer Wilson’s side.
Also, when it comes to deciding how evidence should effect your reasoning, your Kantian nonsense is useless—it provides no process for determining the level of “agreement of knowledge with its object”. Bayesian inference, on the other hand, provides you with easy, step-by-step instructions on how to use empirical evidence to refine your predictions. It doesn’t provide nearly as rosy a view as your biases seem to. In particular, the actions of both the police chief and the prosecutor tend to make Officer Wilson look guilty of something (objectively speaking). After all, if he were truly innocent, wouldn’t they be less likely to be putting their fingers on the scale in his favor?
And if you don’t understand how the prosecutor and the police chief have been using propaganda, there is a very good series of articles on the subject around here somewhere…
How is it “redefining justice” to ask what justice Mr. Brown and his family deserve? You have yet to even acknowledge that justice for Mr. Brown is of any concern at all. If your child were shot, wouldn’t you want to know whether or not their killing was justified? Or would you just rush to the conclusion that they had it coming like you did in this case?
Kevin,
When you said that Wilson should sacrifice his due process rights to a grand jury proceeding and stand trial to satisfy your point of view, that’s called Bias; with a capital B.
And when “justice for all” is re-defined as “justice for Mike Brown” — justice for Officer Wilson, as you demonstrate with every post, goes out the window.
Part and parcel of “mob rule.”
The interesting thing too, Bob, is that most of the sources that support your side, witnesses or second hand hearers, are unnamed!
I heard 200 reliable unnamed sources swore they heard Officer Wilson use the N word towards Mike Brown. They want to remain unnamed for fear for their safety!
I was never into punk due to the crassness of expression; but there are examples of the genre getting it right:
MIKE: “So I assume your point is that Brown deserved to be shot multiple times because of his size? That is the real question isn’t it?”
……………………
“Mr. Brown rarely got into physical confrontations, Mr. Lewis said, because he was so big that nobody really wanted to test him. Mr. Brown tended to use his size to scare away potential trouble, Mr. Lewis said.”
“He’ll swell up like, ‘I’m mad,’ and you’ll back off,” he said.
…………………..
Even Brown’s own friends admit that he used his size to his advantage to “scare” and intimidate people during confrontations… and if, as his friend states, people were too scared of Brown to mess with him to start with, then it only stands to reason that Brown must have been the one initiating those confrontations.
It’s also the exact same behavior we see Brown using to rob the store owner in the surveillance video, and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and presume his last robbery victim was not his first. He was just too brazen about it all for this to be the first time he’s robbed someone in this manner. I imagine the theft of the iPod from a classmate mentioned in the article went down in a similar fashion (despite the mother’s claims to the contrary, he had to transfer schools).
All things considered, there’s no reason to believe that he didn’t behave in the same brazen and threatening manner towards Officer Wilson as well.
“Even Brown’s own friends admit that he used his size to his advantage to “scare” and intimidate people during confrontations… and if, as his friend states, people were too scared of Brown to mess with him to start with, then it only stands to reason that Brown must have been the one initiating those confrontations.”
nivico,
No it “doesn’t stand to reason” that Brown initiated ALL confrontations he might have been involved in in his life. As a tall, large person myself there have been countless times when someone inches shorter/smaller tried to intimidate me in High School simply because of my size. This is the kind of suppositions that get juries in trouble because “stand to reason” is often a substitute for personal pre-judgment. That being said though, when you finish your comment with:
“All things considered, there’s no reason to believe that he didn’t behave in the same brazen and threatening manner towards Officer Wilson as well.”
Are you really suggesting that if Brown behaved in the manner you describe that he deserved to be shot multiple times? Do you believe then that P.O.’s should have the right to shoot anyone who behaves in a brazen and threatening manner towards them. Having worked with New York City police officers on dealing with agitated psychotic individuals that certainly didn’t seem to be the attitude of the officers I met from the NYPD. In fact one Lieutenant described to me a non-violent approach he used that even with my years of experience, I thought was brilliant and gentle.
There have been numerous remarks questioning the credibility of witnesses who tell stories that seem to support the view that Brown was shot without cause.
There has been some examination and criticism of the version of events released by officials.
But there has been relatively less comment regarding the credibility of officer Wilson.
Yet in the overall scheme of events Wilson is the one where we have direct evidence the calls into question the accuracy of his remarks.
In the St Louis Post Dispatch article we are told that after the shooting at the SUV Wilson called “Shots fired, send all cars,”. But that message was never received. Supposedly Wilson offered the hypothetical that in the struggle the channel on his Tac radio was changed.
The St Louis Post Dispatch reports that they checked all the channels used by police for both Ferguson and the county. They report they found nothing. The offer the possibility that the radio might have been switched to a receive-only channel.
I don’t think there are very many possibilities to explain the known facts here.
1) Wilson made the radio call on a different channel and both the dispatchers on that channel ignored the call and the SLPD researchers missed the call in the radio track.
I personally find that alternative highly unlikely.
2) Wilson did not make the radio call but reports that he did. That suggest that Wilson is not a reliable witness to the events of the shooting – possibly due to his mental state.
3) Wilson did not make the radio call but reports he did. That suggest the possibility that Wilson is an outright liar.
So what do you think, reader.
Is there any evidence that would guide us to reasonable belief that the radio equipment did not operate as intended?
Or should we believe that Wilson’s description of events is inaccurate due to some factor such as shock or excitement?
Or should we believe Wilson is a liar?
“Except that it can also be explained by witness claim that Wilson grabbed Brown and Brown was pulling back trying to escape.”
You left off an important word there… custody.
Even if you are to accept Johnson’s version of events as the God’s honest truth, you’re still left with a criminal grabbing an officer’s weapon while trying to escape custody.
“Even if you are to accept Johnson’s version of events as the God’s honest truth, you’re still left with a criminal grabbing an officer’s weapon while trying to escape custody.”
There is absolutely nothing about custody that can tell us if Brown was reaching for the weapon or pulling away – possibly recoiling in fear.
Bob,
I never said anything about Officer Wilson giving up his due process rights—I made some comments regarding my opinion of what would be necessary to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Furthermore, justice for Officer Wilson and justice for Mr. Brown are inextricably linked. Either Mr. Brown was wrongfully killed, in which case justice demands that Officer Wilson pay for that crime, or Officer Wilson acted appropriately, in which case justice demands that he not be penalized for it. In the latter case, there is also a question of whether or not Officer Wilson’s actions should have been appropriate (and, given what Blouise said, it seems clear that the answer to that is no), and justice for Mr. Brown would require addressing this issue as well.
Frankly, my real concern is not about Officer Wilson, one way or another (guilty or not, it looks like he’s going to get a free pass), but rather with the appearance of impropriety in the system. Officer Wilson will have this hang over him for the rest of his life because it is clear the process was biased in his favor. If he truly is innocent, this is an injustice done to him by a system that rushes to protect all of their dogs without first determining if they are right or wrong.
Do people not have a right to protest a corrupt system which causes injustice? Can any outcome be considered just if injustice is built into the process in the form of bias? What is the appropriate way for people to ask for redress of those grievances?
By the way, you seem to have pretty much completely misunderstood my position on this issue (another indication of bias in your own thinking). I’ve never been a partisan out for Officer Wilson’s blood, I’m just concerned about a system that seems bound and determined to let him off scott free. You seem to feel that it is okay to rush to judgement in Officer Wilson’s favor, but in Mr. Brown’s favor. Why is that?
“Officer Wilson will have this hang over him for the rest of his life because it is clear the process was biased in his favor.”
He’s being simultaneously investigated by no less than three different agencies at the local, state, and federal level ~and~ the matter is being presented to a grand jury.
BFM,
Have you asked yourself why you’re focused on the the radio call that didn’t go through?
Is it relevant in an of itself in determining whether he used excessive force or was justified in shooting Brown?
Not in the slightest.
Does the absence of evidence of that claim make his entire story false?
No. Because everything else he said has been supported by radio transcripts, forensic evidence and the eyewitness testimony of those painfully aware that “snitches get stitches”?
“Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Post’s sources said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html
“BFM,
Have you asked yourself why you’re focused on the the radio call that didn’t go through?
Is it relevant in an of itself in determining whether he used excessive force or was justified in shooting Brown?”
Bob,
As Ronald Reagan famously said “there you go again” obfuscating and dancing. You have used twitter quotes and all sorts of detail not fully relevant to the issue of was Officer Wilson justified in shooting Michael Brown, but have provided not one shred of pertinent evidence that the multiple shots were justified, except for building a case of inference.
“Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Post’s sources said.”
Oh excuse me I didn’t realize that anonymous sources, talking to reporters was “real” evidence. I’m sure that would work well in a criminal trial. This is again the difficulty with the manner in which you present your case. Those “sources” that follow your beliefs are “irrefutable” and any that back up Michael Brown are suspect. Bob, you are as guilty of pre-judgment as anyone here, the difference being I admit it and you hide behind pretensions of logic that don’t exist. Finally though you have not provided any reasonable explanation of why Wilson was correct to have shot Michael Brown multiple times and I suspect that is because you can’t without adopting the position that P.O.’s have the right to shoot anyone who they deem “shootable”.
Kevin: * Note to Bob: these words indicate that this is my opinion about what justice is. not what the law is, please try not to confuse the two again.
And that’s why your analysis denies Wilson due process; because your opinions expressed of how he should be treated fly in the face of the law by which others are treated.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does
Excerpt:
The Post-Dispatch says that the autopsy report supports Wilson’s version of events. In fact, it supports the earlier eyewitness testimony at least as much as it does Wilson’s.
The Post-Dispatch (and later, the Washington Post, which essentially reported on the the St. Louis reporting) claims that a forensic expert said the autopsy shows that Michael Brown was “going for his (Wilson’s) gun.” Except that’s not what the expert said – at least not in anything she provided on the record. She told Lawrence O’Donnell that it was just as likely that Brown was trying to defend himself from being shot.
The Post-Dispatch quotes the expert saying that Michael Brown’s was not in surrender posture when he was shot. She actually wrote that she can’t say with reasonable certainty that his hands were up when he was shot in the right forearm.
The article claims the expert said the autopsy didn’t support witnesses who said Michael Brown was shot while running away or with his hands up. She apparently said nothing of the sort.
The expert quoted has since told Lawrence O’Donnell that she was only asked if the autopsy report was consistent with Darren Wilson’s version of events. She was not asked if it fit other scenarios, though there are eyewitness accounts that differ from Wilson’s account.
Forensic Sound Bites & Half-Truths
http://pathologyexpert.blogspot.com/2014/10/forensic-sound-bites-half-truths.html
A reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week, saying she had Michael Brown’s official autopsy report as prepared by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine and analyze it from the perspective of a forensic pathologist with no official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death. I read the report, and spent half an hour on the phone with the reporter explaining Michael Brown’s autopsy report line-by-line, and I told her not to quote me – but that I would send her quotes she could use in an e mail. The next morning, I found snippets of phrases from our conversation taken out of context in her article in the Post-Dispatch. These inaccurate and misleading quotes were picked up and disseminated by other journals, blogs, and websites.
This is the text of my actual email exchange with Post-Dispatch health and medical news reporter Blythe Bernhard:
“From: “Dr. Judy Melinek”
Date: October 21, 2014 at 5:53:21 PM PDT
To: Blythe Bernhard
Subject: Re: media request
Great talking to you. Here are the quotes:
“The autopsy report shows that there are a minimum of 6 and maximum of 8 gunshot wounds to the body. The graze wound on the right thumb is oriented upwards, indicating that the tip of the thumb is toward the weapon. The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown’s hand would have been close to the barrel of the gun. Given the investigative report which says that the officer’s weapon discharged during a struggle in the officer’s car, this wound to the right thumb likely occurred at that time. The chest wounds are going front to back, indicating that Mr. Brown was facing the officer when he was shot in the torso, then collapsed or leaned forward exposing the top of his head. You can’t say within reasonable certainty that his hands were up based on the autopsy findings alone. The back to front and upward trajectory of the right forearm wound could occur in multiple orientations and a trajectory reconstruction would need to be done using the witness statements, casings, height of the weapon and other evidence from the scene, which have yet to be released. The tissue fragment on the exterior of the officer’s vehicle appears to be skin tissue, but only DNA analysis would confirm if it is from Mr. Brown or the officer. It is ‘lightly pigmented’ but even African-American skin can appear lightly pigmented on a small microscopic section, depending on what part of the body it came from.”
This is how I was quoted in the Post-Dispatch the next day:
Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.” Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun. Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
Notice the difference? There’s a big difference between “The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown’s hand would have been close to the barrel of the gun” and “he’s going for the gun.”
I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to correct this, in my own words last night, when Lawrence O’Donnell invited me to appear as a guest on MSNBC. Mr. O’Donnell allowed me to explain the autopsy findings clearly and in context—if not in full. The show is called “The Last Word,” and Lawrence O’Donnell makes sure he gets it. Despite the guest-badgering and interruptions that are a signature of his television persona, however, Mr. O’Donnell did allow me to correct the record that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch created. I am even more grateful to Trymaine Lee, whose companion article to last night’s Last Word segment (linked above) serves as an excellent corrective to the Post-Dispatch article.
In my memoir of forensic training, Working Stiff, I quote my mentor, Dr. Charles Hirsch, as saying that “the best way to respond to a reporter is with your hat. Put it on and walk away.”
I don’t agree. I believe the best way to respond to a reporter is to give the reporter accurate, succinct quotes, and set the record straight if they misrepresent what you said.
Too many forensic pathologists are afraid of speaking out about their expertise, because they believe that all members of the press have a prepared agenda, or that professional reporters will misquote scientific experts to force a point that doesn’t comport with the forensic evidence. But if we forensic pathologists all put on our hats and walk away, others who lack our medical training and experience will fill the void we leave. I want to make sure the reading and viewing (and tweeting) public have an opportunity to understand forensic science in the real world—what it can tell us, and what it can not. I’m not going to walk away.
Ferguson’s booming white grievance industry: Fox News, Darren Wilson and friends
White defenders of officer Darren Wilson are raising money by slandering Mike Brown, with some help from Fox News
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/25/ferguson’s_booming_white_grievance_industry_fox_news_darren_wilson_and_friends/
Excerpt:
Why, besides racism, are Wilson’s supporters so convinced of his innocence? Well, any good grift will involve a hoax or two, to gin up the sense of outrage. First there was “Josie,” a purported friend of Wilson’s who called in to a radio show helmed by gun-loving wingnut Dana Loesch to tell Wilson’s side of the story. “Josie” insisted that Brown attacked Wilson, grabbed his gun, and the terrified cop shot only in self-defense. The problem? The details were almost identical to those shared on a fake Facebook page set up to look like Wilson’s own. But before the tale could be debunked, not only Fox but CNN had reported on “Josie’s” tale with some credulity. As karoli notes over at Crooks and Liars, it’s not clear whether Loesch was punked, or was in on the punking.
Then we saw right-wing blogger Jim Hoft, named “the dumbest man on the Internet” by Media Matters, peddling a phony X-ray or CT scan purporting to show that Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket scuffling with Brown. Unfortunately, a little sleuthing revealed the image in question came from a facility at the University of Iowa and had nothing to do with the Ferguson case. Oops. Of course Fox ran with the story, but ABC News also reported that Wilson had suffered a “serious facial injury,” claiming its own local source.
Of course Ferguson’s white grievance industry is getting major help from Fox News, the grievance industry’s biggest grifters. It’s funny, a couple of weeks ago Attorney General Eric Holder spent a few days as Fox’s favorite administration figure, with Bill O’Reilly and the crew at “The Five“ piously instructing Ferguson protesters to trust the attorney general, who had taken over the inquiry into Mike Brown’s shooting. No more. On Friday’s “Five” Andrea Tantaros declared that Holder “runs that DOJ like the Black Panthers would,” while the whole team endorsed her claim that the attorney general is “race-baiting.”
Fox has peddled every allegation of wrongdoing by Mike Brown from the beginning of the story. On Fox and Friends Monday morning, Linda Chavez argued that the media should stop calling the teenager “unarmed” because “we’re talking about an 18-year-old man who is 6-foot-4 and weighs almost 300 pounds, who is videotaped just moments before the confrontation with a police officer strong-arming an employee and robbing a convenience store.” So Mike Brown can’t be considered unarmed because … he had arms?
It’s worth noting the way the phony information and paranoia peddled by well-known, oft-discredited right-wing media activists like Hoft and Loesch makes its way into the mainstream media ecosphere, again and again. CNN media critic Brian Stelter called out Fox this weekend for peddling the fractured eye socket story, and good for him, but to my knowledge he didn’t rap his own network for peddling the phony “Josie” story. The right’s influence on big stories like this can be more subtle and insidious: Who believes the New York Times would have stooped to calling Mike Brown “no angel” – the evidence? He’d been in some “scuffles” and had “taken to rapping” – without the right wing braying about Brown’s stealing cigarillos and making up stories that he did even worse?
Elaine,
You’re amazing. We’ve already gone over this.
Why not try something new; perhaps an article rehabilitating Johnson’s credibility as a witness.
“Have you asked yourself why you’re focused on the the radio call that didn’t go through?…
Is it relevant in an of itself in determining whether he used excessive force or was justified in shooting Brown?…Not in the slightest. ”
I pointed this out because it demonstrates conclusively there are problems with Wilson’s account.
There is simply no escape from one of three alternatives.
Either we have to believe that radio equipment did not function as intended. I consider that alternative highly, highly improbable.
Or we are left with the fact that, for some reason, Wilson is an unreliable witness to the events of the shooting .
Or we are left with the fact that Wilson is an outright liar about his actions during the shooting.
Unless you believe the radio equipment failed – you have to believe that we cannot trust Wilson’s account.
No if, ands or buts about it. If the radio equipment was operating correctly, then we cannot trust Wilson’s claim that he was justified in shooting Brown.
There may be other reasons to question Wilson. : But this is sufficient to call into question Wilson’s account. This puts us on notice. We have a clear obligation to question and critically evaluate Wilson’s statements.
We have reasonable basis to believe Wilson did not tell the truth here. Where else has Wilson omitted, confused or simply lied about events?
Bob,
That’s right. We have discussed this before. It appears that we need to go over it again. You post the sources that you choose to post to try to make your points…and I’ll do the same. What’s good for the gander…is good for the goose. You’re going over some of the same territory that you did previously–yet you object to it when I do it?
Ferguson Officer Did Not Suffer Broken Eye Socket, Reports Claim as Darren Wilson Support Fund Exceeds $200k
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ferguson-officer-did-not-suffer-broken-eye-socket-reports-claim-as-darren-wilson-support-fund-exceeds-200k-125203/
Excerpt:
Several witnesses have told the media that Wilson was the aggressor and that the shooting of Brown was unprovoked. However, police have painted a very different picture, claiming that Brown attacked the officer and was charging at the officer at the time of the shooting, although police have still refused to release all details as their investigation continues.
Great detective job, Elaine! Between you and Blouise, I think we have a hit tv series on our hand.
I think your last 2 posts answer all the issues Bob has been peddling for a while.
Bob, again, you can’t see that you are guilty of the same exact thing you accuse the mob of?
You can’t see that you are so entrenched in your bias, unlike us, that you are grabbing on to every straw you can in order to make a case that is unmakable based on the facts of the case as we know them?
The autopsy is inconclusive at best, the ballistics are too, the witnesses seem to support Johnson’s account, we have yet to hear from officer Wilson, and whatever comment sourced to him aren’t fully traceable! And yet, and yet…
How do you answer BFM’s breakdown?
nivico…oh boy!
New Michael Brown shooting witnesses describe scene
By Randi Kaye, CNNSeptember 10th, 2014 @ 10:32pm
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31511556
Excerpt:
FERGUSON, Mo. (CNN) — Two men, shocked at what they saw, describe an unarmed teenager with his hands up in the air as he’s gunned down by a police officer.
They were contractors doing construction work in Ferguson, Missouri, on the day Michael Brown was killed.
And the men, who asked not to be identified after CNN contacted them, said they were about 50 feet away from Officer Darren Wilson when he opened fire.
An exclusive cell phone video captures their reactions during the moments just after the shooting.
“He had his f**n hands up,” one of the men says in the video.
The man told CNN he heard one gunshot, then another shot about 30 seconds later.
“The cop didn’t say get on the ground. He just kept shooting,” the man said.
That same witness described the gruesome scene, saying he saw Brown’s “brains come out of his head,” again stating, “his hands were up.”
The video shows the man raising his arms in the air — just as, he says, Brown was doing when he was shot.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS ENDS WELL
By Charles P. Pierce on November 17, 2014
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Preview_Of_Coming_Attractions
Excerpt:
Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri seems to be doing all he can to assure that, whatever the grand jury decides in the case of Officer Darren Wilson, the killer of an unarmed teenager named Michael Brown, whatever the reaction within the community at large is, that it will collide with the full force of state power, more than likely aimed at those people who take exception to the rule that police officers get to shoot down teenagers for walking in the street — or, more precisely, for not knowing their place. He has declared a state of pre-emptive emergency, which will reassure nobody.
“Regardless of the outcomes of the federal and state criminal investigations, there is the possibility of expanded unrest,” Nixon said in an executive order. “The state of Missouri will be prepared to appropriately respond to any reaction to these announcements.” Nixon said in the order he directed the Missouri State Highway Patrol, St. Louis County Police Department, and St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to “operate as a Unified Command to protect civil rights” and put the St. Louis County Police Department in charge of security in Ferguson related to protest areas and demonstrations. He also said the adjutant general of the Missouri could “call and order into active service such portions of the organized militia as he deems necessary to protect life and property.”
Make no mistake. This is a threat, pure and simple, and it is not aimed at people on both sides of this issue. In fact, it is a rather clear indication that Nixon feels that the grand jury is going to no-bill Wilson, and that Nixon is telling anyone who may be angered by that development that he is willing to do almost anything to keep their responses in check. In an academic sense, this seems a wise precaution. In the context of what already has happened in Ferguson, an unwarranted police shooting followed by loud protests, followed by a militarized police response aimed at citizens and at journalists, followed by rioting, Nixon is pretty clearly picking sides here. And that he is putting the St. Louis County Police Department in charge of security in Ferguson, after removing that same agency in favor of the Missouri highway patrol after the SLCPD screwed up the initial response to the disturbances so badly, leads me to wonder if, in the interim, as the grand jury deliberated, Nixon simply has been rolled by law enforcement. In any case, I think he can forget about that VP slot in 2016.
“Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri seems to be doing all he can to assure that, whatever the grand jury decides in the case of Officer Darren Wilson… whatever the reaction within the community at large is, that it will collide with the full force of state power,”
Actually it looks like more that Gov Nixon will be involved. Here is a cite to Ars:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/missouri-man-fired-for-posting-pictures-of-dhs-vans-to-facebook/
that suggest the FEDs will be in attendance as well.
I cannot imagine anyone would support violence in this matter.
But I wonder if anyone else finds it surprising that DHS and other federal agencies have already deployed to control a situation that may not occur?
BFM,
It’s not surprising that DHS, and all the law enforcement entities, have already been deployed. It would only be surprising if the verdict of the grand jury was not already known.
Only one verdict will foment civil unrest, and the grand jury, and public opinion, have been rather artlessly set up for that verdict.
If we’re getting illegal, controlled “leaks” from the grand jury presentations, what do you suppose Nixon is getting?
The government has been monitoring social media and I suspect some of the biggest armed plans involve the KKK and other white supremacist groups planning a good, old-fashioned hunt. Unarmed Hands Up, Don’t Shoot protesters make easy targets which is exactly how Darren Wilson got this whole thing started. Talk about a legacy. His karmic string will be vibrating for many lifetimes.