The Darren Wilson Interview
I’ve watched the interview with Darren Wilson and George Stephanopoulos and all I got out of it was anger. During the interview all I kept thinking was… Liar. And while I get why he lied (Hello? Ongoing Federal Investigation), what I don’t understand is why he gave the interview so soon. Why not wait? Did ABC pay him? Payment is the only excuse I can think of for doing this interview so quickly.
Here’s why I think he’s lying in the interview. I also think he lied to the Grand Jury, and I’ll get to that later. Okay, here’s the big lie:
Wilson repeatedly defended killing Michael Brown in August, saying he did what he was trained to do that day and that wouldn’t do anything differently. Later in the interview, Wilson told Stephanopoulos he had a clean conscience, though he said he regretted the loss of life.
and…
Stephanopolous: Guess it’s hard to have a normal life after someone is lying dead. Is it something you think that will always haunt you?
Wilson: I don’t think it’s a haunting, it’s just something that happened.
Wouldn’t do anything differently? It’s just something that happened? Seriously? To me these are appalling statements, unless you’re a sociopath – and I haven’t taken the sociopath theory off the table.
There are a ton of ways to show remorse without incriminating yourself. How about… I wish I hadn’t gotten out of bed that morning? I wish I hadn’t driven down that street? I wish things had turned out differently because taking a life, even though I had no choice, is something that will haunt me forever? See? It’s possible to show remorse without incriminating yourself, but Darren Wilson, in his own words, shows zero regret for taking a life. Sorry, but that leaves me with him being a liar or a sociopath. Hell, even people who end up killing their attacker have trouble coming to terms with killing someone – no matter how justified. Taking a life is a big, effing deal. But not to Wilson. To Wilson it’s just something that happened. Like the weather.
I hope it comes out that he was paid big bucks because that’s the only reason I can think of to justify him doing this interview so soon. That, at least, would make sense.
And when you look at his Grand Jury testimony it gets worse. Let’s start with this: Wilson testifies that his first words to Mike Brown and Dorian Johnson were, “Why don’t you guys walk on the sidewalk?”
Know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of the times someone tells you about an argument they’ve had and how they present themselves as calm and reasonable while they portray the other person as hysterical. They even change their voice and tone when relating the other person’s words.
So, I’m not buying Wilson’s politely worded request, mainly because taking the time to confront kids walking in the flippin’ street paints him as someone looking to harass kids for a stupid reason.
Here’s more of this incident (Via TPM):
From the outset, Wilson’s testimony painted Brown as an angry young man. The officer testified that when he first approached Brown and his friend to tell them to walk on the sidewalk instead of in the middle of the road, Brown responded “fuck what you have to say.”
“It was a very unusual and not expected response from a simple request,” Wilson told jurors.
According to Wilson’s account, the officer swung his car around to contain Brown and Johnson and opened his door a few inches before Brown slammed it shut.
Wilson said Brown then started swinging at him through the window of his police cruiser. He described feeling “small” when he gripped Brown’s arm to try to stop the blows.
Why swing your car around to block them? What was the point of that move? How close to Brown and Johnson did he move the car? Did Brown “slam” the car door shut because Wilson’s car was close to him? Or did Brown run up to the car and slam the door? And then Brown starts swinging? Why? If we believe Wilson’s testimony (which I don’t) then it’s because Mike Brown is a crazy, Hulk Hogan demon – after all, Wilson has been nothing but polite.
Then there’s this testimony:
He immediately grabs my gun and says, “you are too much of a pussy to shoot me.”
But is this true? Did Mike Brown grab Wilson’s gun. Well… we’ll never know, because:
Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson’s gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown’s hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.
Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.” [emphasis mine]
Which is it? Was Wilson in control of his gun, or not?
And I haven’t even dealt with the “Demon/Hulk Hogan/ Feeling like a 5 year old comment. “It looked like a demon.” It? Really? And then there’s this:
Well, after the last shot my tunnel vision kind of opened up. I remember seeing the smoke from the gun and I kind of looked at him and he’s still coming at me, he hadn’t slowed down. At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn’t.
I shoot another round of shots. Again, I don’t recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again.
At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I’m shooting at him.
Well hell, if we believe this then Mike Brown was either a demon or a super hero, because only a demon or super hero would bulk up (grow in size?) to run through bullets. Maybe Wilson meant the Incredible Hulk, not Hulk Hogan?
“If only our legal system offered some way to publicly weigh the testimony of different eyewitnesses who contradict each other—a sort of “trial” of the evidence, if you will.” I can’t remember where I read this comment (Sorry), but he/she makes a valid point. There are too many unanswered questions. This case should have gone to trial.
How long until the Boxing with the Stars episode featuring Zimmerman vs Wilson? this country blows.
I have a lot of respect for the Grand Jury they didn’t allow a unruly mob or cable news effect their decision
Nope. their decision was purely based on their own incompetence and a lying pig. good for them.
Seriously? Can you answer the questions I posed? Do you think this case should have gone to trial? I’m sure Wilson would have walked regardless because, you know, cop, but there’s a lot of unanswered questions. You can start with this one: Why not test the gun for Brown’s finger prints?
I read a great deal of the Grand Jury testimony over the last few days. Read the Dorian Johnson testimony. I think it’s very telling. He’s the only other witness involved, but not involved, right?
I get the sense that Wilson pulled the typical cop move. Aggressive. Condesending… the stuff they are trained to do. Push people around. Of course Brown cusses and gives him a bunch of shit, &c. Wilson throws the police SUV in reverse, nearly hits the two of them and tries to open the door into them.
Then the entire thing kicks off…
Cops loves to flex their muscles. They’re taught that this will allow them to get the upper hand. Here it escalated the situation.
Here’s a cop armed to the teeth… side arm, mace, flashlight, billy club and in a truck… and a completely unarmed 18 year old on foot… and he thinks he did his job… because that’s how they teach them to do it.
The idea that an unarmed kid had some responsibility here is fucking nonsense.
It’s complicate like most things depending on the angle you see it from. Why did a kid who was stopped for j-walking end up killed by a cop. Why did the DA behave in an unprecedented manner with regards of how the grand jury was handled. Did the kid really attack the cop? The cop took someone’s life and seems very unconcerned about it. Creepy
Then there’s the whole civil rights issue with blacks in this region and the history of terrible abuse. A black majority town with almost no black cops or elected officials. There’s a lot of side issues to this. Should have gone to trial. Hope the feds step in but that will set off the racial hatred from the talk radio/Fix news types..
By unarmed kid did you mean potentially armed robbery suspect?
Potentially armed? Given that standard I expect to see a lot of 2nd Amendment white guys shot down. Right? Because if that’s your standard…
“By unarmed kid did you mean potentially armed robbery suspect”
In what sense was he “potentially armed”? No weapon was reported at the robbery. No weapon was ever seen, unless you’re counting the bullshit about his “hands in his waistband,” which every cop knows to say in order to avoid prosecution or disciplinary action.
The cop is a moron. He was “trapped” in his car because he was so stupid he pulled right up to Michael Brown and then couldn’t open the car door.
Citizens don’t act in my name. Police officers do. I’m taking personal responsibility for that. I can’t make criminals stop committing crimes, but I can make cops stop using deadly force in such questionable circumstances.
He fit the description of a robbery suspect. If you read the witness testimony, Michael Brown appeared to reach into his waist ban while charging the officer.
Don’t rob a store and assault a cop.
You can say, Wilson was lying but witness testimony and the autopsy report back his case.
As I said, I think the waistband business is bullshit. And if you read the testimony you would realize that many of the “witnesses,” on both sides, said they drew details from what they read online or heard on the news.
I also read the racist bullshit about MB “looking like a demon.” A cop who shits his pants shouldn’t be on the street.
Yes witnesses went under oath, and swore that Officer Wilson shot him in the back.
They showed those people the autopsy report, which indicated no entry wounds in Michael Browns back. And then those people admitted they were lying.
If the cops were shooting gun packing crazed paranoid right wingers, the talk radio/fix news crowd would be spinning their heads around frothing at the mouth like rapid dogs and calling for revolution
There was no report of a robbery suspect that I am aware of?
“Wilson noticed Brown was carrying a box of cigars that had been reported stolen. Wilson, he said, initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic, but as he began driving past Brown, he noticed Brown was holding cigars.
At that point, Wilson “made the connection” that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio, Jackson said.”
-USA Today
Here’s Wilson’s actual testimony:
A: But like I said, I had turned away, had my eyes, I was shielding myself.
Q: Where did you see the Cigarillos at?
A: They were in his right hand.
Q: Okay. Were there any broken Cigarillos or anything in your car later?
A: No, I don’t remember seeing anything on the ground or anything.
Q: Okay.
A: After he hit me then, it stopped for a second. He kind of like, I remember getting hit and he kind of like grabbed and pulled, and then it stopped. When I looked up, if this is my car door, I’m sitting here facing that way, he’s here. He turns like this and now the Cigarillos I see in his left hand. He’s going like this and he says, “hey man, hold these.”
Okay, so according to Wilson’s words, Brown stopped attacking him to say, “Hey man, hold those?” Really?
He was unaware of any robbery at the time so he was being a bully. Did anyone pull Wilson’s record? If so they would have observed he was from a unit that was disbanded due to overuse of excessive force and corruption. That’s more telling than any convenience store camera footage of Brown
Wilson was prepped for his testimony for a month. Anyone who think he wasn’t coached by his union, at the very least, is placing his head in a warm, dark place known as his ass. I don’t believe much of what he testified — under oath, as if that meant something.
Kind of takes me back to the 60’s in Selma. Only things missing are the hoses and the dogs.
If you read Dorian Johnsons testimony he says that Big Mike turned face to face with Mr. Johnsons, away from the car and handed him the Cigars in the middle of the altercation.
So yeah, he did stop in the middle of the altercation to hand off his cigars.
100% right, Geezer.
Remind me again… where is the police report, containing Wilson’s statement, that was taken immediately after the shooting? Remind me how the gun was tested for Mike Brown’s fingerprints? Oh, it wasn’t. Why not?
Let’s check Wilson’s testimony again:
He immediately grabs my gun and says, “you are too much of a pussy to shoot me.”
Those are Wilson’s words.
Oh, so you believe that part of Dorian Johnson’s testimony… how convenient.
So they’re both lying about that? I’m confused.
You’re not confused. You believe all of Darren Wilson’s testimony (even tho I can tell you haven’t read it) and pick and choose what you believe about Dorian Johnson’s testimony.
I don’t believe a word of the accomplice’s story, either. The closest we can come to figuring out what happened comes from audio recordings and photographs. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable even when statements are taken immediately. By a month later, it’s a jumbled, contradictory mess, which is one major reason no indictment was ever likely.
Agreed. And this is where a trial would have been helpful.
Yeah see the thing is I have read it. And Dorian Johnsons and a few witnesses. I found the testimony of witness #10 to be particularly interesting. He said he wasn’t going to come forward until he heard all of these misreports about what had happened. His testimony matches what Office Wilson testified to. But I’m sure this witness was coached up as well. I also read reports about the autopsy.
That is when I made up my mind.
Not before there was even a grand jury like you clowns.
Ah, witness #10. The one who in his journal decided that he was going to stop calling black people “n*****s” (only he didn’t use stars). Perhaps you noticed that quite a few “eyewitnesses” — including one who also backs up Wilson’s account — apparently weren’t anywhere near the scene. You seem to think that white people in a racially charged town would never, ever lie to protect a white cop.
Thanks for tacitly admitting that you made up your mind right after you heard what you wanted to hear.
I just got finished saying that we need to see photos and hear audio to try to determine what happened. How does that equal having made up my mind beforehand?
I absolutely do not trust any police officer, ever, to acknowledge wrongdoing in any shooting. Why should they? As long as they claim certain things — he went for my gun, he reached into his waistband — they are guaranteed to walk.
Seriously, sporto, look it up — cops are coached to a fare-thee-well by union reps in every shooting case. Why else do you think their testimony always sounds the same?
I think that was witness #40, Geezer.
Yeeeaahhh, we don’t know if the eyewitnesses who testified were white black brown or purple. It’s all confidential, so I don’t know where you’re getting that it’s the whities who are lying to protect the cop.
And you seem to think that black people in a racial charged town who never, ever lie against a cop.
And that was witness #40 with the journal entry. Chiggity check yourself before you wreck yourself
Pulling up inches from a “suspect” so they can reach in and punch your lights out is neither smart nor is it part of “doing what I was trained to do.”
Still wondering how being 35′ to 135′ away from the car represents a deadly threat.
BTW, Brown was not shot in the back. He was, however, shot in the forearm. The bullet entered in such away he was either shot from the back with his arms down or he was shot from the front with his hands up. ‘splain that.
And is there actual dispatch recordings of a call going out for a robbery suspect? Or did Wilson just throw that in?
Maybe you hadn’t noticed, dickhead, but I also said I didn’t believe Johnson, and that all eyewitness testimony is unreliable. It is you, not I, who are placing great faith in the truthfulness of the individual who has the most motive to lie.
Police dispatch tapes showed that a bulletin on the robbery was sent out to all units before the Wilson-Brown confrontation.
“It’s all confidential, so I don’t know where you’re getting that it’s the whities who are lying to protect the cop.”
Are you contending the woman who claimed to have driven to the scene and was shown to be lying — a woman whose story backed up Wilson’s — was a black woman? We already know you’re a dickhead — are you stupid as well?
According to the official autopsy the gun shot wound to Michael Brown’s forearm entered in the top of his forearm, as in his hands were down, not the underside as if his hands were up.
‘Splained.
Explained how? I didn’t say anything about the position of his arms. The issue here is that Wilson has been coached to say what will get him off. Any police union official could explain that to him if he didn’t already know it.
I’ll defer to Lawrence O’Donnell on the credibility of witness #10:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/lawrence-odonnell-why-did-mcculloch-pin-so-much-on-unreliable-witness-10/
My question — actually, my assertion — is that you want to believe the cop, so you believe him, even though he has the most motive to lie, and was conveniently required neither to give a statement on the day of the incident, nor was he cross-examined by the “prosecutor” for the grand jury, allowing obvious discrepancies in his story to stand unchallenged.
Given the shoddy investigation, the question becomes why do you want so badly to believe Wilson despite the preponderance of evidence that shows he was not completely truthful?
On page 53 of the Investigator’s testimony…
Q: More detailed. Did he talk about anything about the stealing that occurred at Ferguson Market that he was stopping these two to investigate that?
A: He said he did not have that call, that call I later found out was given to Officer
Q: Did he know about it, did he talk about knowing about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
Q: Okay. And so when he’s stopping these two it is strictly about the sidewalk, it has nothing to do with him investigating the stealing of Cigarillos; is that correct?
A: That is correct.
Yeah, I’m not buying the “He recognized the suspects” excuse.
Listen old timer, I know things we’re different back in your day but I don’t know why you have to result to the names.
We’re having a debate here. I have my opinion, and you guys have yours. At the end of the day, neither party is going to be swayed to the other side but I find it nice to hear a differing opinion, and have the chance to explain my thoughts on the matter.
You don’t have to throw out curse words to prove your a big man. It only diminishes your argument and makes you look sad.
Old Timer, in my post about the position of his arms I was responding to Sussex Anon. You’re not the only one on this site.
I haven’t claimed to “know” what happened. What I’ve pointed out are discrepancies (some really big ones) and questioned Wilson’s word choices during his testimony and ABC interview. Things that, you know, a trial would have cleared up.
Yeah, see, I don’t appreciate it when other people tell me what I think (“made up [your] minds before the grand jury like you clowns”). My mind still isn’t “made up.” I have my theories about who’s telling the truth and who’s lying, and it’s beyond dispute that the prosecutor was a poor choice for this job because of his inherent conflict of interest. When people tell me what I think and are wrong about it, I take it badly, and often resort to calling them things like “dickhead” as a result.
If the condom fits, wear it. If not, ignore it. But you still haven’t explained why those backing up Wilson’s version deserve more credibility than those who didn’t.
If every murder trial were held this way — conflicting eyewitness testimony offered into evidence — prosecutors would almost never gain a conviction. In any normal investigation, the testimony of the obvious liars would be thrown out. Instead it was heard by the grand jurors, regular folks who know no more about the law than they’ve learned from TV fiction. Naturally they rejected filing any charges.
I hope you realize that Wilson is not out of the woods yet — he could be sued in a civil action. So he still has every reason to tailor the specifics of the event to avoid a bad personal outcome.
Yeah because dickhead and clown are on the same level. Got it.
When the testimonies differ, they usually look at the physical evidence and whichever testimony matches the physical evidence, that’s usually the truth.
And guess whose testimony matched the physical evidence?
When the testimonies differ, they usually look at the physical evidence and whichever testimony matches the physical evidence, that’s usually the truth.
And guess whose testimony matched the physical evidence?
THAT is NOT the role of the Grand Jury. They are not there to render a verdict.
I agree.
Then what are you talking about?
According to the official autopsy the gun shot wound to Michael Brown’s forearm entered in the top of his forearm, as in his hands were down, not the underside as if his hands were up.
Or his hands were up with his back to Wilson.
10 shots is a lot of lead to be throwin for an unarmed man running away.
So he was running away with his hands up?
If the cop can hit his forearm while the dude is running away at, apparently 45 yards, that is one hell of a shot.
And pandora, I’m sorry that was a typo. I DISagree.
Their job is to determine if there was probably cause to charge Officer Wilson with the crime. If the grand jury believes that the testimony that differs from the officers account is false and is essentially perjury, then in their minds there is no probably cause.
Some creative liberty with Huff posts reporting about not testing the gun for Brown’s fingerprints. From reading the actual evidence, it wasn’t that no fingerprint testing was conducted due to not losing control, a decision was made to do either a) fingerprint test or b) DNA test of the gun. The DNA test was in fact performed in lieu of the fingerprint test and Brown’s DNA was found both on the slide of the pistol and on Officer Wilson’s left thigh of his pants.
Not deciding who is right and wrong in this matter. It’s tragic all together. But to report that no testing was done on the gun is not factual at all.
“If the cop can hit his forearm while the dude is running away at, apparently 45 yards, that is one hell of a shot.”
45 yard separation is a long way for Wilson to be fearing for his life from an unarmed man.
Wilsons mistake was rolling up way too close on a guy that wasn’t gonna take crap from him. So close to him that either a) Brown could kick the door closed or b) Wilson opened it hitting Brown. Either way, that’s not how its done. Zero closing distance can lead to……what happened to Wilson in the car.
Yes 45 yards away is a long way. That’s why I’m saying it probably didn’t happen like that. Sarcasm.
“Wilsons mistake was rolling up way too close on a guy that wasn’t gonna take crap from him.” Listen, I don’t care how tough you are, how many weights you can lift, I don’t care if you think you’re the big man on campus and you roll around calling people dickheads.
You respect the cops. If they tell you to stop. You stop. If they “roll up” on you you do what they say. He’s a police officer and he has every right to “roll up” on those guys walking down the middle of the street. Just because Michael Brown was a grown ass man who thought he didn’t have to listen to the cops, doesn’t put Officer Wilson in the wrong.
Supposedly the gun shot to the arm occurred at the police car. Heard part of the broadcast and a ton of analysis and discussion on NPR. Interesting to note Wilson is no runt at 6’4″, Brown was 6’5″ and much heavier. It was noted that Wilson called in for backup, there was no real reason to chase after Brown at that point. My main gripe is why a grand jury? The prosecutor released all the records and testimony to the public, another odd move. I never thought they would indict Wilson, cops rarely get the same treatment as the general public and few are indicted or prosecuted.
You respect the cops. If they tell you to stop. You stop. If they “roll up” on you you do what they say.
What you are respecting here is nothing more than being prudent around people who have the power (if not the authority–thanks for that distinction, jason) to use deadly force against you if they decide to do so, backed by a legal system that the vast majority of the time will acquit them regardless of the circumstances.
Unfortunately, jibberjab, that’s not “the law” or “the Constitution.” There are specific legal limits on what people with badges and guns can require you to do, specific rules they have to follow, and specific rights you have in challenging them when they don’t follow those rules.
But those rights don’t matter worth spit in an environment where the cops simply cannot be held accountable for their actions. Which is why I don’t have to give Darren Wilson the benefit of the doubt in the middle of the police state culture of Ferguson MO wherein interactions appear (statistically and historically) to begin with the premise that black men should always be treated as armed and dangerous felons in every encounter.
Having been on the receiving end of “Respect mah, autoroatah,” no, a cop doesn’t get to go anywhere and do anything he damn we pleases. There are procedures, methods and training on how to do things.
Cops can sometimes be total assholes. The cop (dickhead or no) always wins.
Pulling up so close to someone that you can hit them with your car door is not “how its done.” That is, if you hope to have a long and healthy career in law enforcement. Why? Because unnecessary crap like this happens, and sometime it might not be the unarmed man laying in the street.
The report I read had the gunshot to the hand happen in the car, not the forearm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk4NQZZmf2s
Baltimore. The cop was suspended and charged. When? When the surveillance video was finally released. 3 months later. It goes without saying, the cops accounting of what happened did not match this video.
I am sure those are the “good cops” we hear so much about holding the guy while he’s getting beaten.
Don’t start nothin’ there won’t be nothin’ and that includes cops.
Well said, Steve Newton
Its also worth pointing out Re: Steve Newtons post, that police are under no obligation whatsoever to be honest with you. About anything. Including your rights and their limits.
If a cop is asking you if he can search your car, then he doesn’t have the right to. Because if he had the right, he would already be searching your car with you sitting on the curb.
police are under no obligation whatsoever to be honest with you.
Absolutely: they can lie to you, but you run the risk of being prosecuted if you lie to them. The only thing they can’t do (theoretically) is lie on the witness stand about lying to you. Martha Stewart didn’t go to jail for insider trading; she went to jail for being scared enough to lie to investigators.
Which is why you never talk to a cop without representation–even if you’re innocent, often ESPECIALLY if you’re innocent.
The DNA, as I understand it, was from blood. Bleeding on a gun is much different from putting one’s hands on a gun.
The problem with your view of the whole incident is that it starts with the assumption that the cop is telling the truth. There is no reason to grant such an assumption, especially when the cop is the target of the investigation. Many details of Wilson’s account are almost physically impossible — try punching someone when the upper half of your body is leaning through a car window. Good luck, and don’t hurt yourself.
Again, the question is why you are so heavily invested in Darren Wilson being innocent. You don’t know him; you don’t know what happened, but you have a strong opinion about it.
In fact, that’s the tell on this entire affair: White America is VERY heavily invested in denying the obvious fact that our cops are out of control.
Re: Clown vs. dickhead. What, you think that using a mild insult makes a difference? Are you a wuss as well as a dickhead?
Okay, I have a quick break from cooking! Take a look at some of JibberJab’s comments:
By unarmed kid did you mean potentially armed robbery suspect?
and…
He fit the description of a robbery suspect. If you read the witness testimony, Michael Brown appeared to reach into his waist ban while charging the officer.
Don’t rob a store and assault a cop.
You can say, Wilson was lying but witness testimony and the autopsy report back his case.
… But that doesn’t appear to be true. In order to believe that you’d have to ignore the investigator’s testimony which said:
Q: More detailed. Did he talk about anything about the stealing that occurred at Ferguson Market that he was stopping these two to investigate that?
A: He said he did not have that call, that call I later found out was given to Officer
Q: Did he know about it, did he talk about knowing about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
Q: Okay. And so when he’s stopping these two it is strictly about the sidewalk, it has nothing to do with him investigating the stealing of Cigarillos; is that correct?
A: That is correct.
So is JibberJab dismissing this testimony?
Moving on…
Yes witnesses went under oath, and swore that Officer Wilson shot him in the back.
They showed those people the autopsy report, which indicated no entry wounds in Michael Browns back. And then those people admitted they were lying.
This is easily explained, unless JibberJab’s claim is that Wilson fired no shots while Brown’s back was turned? And while he may not have been shot in the back (altho, that arm shot is highly debatable – and that debate was put forth by the coroner) he was shot at while his back was turned.
“Wilson noticed Brown was carrying a box of cigars that had been reported stolen. Wilson, he said, initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic, but as he began driving past Brown, he noticed Brown was holding cigars.
At that point, Wilson “made the connection” that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio, Jackson said.”
-USA Today
and…
If you read Dorian Johnsons testimony he says that Big Mike turned face to face with Mr. Johnsons, away from the car and handed him the Cigars in the middle of the altercation.
So yeah, he did stop in the middle of the altercation to hand off his cigars.
Now see, I have trouble reconciling Brown’s supposed rage and attack (both of which were used to demonstrate that Wilson feared for his life) with the idea that he paused and asked Johnson to hold cigarillos. That simply doesn’t make sense.
So yeah, this points need to be addressed and explained.
Now… back to cooking!
Pandora your reality is an illusion made up by what you choose to believe. Go read some books.
i have to believe that the officer could have done something differently to avoid fatally shooting him. however, when you go around assaulting people (that convenience store video was alarming to me) that says something about how you roll. if you decide that you are going to fight a cop (even if the cop provoked it) chances are you will get shot, especially if you are winning the fight. the notion that michael brown had to role in this is ridiculous. the notion that the officer had a role in this, perhaps even a criminal role in this is not.
Mr Bamboozer wrote:
So that the decision not to indict wouldn’t be his alone.
Technically, both prosecutors and grand juries indict on probable cause, but in the case of prosecutors and — sometimes — grand juries, the question of whether an actual conviction can be obtained, with the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard, leads them to use, often subconsciously, the higher standard. The prosecutor knew that he would not indict, because the evidence for conviction was simply not there, and it made more sense to him to spread that responsibility around.
Mr Salty wrote:
That is obvious; he could not have fired, and he could have let Mr Brown go. But letting suspects go isn’t what the police are trained to do.
For my friends on the left, this is a matter of justice, but justice and the law are not he same things; in our system, justice is administered by the law, and sometimes the law doesn’t produce the result that some see as justice. To produce what many see as justice would require a lynching; I’m guessing that none of you think that Officer Wilson should be lynched.
@Dana: Are you in law enforcement? Because I know lots of lawyers and judges, and that smells like cartload of bullshit to me.
Mr Geezer: then ask them. Different prosecutors do things differently, but few choose to bring a poor case to trial; it’s a waste of time, effort, money and their reputation.
I’d say, from what I’ve heard, that the evidence against Officer Wilson could be seen as meeting the probable cause standard, but even most of the commenters here don’t seem to see it as meeting the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt requirement for conviction.
Look at the George Zimmerman case. The local law enforcement officials declined to charge Mr Zimmerman; in their judgement, there was no evidence to support an actual conviction. The case became politicized, and taken away from the local officials, and the state forced an indictment and trial. Then, when it went to trial, it became obvious that the state had no case, resulting in a fairly quick acquittal, and justifying the original judgement of the local officials.
Could Officer Wilson really be guilty of a deliberate murder of Mr Brown? Yes, that’s absolutely possible. But, not being mind-readers, all that law enforcement is left with is the actual evidence, and that doesn’t seem to be anywhere close to sufficient to obtain a conviction.
SO apparently DICKHEAD is the acceptable greeting around here, so hey DICKHEADS read this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/
The Post has been called out for those graphics.
Your link doesn’t tell us what happened, only what the author believes happened. Sorry.
@Dana: “The local law enforcement officials declined to charge Mr Zimmerman; in their judgement, there was no evidence to support an actual conviction.”
And that’s why the problems arose. In theory, the police are not the arbiters of whether the case should proceed to trial. In practice, the police are the lawmakers on the street — sometimes you get a speeding ticket, sometimes you get a warning. It makes little difference when it comes to speeding tickets; it makes a tremendous difference in a homicide.
A trial is a public airing of evidence; a grand jury is a secret proceeding in which the accused was subjected to virtually no cross-examination. Even the Catholic Church appoints someone to argue the devil’s side in the examination of one’s worthiness for sainthood.
Surely you might understand why, under such circumstances, some people would find the legal proceedings to have been a sham.
@JJ: DICKHEAD is not what we call each other, it’s what we call trolls. You acknowledged early on you have no intention of changing your opinion, no matter what anyone says. That makes you a DICKHEAD.
For you to quote witnesses saying anything, you must ignore the testimony of many other witnesses. For you to pick and choose among them is admission of confirmation bias.
Why IS it so important to you that the cop not be in error? It’s a hopeless dream. He fucked up, no matter what culpability you assign him for the homicide. Even if he’s not a murderer, he’s a fuck-up.
Old Man, why is it so important that you make this cop a trophy on your wall? You are doing the exact same thing you claim that I am doing. You have ignored any differing testimony and used only that which supports your argument. Pot meet kettle.
And I’m done with you guys. You attack anyone with a differing opinion and refuse to answer any questions or acknowledge any points that they bring up. You only attack. It’s nice to have a debate but that’s not what you guys offer. You only deflect deflect deflect.
News Flash. The Cop Was found not guilty. There is no big cover up. If you believe there was, I have a bridge to sell you.
Open up your eyes to other opinions. It gets old just sitting on here circle jerking each other off.
And Jason330. I really enjoyed your article that you researched on Media Bias. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I ask you DICKHEADS to prove your side of the argument and you have no fucking evidence you can only attack. This shit is a joke. Piece out.
Dont waste your time replying, I count Jason330’s masterful article proof enough that I’m right and won’t be back to this liberal circle jerk.
I’m going to waste my time. You are the person claiming to know exactly what happened between Darren Wilson and Mike Brown. I, and others, have asked questions.
And we have addressed your points (reread this thread). You started this thread by saying Brown was a robbery suspect – that Wilson made that connection, but given the investigator’s testimony that wasn’t the case. Wilson didn’t know about the robbery. Is that true? I don’t know, but neither do you. Why are you dismissing this witness’s testimony?
I have called for a trial. I haven’t called for a guilty verdict or for Wilson to be thrown in jail. You, on the other hand, have declared his innocence by picking and choosing witness testimony that agrees with your view. You have decided who you believe and who you don’t believe.
And he wasn’t found not guilty – that’s not the role of a grand jury. And that’s the problem with this entire case – there was a secret trial that didn’t include cross examination. That’s why there are still so many unanswered questions.
Exactly, Pandora. I’m saying we DON’T know what happened, and that it’s important to know so that it doesn’t happen again.
Unlike you, JJ, I consider it a failure of law enforcement when a cop escalates a jaywalking incident into a fatal shooting. I really don’t care if it broke the law or not. The cop was a dumb-ass who did his job badly, and he wasn’t the one who suffered for it.
I thought you people believed in personal responsibility? Yes, obviously Michael Brown set up the conditions for his killing. But it wouldn’t have happened if a competent cop had been the one to interact with him. The cop’s responsibility is to do his job properly, and that means without unnecessary loss of life. He failed.
Criminals don’t act in my name. Cops do. Case closed.
“There is no big cover up. If you believe there was, I have a bridge to sell you.”
No, not a cover-up, but a wide-ranging set of actions by authorities to ensure that the officer never faced justice. Or did you fail to notice that all those leaks from the grand jury, some true, some false, served to buttress the dubious story we’ve been given?
Typical conservative — pick up your balls from the floor and pretend you “won the argument.” You people are sad sacks of shit.
Mr Geezer finally wrote something with which I agree:
That’s true enough: Officer Wilson fouled up. From the admittedly partial evidence I’ve seen, he handled the situation poorly, and had he handled it better, Mr Brown would still be alive. Nevertheless, from what I’ve seen, the grand jury took the correct decision.
From another of Mr Geezer’s comments:
It might not have happened had Officer Wilson handled it differently, or had it been another police officer, but we have no way to know that. Mr Brown’s actions might have been different, either better or worse, had the officer handled things differently.
Mrs Pandora wrote:
If the grand jury failed to find probable cause that Officer Wilson committed a crime, why should he have to bear the costs of defending himself in a criminal trial?
That is the purpose of a grand jury: to insulate citizens from the danger and cost of exposure to a trial if there isn’t sufficient evidence of a crime having been committed in the first place.
@Dana: If he could not afford an attorney, etc. I’m pretty sure he knows his Miranda rights.
He’d need the best attorney, not one of those court-appointed hacks, the ones who run everyone through with plea bargains.
Of course, your argument is one that says, well, heck, just do away with grand juries entirely, and try everyone, because, after all, if an accused person cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for him!
If every homicide were treated this way by a grand jury, I’d have no problem with it, but you certainly would. You’d see very few indictments for murder.
You apparently are not in law enforcement, because if you were you would know how unusual the behavior of this one was.
On the other hand, Dana, if you pointed this out, I missed it: Gov. Jay Nixon is a Democrat. Prosecutor Bob McCullough is a Democrat.
Institutional racism does not respect party lines.
Mr Geezer, I knew that both of those gentlemen were Democrats, but didn’t mention it; it didn’t seem like it made any particular difference. National Review pointed out that, if Governor Nixon had thought that Mr McCullough was handling the case improperly, he could have had it taken away from him, but apparently saw no need to do so.
But I don’t see that as some form of “institutional racism.” It’s clear that you see the grand jury’s decision as unjust, but there is a huge difference between justice and the law. If you are arguing that Michael Brown was treated unjustly, then that is an opinion of yours which many other people hold. The problem is that unjustly does not always mean unlawfully.
No, I don’t see the grand jury’s decision as unjust. With the instructions given, it had little choice. I fault the governor and prosecutor, who are entrusted to run the system fairly and, IMO, did not. I also fault the police department for failing to follow procedure in what I believe was an attempt to make prosecution of officer Wilson impossible.
I am SO glad to read that I am not the only one who totally believes the Cop was lying from the get-go. He went back to the station and was coached for 24 hours + by any and all other Coppers in how to make up a story that would justify his murdering an unarmed petty thief. BTW I am a 65 year white woman — and am appalled that the jury bought this cock & bull story.
Running the system fairly – that’s your criticism
Fairness is the last thing you wanted. You instead prefer an agenda driven prosecutor. We’ve had that. Somehow your ill-read ass knows more than the grand jury that heard it all. Drop the pretense – you’re as biased as the people you claim to disdain.
Biased in what way? Wanting to hold cops accountable? If so, guilty as charged.
Pretending to know the motivations of others is typical of blustering conservatives. It’s not impressive.
As for the “grand jury that heard it all,” such a thing is highly unusual in American jurisprudence. You could look it up. “Ill-read” indeed.
Mr Geezer wrote:
Then it appears that you have gotten your wish: Mr Wilson has resigned from the Ferguson Police Department, and I doubt any other police department, in any jurisdiction, will ever hire him, because it would be bad publicity. He’ll have to move away from St Louis, probably taking a beating on what he gets for his house — assuming that he owns rather than rents — and his life has pretty much been completely ruined.
That’s as much of a penalty as he could suffer, because even if the grand jury had indicted him, there is certainly too much doubt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I too have read the full GJ account and I found that Six so called witnesses for Brown were either lying in their testimony or were operating on hearsay while the 5 witnesses for Wilson who were also black were believable and their account matched the physical evidence up to the point where two of them described Brown as charging the officer as if to attempt to tackle him with his head down in a charging position which may explain the head shot . Base on these facts I stand by my original statement that I am glad that the GJ didn’t allow an unruly mob to influence their decision. Just remember folks just because Facts are ignored doesn’t mean they don’t exixt
No, Dana, the system did not hold him accountable. The system covered for him in every possible way. If his bosses had held him accountable from the first, he probably wouldn’t have had to resign.
@Nick: Wilson might well have been justified, but we’ll never know for sure because the authorities started covering for him from jump.
Geezer I agree this thing was mishandle by those in charge from the beginning and that includes the Press
Geezer GJ are suppose to be and investigative body therefore they should hear both sides before rendering their decision as was done in this case however we allowed them to become nothing but a rubber stamp.
@Nick: True enough, but grand juries stopped serving that intended function many decades ago. In our system, a secret grand jury is considered an inferior venue to a public trial; indeed, public trials are a major theme for the founders.
So… we have conflicting testimony – testimony that was never subject to cross examination. Hmmm… would this be where a trial would come into play?
We are dealing with approx. 60 witnesses here, to highlight 6 is kinda ridiculous. How about we address all of them rather than picking and choosing those that suit our narrative?
BTW, Geezer and I aren’t the ones pronouncing Wilson guilty or not guilty. It’s Wilson supporters that claim to know all the facts.
And days later we have Tamir Rice, a 12 year old, shot dead in under 2 seconds. Oh, and the police’s initial statement on how this killing happened fell apart once the video was revealed. And what about what happened to John Crawford? Eric Garner? Dante Parker? I could go on, but all these incidents occurred since July 2014 – and I’m sure I’m missing some.
We have a police problem in this country. We need to address that.
Pandora Just because facts are ignored doesn’t mean they don’t exist
What does that even mean?
You chose 11 witnesses (5 that were “lying” or repeating “hearsay” and 6 that back Wilson – who were also black? Why does that even matter?) out of dozens to make your case. I’d rather weigh ALL the testimony. Why do you rule out the testimony of those who say things that don’t back up Wilson’s version? Why ignore them?
If anyone hasn’t seen this chart, take a good look at it. It will explain why we needed a trial.
“Just because facts are ignored doesn’t mean they don’t exist”
Yet when they exist amid a forest of falsehoods, it’s purt’ near impossible to tell which are which.
In a normal investigation, the statements by people who were shown to be lying would never have been heard by the jury; judges do not allow knowingly false testimony. Yet the grand jurors heard it, contributing greatly to the impression that none of the testimony was valid.
That’s just one example of how unusual the proceedings of this grand jury were when compared to the standard model. That’s why I say that, if every grand jury were conducted this way, virtually nobody would ever be indicted for murder.
Mrs Pandora wrote:
And would that have satisfied you, if Mr Wilson was acquitted in a trial? It didn’t satisfy you when George Zimmerman was tried, and acquitted. There are plenty of other comments from you in that thread, though linking more than two would throw this response into moderation.
Let’s look at what you’ve linked to. Here’s your first link quoting me:
I didn’t say that Trayvon didn’t attack Zimmerman. I said we didn’t know what happened.
Now, let’s look at your next link to my words:
These comments do not prove what you’re claiming, Dana.
Pandora, they demonstrate that, even after the public trial, you continued to question everything. And, of course, there are more comments by you there:
And:
And, of course:
It doesn’t seem to me that you were particularly satisfied with the public, open trial of George Zimmerman, and it seems as though you were not satisfied because Mr Zimmerman was acquitted.
Given all of the contradictory testimony in Mr Wilson’s case, and the fact that the forensic evidence seems to support his story, a public trial following an indictment would very probably have resulted in an acquittal; this is not a case which could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Still not proving what you claim. I asked for evidence to support other commenters claims. I never said Zimmerman attacked first. Please notice the “could have” and “what if” in my statements.
As far as Zimmerman… is he really you poster boy?
Public trials may not be perfect, but they are a lot better than a private super secret squirrel grand jury. In a public trial, you actually get to SEE the prosecutor not doing his job.
A big part of the problem with the Zimmerman trial was and remains the stand your ground laws, which solved a nearly non-existent problem — homeowners being sued by criminals for shooting them during robberies — by turning the state into a shooting gallery for scared white people who decide to use Second Amendment remedies to things like black kids walking through their neighborhoods, or playing music too loud at the gas pumps.
Do you really not see the problem, or are you just playing devil’s advocate?
When it comes to the Zimmerman cast there was only one person under Florida Law who had the right to stand his ground and that was Martian and this WAS never mention during the trial for it was he who was pursed by a man with a gun who had no legal cause to stop or detain him.
CASE CLOSED move on folks..