WILSON NOT INDICTED

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
janklow;7572476 said:
continued:

Michael Brown spent his last day with his friend Dorian Johnson. Here's what Johnson saw.

Michael Brown did pass off his cigarillos

But Johnson does semi-corroborate a key moment in Wilson's account. I noted this incredible passage in Wilson's telling earlier:

I was doing the, just scrambling, trying to get his arms out of my face and him from grabbing me and everything else. He turned to his...if he's at my vehicle, he turned to his left and handed the first subject. He said, "here, take these." He was holding a pack of — several packs of cigarillos which was just, what was stolen from the Market Store was several packs of cigarillos. He said, "here, hold these" and when he did that I grabbed his right arm trying just to control something at that point. Um, as I was holding it, and he came around, he came around with his arm extended, fist made, and went like that straight at my face with his...a full swing from his left hand.

The idea that Brown stopped punching Wilson just long enough to hand his contraband to his friend struck me, on first read, as beyond belief. But Johnson backs at least part of that account:

While the officer is grabbing ahold of Big Mike, he kind loses grip around his neck, that's how I knew he had a good grip. He never fully let Big Mike go, now he has a good grasp on his shirt. So now Big Mike's able to turn different angles while he is trying to pull away. And at a point he turned, now we are face-to-face, and he put his hands like, grab these, Bro. And in shock, I'm so not unconsciously, my hands open to where he could put the rillos in my hand.

So Johnson and Wilson agree: there is a moment when Brown turns to Johnson and hands over the stolen cigarillos. But Wilson tells it as Brown freeing his hands to more effectively pummel Wilson, and Johnson tells it as Brown freeing his hands to better escape Wilson.

It goes on like this. Johnson, Wilson, and the ballistics report all agree that the first shot was fired from inside the car. But where Wilson says this shot came after Brown tells him, "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me," and then lunged for the weapon, Johnson reacts with total confusion when the grand jury suggests Brown was trying to get at Wilson's gun inside the car.

"In order for Big Mike to have touched the gun, it is almost like his whole top half of his body had to be inside the vehicle and that never happened," Johnson says. It's a pretty specific objection: he doesn't just say Brown never went for the gun, but that he was never so deeply embedded in the car that he could have gone for the gun. Johnson's whole memory of the fight is Wilson trying to pull Brown towards the vehicle and Brown trying to get away.

The shooting

The testimony where Johnson recounts Brown being shot dead is devastating. He says Brown had already been shot and was running away. He says Brown stopped running after the second shot. He says Brown turned and yelled, "I don't have a gun," and took a kind of half step towards Wilson. And then he began to say something else, and since this is the crucial, terrible moment in the testimony, I'll let him tell it:

The second statement he was starting to say I, you know, he couldn't get the full sentence out before the rest of the shots hit his body. And I stood and watched face-to-face as every shot was fired and as his body went down and his body never — his body kind of just went down and fell, you know, like a step, you know what I'm saying? Like a step, his body just kind of collapsed down and he just fell.

This is a sharp contrast to what Wilson says:

When [Brown] stopped, he turned, looked at me, made like a grunting noise and had the most intense, aggressive face I've ever seen on a person. When he looked at me, he then did like the hop...you know, like people do to start running. And, he started running at me. During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his shirt into his waistband. And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again. He didn't. I fired multiple shots. After I fired the multiple shots, I paused a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state. Still charging, hand still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down.

And then Johnson runs. He is hyperventilating, and vomiting, and running. It takes him only a minute or two to get to his apartment, he says, but "I'm still throwing up, I have been throwing up since I started running. I've been throwing up all the way along the run."

A more recognizable story

As with Wilson, it's impossible to know where Johnson is telling the truth, where he's lying, and where his memory is simply faulty — eyewitness accounts are completely unreliable even under the best of circumstances, and these were not the best of circumstances.

And my hunch is Johnson is shading the truth in at least a few places — starting with the robbery, but potentially continuing up through the tussle. Johnson says he never saw Brown throw a punch but he's not totally convincing on it, and Wilson did suffer some contusions on his face (though it's not clear those injuries back Wilson's testimony, either).

But where Wilson's account presents Brown as completely irrational and borderline suicidal, Johnson's account is more recognizable. It isn't a blameless, kindly beat cop who gets set upon by a rampaging Michael Brown. And nor is it a blameless, kindly Michael Brown who gets set upon by a cold-blooded murderer with a badge.

It's a cop who feels provoked by these two young black men who won't get out of the street, and who tries to teach them a lesson, to put them in their place. His actions escalate the situation, and then the adrenaline floods, and then there's a struggle, and the situation escalates, and escalates, and escalates, and then Darren Wilson shoots Michael Brown and Michael Brown dies.


All this happened in less than two minutes. The fight happened in even less than that. And so there's also room for both accounts to be subjectively right. With the adrenaline pumping Wilson might really have grabbed Brown first, but then thought Brown was trying to grab his gun, or beat him to a pulp, even as he was really trying to get away. Brown might have sworn at the cop who almost clipped him with a truck, but after that, he might have really been trying to simply survive the altercation.

Indeed, we might never get to the truth of what happened in those two minutes on August. But the point of a trial would have been to get us closer. We would have found out if everything we thought we knew about Brown was wrong, or if Wilson's story was flawed in important ways, or if key witnesses completely broke under pressure. We would have heard real cross-examination. We would have seen the strongest case that could be mounted by both the prosecution and the defense. But now we're not going to get that chance. We're just left with these Rashomon-like testimonies, a dead 18-year-old, and a shattered family.
bolded seems, well, pretty reasonable.

"Teach them a lesson" "Put them in their place"

Particularly, since by both Johnson & Wilson's accounts, neither Brown nor Johnson immediately complied with Wilson's command to get on the sidewalk. Wilson probably felt his authority was disrespected and tried to strongarm 'em into submission like many law enforcers do, which ultimately lead to an avoidable death.

 


janklow;7572298 said:
DarcSkies;7569427 said:
I feel sorry for his Mom.
well, i think everyone should be able to agree on this much no matter WHAT you think happened. seriously, that's still her child.

playmaker88;7571997 said:
Thoughts @Janklow
called it?

that and i have endured so many bullshit opinions in person and on social media today on both sides of the issue.

summation: janklow remains annoyed with Americans


FWIW many people (myself included) who operated strictly (or primarily) from a American law perspective, could and did predict that this would eventually unfold like this. Especially when the discrepancies started to appear more and more evident. So, you're definitely not alone in that regard.

Your summation has piqued my interest, moreover I'm all for objectivity but many people I've met online and in person have hid behind the convenience of this neutrality safeguard, especially when it comes time to confront/acknowledge the proverbial pink elephant in the room - which is the obvious subtext of this unfortunate matter.

Simply coming away from this with a perspective that synthesizes multiple social groups (and their interactions) under one opinion/emotion (a feeling of annoyance) seems like a cop out or an oversimplifying takeaway from this entire ordeal, at best.

Judging by the articles that you've linked, it's obvious that you acknowledge/accept the political and legal implications/intricacies of the outcome and that it required a relatively impartial, nuanced perspective to discern such things. I just wonder if you acknowledge/accept the social and racial implications of this ordeal? Because if one does, then it's hard to fathom how one can come away equally annoyed at the social groups involved, especially with a historical context in mind.
 
10801911_948503285160650_1772199765467637345_n.jpg
 
i still think you cannot compare this shit to trayvon martin. trayvon didn't rob a store and was attacked by a wanna be cop and killed. mike brown robbed a store and its still unclear if what happened in those moments after. while there are shady cover ups by the cops including bringing the weapon home i still think there isn't clear cut evidence on mike browns end espcially since this shit started because he robbed a store.
 
Monizzle14;7574515 said:
i still think you cannot compare this shit to trayvon martin. trayvon didn't rob a store and was attacked by a wanna be cop and killed. mike brown robbed a store and its still unclear if what happened in those moments after. while there are shady cover ups by the cops including bringing the weapon home i still think there isn't clear cut evidence on mike browns end espcially since this shit started because he robbed a store.

naw bro your an uncle tom you are supposed to give the black person the benefit of the doubt regardless of any and all circumstances or you are racist. black people should be able to try to shoot police and not get hurt for it. fuck america how dare those crackers defend themselves against an upstanding black man who graduated high school.
 
Monizzle14;7574515 said:
i still think you cannot compare this shit to trayvon martin. trayvon didn't rob a store and was attacked by a wanna be cop and killed. mike brown robbed a store and its still unclear if what happened in those moments after. while there are shady cover ups by the cops including bringing the weapon home i still think there isn't clear cut evidence on mike browns end espcially since this shit started because he robbed a store.

Mike Brown was no angel and that definitely hurt his image with the jurors (and the prosecution) but if Darren Wilson was so "threatened" by Mike Brown, why didn't he stay in the car after Mike Brown ran away the first time and call for back up? I think it's similar to Trayvon's case because in both cases, if both Zimmerman and Wilson stayed in the car and not try to act like Rambo, these killings of unarmed people wouldn't have happened.
 
Last edited:
Monizzle14;7574515 said:
i still think you cannot compare this shit to trayvon martin. trayvon didn't rob a store and was attacked by a wanna be cop and killed. mike brown robbed a store and its still unclear if what happened in those moments after. while there are shady cover ups by the cops including bringing the weapon home i still think there isn't clear cut evidence on mike browns end espcially since this shit started because he robbed a store.

It's interesting that you dont want to compare them when the incidents are so strikingly similar. Just think about Darren Wilson's words in that document, calling him a "demon" and "Hulk Hogan" and then consider the last photo that the Zimmerman's defense attorney provided for the jurors to see, which was supposed to demonstrate his frame and physical prowess. The reasons why Mike Brown and Trayvon were killed were informed by the same ideas, as were the subsequent legal proceedings that allowed them their killers to walk free. There is a presumption of guilt and dangerousness that has unfairly made people of color, particularly young black men, targets of police aggression and violence.

Look at the character assassination campaign of both these young men. Look at the obvious biases and inherent unfairness in the legal proceedings. There are so many identical themes.
 
More then half of the witnesses say Michael Brown was running away when Darren Wilson started firing his second volley of shots from outside the car
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

Here’s a breakdown of the data we found:

More than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements)

Only five witness statements said that Brown reached toward his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death.

More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.

There was an even split among witness statements that said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.

Only six witness statements said that Brown was kneeling when Wilson opened fire on him. More than half of the witness statements did not mention whether or not Brown was kneeling.


How is all this data not enough to at least indict?
 
Last edited:
obnoxiouslyfresh;7576105 said:
Monizzle14;7574515 said:
i still think you cannot compare this shit to trayvon martin. trayvon didn't rob a store and was attacked by a wanna be cop and killed. mike brown robbed a store and its still unclear if what happened in those moments after. while there are shady cover ups by the cops including bringing the weapon home i still think there isn't clear cut evidence on mike browns end espcially since this shit started because he robbed a store.

It's interesting that you dont want to compare them when the incidents are so strikingly similar. Just think about Darren Wilson's words in that document, calling him a "demon" and "Hulk Hogan" and then consider the last photo that the Zimmerman's defense attorney provided for the jurors to see, which was supposed to demonstrate his frame and physical prowess. The reasons why Mike Brown and Trayvon were killed were informed by the same ideas, as were the subsequent legal proceedings that allowed them their killers to walk free. There is a presumption of guilt and dangerousness that has unfairly made people of color, particularly young black men, targets of police aggression and violence.

Look at the character assassination campaign of both these young men. Look at the obvious biases and inherent unfairness in the legal proceedings. There are so many identical themes.

She completely ignored how both Zimmerman and Darren Wilson could have avoided killing them by just staying in the car and calling for back up. Zimmerman called police but still wanted to act like Robocop. Same with Darren Wilson, he didn't have to shoot at someone running away or at a minimum, was far away from him. All he had to do was stay in the car and call for backup if he thought he was dealing with the Incredible Hulk.
 
b4rPnQrC32H4cT;7572904 said:
Particularly, since by both Johnson & Wilson's accounts, neither Brown nor Johnson immediately complied with Wilson's command to get on the sidewalk. Wilson probably felt his authority was disrespected and tried to strongarm 'em into submission like many law enforcers do, which ultimately lead to an avoidable death.
the thing that i think is also telling is that Wilson's account has him speaking with politeness and being met with a high level of aggressive disrespect. i don't doubt that it's POSSIBLE for this to have occurred... but somehow i find Johnson's version more likely.

The Iconoclast;7572973 said:
I just wonder if you acknowledge/accept the social and racial implications of this ordeal? Because if one does, then it's hard to fathom how one can come away equally annoyed at the social groups involved, especially with a historical context in mind.
well, i don't know what you happen to think the social/racial implications are, so i will withhold a cosign.

but i will say this: the side that seems to think of Wilson as a step down from Jesus has annoyed me much more than the side that defends the virtues of Saint Brown. because the latter at least has some sincere issues wrapped up in their outrage over less-than-ideal victim.

 
obnoxiouslyfresh;7576105 said:
It's interesting that you dont want to compare them when the incidents are so strikingly similar.
honestly, the biggest reason NOT to compare them is to focus on the issues in each case and not let the debate over Brown get sidetracked by unrelated stuff that came up with Martin (for example, Wilson is at least legitimately a police officer, whereas Zimmerman's behavior is a whole can of worms).

totally agree there are some similarities, especially as regards "presumption of guilt and dangerousness." but one might have a more productive conversation if it's kept focused.

kingblaze84;7576222 said:
More then half of the witnesses say Michael Brown was running away when Darren Wilson started firing his second volley of shots from outside the car
so i touched on this with the earlier article, but i'll quote it again:

"He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back."

it's entirely possible that more than half the witnesses gave testimony that was NOT SUPPORTED by the evidence.
 
janklow;7577111 said:
obnoxiouslyfresh;7576105 said:
It's interesting that you dont want to compare them when the incidents are so strikingly similar.
honestly, the biggest reason NOT to compare them is to focus on the issues in each case and not let the debate over Brown get sidetracked by unrelated stuff that came up with Martin (for example, Wilson is at least legitimately a police officer, whereas Zimmerman's behavior is a whole can of worms).

totally agree there are some similarities, especially as regards "presumption of guilt and dangerousness." but one might have a more productive conversation if it's kept focused.

kingblaze84;7576222 said:
More then half of the witnesses say Michael Brown was running away when Darren Wilson started firing his second volley of shots from outside the car
so i touched on this with the earlier article, but i'll quote it again:

"He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back."

it's entirely possible that more than half the witnesses gave testimony that was NOT SUPPORTED by the evidence.

What I think that means is that many of the witnesses saw Darren Wilson shooting at Michael Brown as he was running away, with his back turned. In fact, that's exactly what some of the witnesses have said. Yes Brown did not actually get shot in the back but some said he was being shot at with his back turned, so the physical evidence doesn't prove lying at all. Maybe some of the witnesses lied but remember, multiple witnesses said Darren Wilson fired as Brown was running away. Two white construction workers said the same thing, and ON CAMERA, one raised his hands in the air and said Brown's hands were in the air and he wasn't a threat. This info should be more then enough info to at least get a charge in, but the prosecutor confused he jury by giving so much data, more then needed.

The prosecutor questioned the witnesses but NEVER cross examined Darren Wilson, what a fucking coincidence

 
Last edited:
kingblaze84;7577146 said:
What I think that means is that many of the witnesses saw Darren Wilson shooting at Michael Brown as he was running away, with his back turned. In fact, that's exactly what some of the witnesses have said. Yes Brown did not actually get shot in the back but some said he was being shot at with his back turned, so the physical evidence doesn't prove lying at all.
i think you need to go back and actually read that article.

first, you need to stop phrasing it in terms of lying or not. we're not talking about witnesses LYING. we're talking about eyewitness testimony being INACCURATE. second, and this is the main thing, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.

so what's happening is we're saying, "see, the fact that witnesses reported narratives that literally COULD NOT have happened," and you're taking it as if some witnesses told the truth and the rest lied. no. if a witness tells us that Brown had his back to the officer and the forensic evidence tells us this could NOT have happened, that witness is not necessarily lying. but it does mean it's time for you to come to terms with the fact that some of this witness testimony can, in fact, be discarded.

doesn't eliminate the larger issues here -such as whether or not the prosecutor was passing the buck to get the grand jury not to indict, for example- but how long are we debating the concept that not all witnesses have given testimony that can be considered accurate?
 
janklow;7579363 said:
kingblaze84;7577146 said:
What I think that means is that many of the witnesses saw Darren Wilson shooting at Michael Brown as he was running away, with his back turned. In fact, that's exactly what some of the witnesses have said. Yes Brown did not actually get shot in the back but some said he was being shot at with his back turned, so the physical evidence doesn't prove lying at all.
i think you need to go back and actually read that article.

first, you need to stop phrasing it in terms of lying or not. we're not talking about witnesses LYING. we're talking about eyewitness testimony being INACCURATE. second, and this is the main thing, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.

so what's happening is we're saying, "see, the fact that witnesses reported narratives that literally COULD NOT have happened," and you're taking it as if some witnesses told the truth and the rest lied. no. if a witness tells us that Brown had his back to the officer and the forensic evidence tells us this could NOT have happened, that witness is not necessarily lying. but it does mean it's time for you to come to terms with the fact that some of this witness testimony can, in fact, be discarded.

doesn't eliminate the larger issues here -such as whether or not the prosecutor was passing the buck to get the grand jury not to indict, for example- but how long are we debating the concept that not all witnesses have given testimony that can be considered accurate?

According to many of the witnesses, Mike Brown's back was turned to the officer as Darren Wilson was firing at him. Why should that be discarded? Eyewitness testimony is unreliable many times true but if 8 witnesses said I killed a man who wasn't a threat to me, I would definitely be in trial right now. This is just another case of the system protecting crooked cops when a govt itself is crooked (Ferguson's govt).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.



Despite all that, my main problem with the decision is that the prosecutor did pass the buck. He didn't want to indict the officer despite the tons of eyewitness testimony and never bothered to cross examine Darren Wilson. He had no problem cross examining witnesses which is fine, but to never cross examine Darren Wilson? He protected Darren Wilson the ENTIRE process. He didn't press to the jury that Darren Wilson never bothered to write a police report. NOW WHY IS THAT? Fuck Mccoluch and the entire crooked govt of Ferguson.
 
Last edited:
kingblaze84;7580249 said:
According to many of the witnesses, Mike Brown's back was turned to the officer as Darren Wilson was firing at him. Why should that be discarded?
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SHOT IN THE BACK.

this would tend to support the notion that the eyewitnesses saying Brown's back was to Wilson when Wilson shot him are, in fact, wrong.

the problem with having a preconceived notion of what the result will be is that you're arguing over and over that no witness testimony can be discarded because... well, actually, we don't get a reason. it doesn't seem to matter if forensics or other witnesses contradict them, because you're going to repeat "why should that be discarded" no matter what.

kingblaze84;7580249 said:
More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.
and yet despite the fact that more said he was than wasn't, it doesn't mean that is what actually happened. ironically, you posted this before AND I RESPONDED TO YOU:

"so i touched on this with the earlier article, but i'll quote it again:

"He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back."

it's entirely possible that more than half the witnesses gave testimony that was NOT SUPPORTED by the evidence. "

kingblaze84;7580249 said:
Despite all that, my main problem with the decision is that the prosecutor did pass the buck. He didn't want to indict the officer despite the tons of eyewitness testimony-
seriously, who cares about the "tons" if what the "tons" says isn't supported by physical evidence?

i mean, could we criticize the handling of the case without going on and on about the discarded witnesses? because i really think there's enough problems with it that we can, you know?
 
This case was never intended to go to trial

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun', Huffington Post reported.

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

 

Members online

No members online now.

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
63
Views
0
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…