Thursday, August 14, 2014

Statement Analysis: Michael Brown Eye Witness

“I saw the barrel of the gun pointed at my friend,” said Dorian Johnson, 22. “Then I saw the fire come out of the barrel.”

Here he says he saw the "barrel" which focuses the eye on the barrel.  The "fire" then is also what is seen, from the barrel. This statement is strong.  

“I could see so vividly what was going on because I was so close",

Here we have the need to justify his vision, as a weak assertion.  

On the video, the first witness gives statements that will likely be used by the defense as he employs passive language ("door") and reports what "we" said, and not what he said.   Always note when someone reports in an open statement what did not happen and what was not said. 

A truthful subject  should tell us what happened and what was said.  


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri

70 comments:

john said...

Does the definite article come into play here?.

john said...

OT.

Cliff Richard's Home Searched Over Sex Claim

Police search the star's home over an alleged sexual assault dating back to the 1980s involving a boy aged under 16 at the time.

Police are searching Sir Cliff Richard's home in connection with an alleged sex offence dating back to the 1980s - which the singer has dismissed as "completely false".

South Yorkshire Police officers have gained entry to the star's property in the Sunningdale area of Berkshire.

A search warrant was granted after a historical allegation of a sexual nature was made involving a boy who was under the age of 16 at the time.

No-one has been arrested and the owner of the property was not present, the force said.

Speaking out as officers continued to search his home, Sir Cliff said: "For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online. The allegations are completely false."

"Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.

"However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.

"I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will co-operate fully should the police wish to speak to me.

"Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."

Sky's Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said officers have removed several items from the singer's house.

"He was last seen a week ago in Portugal, where he held a concert at his wine estate," he said.

"He owns a vast property there with a vineyard where he produces wine. He also has a home in Barbados.

"He has said in the past that he spends the summers in Portugal and the winters in Barbados.

"But South Yorkshire police underlining that nobody has been arrested and the owner of the property was not present while the search was carried out.

"It is thought a number of items were removed from the property.

"One other thing to point out is that this isn't part of Scotland Yard's investigation into historic sex crimes - Operation Yewtree - launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

"Whether the initial allegation was made to the Metropolitan Police and passed on to South Yorkshire, that's a possibility. But this is very much a South Yorkshire Police investigation," he added.

http://news.sky.com/story/1318591/cliff-richards-home-searched-over-sex-claim

Sus said...

"I could see the muscles in his forearm," Johnson said. "Mike was trying to get away from being choked."

COULD SEE RATHER THAN SAW GIVES THE SENSE OF ABILITY. THE WITNESS IS FOCUSED ON THE OFFICER'S FOREARM AND HIS ABILITY TO REACH OUT OF THE CAR. WITH THIS IT SEEMS HE COULD ONLY SEE HIS FOREARM.
HE ASSIGNS MOTIVE TO THE DECEASED.

"They're not wrestling so much as his arm went from his throat to now clenched his shirt."

SWITCHED TO PRESENT TENSE, SAID IN THE NEGATIVE, USED "SO MUCH" WHICH WEAKENS THE ASSERTION OF NOT WRESTLING. USED PASSIVE TO DESCRIBE HOW "THE ARM" MOVED. THE WITNESS ASSIGNS NO ONE TO "THE ARM." CAN AN ARM CLENCH A THROAT OR SHIRT??

Johnson explains the scene between Brown and the officer. "It's like tug of war. He's trying to pull him in. He's pulling away, that's when I heard, 'I'm gonna shoot you."

ALL PRESENT TENSE. RATHER THAN GIVING DETAILS THE WITNESS TELLS US WHAT IT'S LIKE...TUG OF WAR. HE AGAIN ASSIGNS MOTIVES TO ANOTHER PERSON BY SAYING WHAT THE OFFICER WAS "TRYING" TO DO. THIS IS ALL STORYTELLING. THE WITNESS HEARD "IM GONNA SHOOT YOU." HE DOES NOT TELL US WHO SAID IT.

S + K Mum said...

John, what do you make of Cliff's statements? todays allegations completely false....cooperate fully.....
Thanks :-)

Sus said...

Cont.
"I seen the barrel of the gun pointed at my friend," he said, "He had it pointed at him and said, 'I'll shoot,' one more time."

BACK TO PAST TENSE. THE GUN IS POINTED, NOT JUST GUN, BUT "BARREL OF THE GUN. I KEEP WONDERING WHY THE DIRECTION OF THE GUN IS SO IMPORTANT TO THIS WITNESS. WAS IT POINTED ANOTHER WAY THROUGH THE WRESTLING? WHOS GUN IS IT? AGAIN HE USES PASSIVE SAYING HE " SEEN IT POINTED" WHY CANT HE SAY WHO POINTED IT? HE HAD IT POINTED AT HIM BRINGS TO MIND TIME SPAN AND CAPABILITY. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OFFICER WAS ABLE TO GET THE GUN POINTED AT BROWN...AND THEN SAID, I'LL SHOOT ONE MORE TIME. "ONE MORE TIME" IS NOT WHAT THE WITNESS TOLD US BEFORE.

Sus said...

Cont again.
"The whole time [the officer] was holding my friend until the gun went off," Johnson noted.

THE WITNESS DOES NOT SAY WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. "THE GUN WENT OFF."

JenC said...

Sus - I am glad this is being analyzed.
I believe, according to the link you posted (thank you, btw)that the witness is saying that the officer said "I'll shoot" one more time (i.e. again), not "I'll shoot one more time." They have it formatted this way: “I seen the barrel of the gun pointed at my friend,” he said. “He had it pointed at him and said ‘I’ll shoot,’ one more time.” That makes me believe the witness is saying "one more time," meaning "again." ?? Anyone else?

JenC said...

In this video, the witness changes to present tense more often. He also says "I told the officer we were not but a minute from our destination."
-told, not said
-I not we, in this account
-more present tense than the first video I saw.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-no-record/14041457/

*****
In this link, he speaks almost entirely in past tense and says that "we" told the officer (that they were almost at their destination)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXTZOR-lHw0&feature=youtu.be

------------------
What would account for the differences in the ratios of past/present tense in the two videos?

Are there truthful parts as well as omitted information?

-------------------
I'll just say it, I was ready to defend the cop, and to assume that Brown was acting like a thug which caused the problem (because I'd heard about "criminal records" and sealed juvenile records, because I'd heard that one shot was fired in the car after a scuffle, and because the officer was "injured"). Also, criminal looting and vandalizing and crying "kill the police," is just plain wrong and not likely to convince me to agree. I'm also sick of Holder, et al only going after black-victim crimes. (i.e. not getting involved in the "knock out game" until a white person hit a black person)

BUT, there are a few aspects that trouble me about this case.

The witness is consistent with saying the cop pulled up and cursed them - that part seems true.

Even if the guy assaulted an officer, is shooting him while he's running away justified?

I'm wondering if the officer DID act like a jerk, and then the two guys acted like jerks, escalating things, if Brown did attack the officer in some manner, etc (because of the present tense parts, I wonder about omitted information regarding their possible complicity).

However, because the initial shot was fired in the car (and I heard somewhere that it was the fatal shot, but I don't know for certain), and then Brown apparently ran away and was shot from a distance, my alarm bells are going off. If Brown ran away after the first shot, he should not have been shot while retreating. If the first shot was the fatal shot, it doesn't seem like he would be in good enough shape to turn around and come back to attack the officer again. Therefore, Brown would not have been enough of a threat to warrant further deadly force.

I have a feeling that there may have been wrongdoing on both sides. I could be wrong, and perhaps as more information comes out, things will become clearer.

Until then, I am hoping to see objective analysis from the "SA-ers" on here. (-:

Sus said...

Yes, JenC. I stated that incorrectly. The witness reports that the officer said, "I'll shoot." ONE MORE TIME. When did the officer say it the first time? The words were different the first time.

JenC said...

Sus - Yeah, I can't figure that part out. In the link I posted, he only mentioned the officer threatening to shoot once and that the gun went off simultaneously. In the link you posted, the article says "one more time" and the video has him saying "the second time he said 'I'll shoot,' the gun went off."

Anonymous said...

http://www.mintpressnews.com/ferguson-police-targeting-media-arrests-tear-gas-blackouts/195327/

John said...

Cliff used a prounoinverbalism which excluded nounsrisms.Hes guilty Sus :)

Hobnob said...

John said...

Cliff used a prounoinverbalism which excluded nounsrisms.Hes guilty Sus :)



He what what?? in besterest Homer Simpson voice

Sella35 said...

Yes Sus, I second this opinion-

John said...

Cliff used a prounoinverbalism which excluded nounsrisms.Hes guilty Sus :)

With a double smiley face!
:)

Sus said...

I don't know why my name is on the "guilty" post. I didn't comment on it.

Anonymous said...

There's been a few different versions going around (isn't that always the way?! There are usually 3 versions to a story anyway). One of them is, that there was the initial verbal altercation, which btw I agree with you, I think the cop was being a jerk, and the guys were jerks right back. Next supposedly, the altercation turned physical (which I haven't seen exactly how that began), which ended up with Brown wrestling with the cop in his cruiser for the cops gun. Supposedly the cop was "beat up" and that's when the first shot was fired - in the cruiser. But then supposedly there were like possibly 8 more shots when Brown was trying to escape. *IF* those are the actual events, I could see justification for the first shot, but definitely not 8 more, unless Brown was shooting back at the cop, but it's widely known that Brown was actually unarmed. I could be wrong, but I thought that LE were not supposed to "shoot to kill" someone who is fleeing, idk - something to that affect. Maybe someone with better knowledge could get explain that.

We definitely need more info, but with what we have, I think it was overreaction and overkill on the part of the cop, due to the large number of shots fired when Brown was fleeing. This is just my layman's opinion. I'm definitely open to hearing other opinions.

As far as the rioting, looting, robbing, and crime. That's just idiotic, excuse my bluntness. These people are common criminals using this event for their own criminal purposes. Robbing local small businesses? Burning down community businesses? Basically ruining their own community and community members businesses and livelihoods? For justice for Brown? I don't think so! It doesn't even make a lick of sense. What did those community members, their neighbors and neighbors businesses do to the rioters? And how is that getting justice for Brown?

Peaceful, regular protesting - yes, THAT is ok, and it is their right to do.

On the other side, the local LE is out of control too, in my opinion. They should not be dressed in military gear. And they should not be arresting media personnel for apparently no reason (because they wanted them to get out of the local McDonalds, and they weren't doing so quick enough). Now I know what "militarization" of the police means. I see it happening there. I'm sure they need stronger force than an average day, but it seems, idk, overkill I guess for lack of a better word.

Buckley said...

To me, the most sensitivity comes when discussing the initial physical encounter. I hear a strong statement about the officer saying "get the F off the sidewalk." Then came the hardest part I have believing: that the car door ricocheted back shut after hitting them. Unless they applied force to the door, I'm just having trouble visualizing it. Also, this and the grabbing of Brown are where we hear the most present tense and "my friend." Once the officer gets out of the car, the narrative seems more reliable, though the witness says Brown "started" telling the officer he was unarmed.

In the USA today video, the Police Chief's most reliable statements are about what happened initially, but he's vague ("under investigation") about what happened after the officer exits the car.

Buckley said...

Another thing I'm curious about: was the officer in a police car? Was he in uniform? Johnson calls him "officer" consistently, but I'm wondering if they knew from the start they were dealing with a cop.

Anonymous said...

I think it's been said that there was an altercation and the first shot fired, was in the cruiser, so I assume he was in uniform and in his cruiser. That's just assumption on what's been released for stories though.

Anonymous said...

Lol. I think John might have looked quick at the screen name, and just saw the "S".

Buckley said...

I see it now; I thought I heard the word "truck" in one account.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it was one of those police SUV's? Idk, we'll have to watch for more specifics on that.

elf said...

Could ptsd (post traumatic stress disorder) be why the witness goes from past to present to past tense?

Anonymous said...

I just saw the attorney for the witness (I didn't catch the name of the witness, but I think it's the one discussed in this post). Anyway, he said his client is saying that the cop came up and told them to get out of the street. There was verbal altercation. Then the cop tried to get out, but he couldn't (I guess that's where the door "ricocheting" off the suspects will come into play, but that doesn't really make sense to me - it would make more sense if they were preventing him from getting out). Then he says the cop grabbed "Big Mike" by the throat (which again does not make sense - how can you grab someone by the throat from inside your vehicle?), then he lost his grip or what have you then grabbed his shirt (he continues to describe that it wasn't working because "Big Mike" is so big - which also contradicts how "Big Mike" could be grabbed by his throat by someone sitting in a vehicle). He then says Big Mike and his client tried to flee (and there were 3 cars now lined up behind the cruiser). His client got behind one of the cars, but Big Mike got shot, then Big Mike put his hands up and got shot in his back. Then Big Mike turned around, there was more verbal interaction, then the cop shot him again in the chest (I think he said), and the head, and all together 8 or so shots. He was asked if the first shot happened in the cruiser, and he replied "no". He was reminded that the police chief stated the first shot happened in the cruiser and ballistics would show whether that happened, and he replied "the police chief wasn't there".

Anonymous said...

Here is some of the interview. They didn't use quotes in the written article (I did watch it on tv, and it's quite accurate, what they printed), and if you have time, the actual video in in the article/link.

The whole grabbing of the throat makes no sense at all.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/14/eyewitness-ferguson-police-shooting-says-it-was-murder

Anonymous said...

"The officer backed up the car and brought it extremely close to them, where they had an exchange. The officer then reached out the window and grabbed Brown by the throat.

Brown attempted to get away from the officer, who then grabbed Brown's shirt. However, Brown was too big for the officer to control through the car."

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you posted this. I great up in North County and still live in St. Louis. People that aren't from here don't seem to understand the police response.

On the first night of the "peaceful protest", criminals were armed, looting, assaulting people and burning down businesses. Only then, did the police have to call in help from the SWAT and get the riot gear...because a riot had started.

Each night, shots were fired and people were still being assaulted. Someone even pulled a gun on the police, and he is now in the hospital facing charges.

What do you expect the police to do? These were not peaceful protests at that point. They had to get the riot gear to remain safe and to keep the local community safe.

The McDonald's actually called police to remove the reporters from the business. Police were sent to do so.

The other arrests were from people who were told to "disperse" that wouldn't. They were sitting in the middle of the street and blocking traffic. There are pictures of people making, lighting and throwing molotov cocktails. The police had to move in to disperse the crowd to prevent injury.

As someone who lives in the St. Louis area, I am tired of the reaction of people that have no idea what is going on. Yes, this family does have a right to answers in their son's death. Let's let the investigation tell us the answers.

Jenny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sus said...

"Big Mike" was 6 foot something and weighed 300 lbs. I can't imagine the officer thought it viable to pull him into his ca/truck as Dorian Johnson says. Rumor is that the officer's face was swollen because Michael Brown slammed him into the dashboard. There was some type of altercation at the car where the first shot was fired. Another witness says it looked like the officer and MB were arm wrestling. I have to think the officer was keeping MB from his gun rather than pulling him in.

After leaving the car is more troublesome to me. I can't wrap my mind around it yet. Why are Dorian Johnson's words passive? I don't know what to make of Michael Brown's "I don't have a gun. Don't shoot."

Sus said...

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word-with-lawrence-odonnell/watch/eyewitness-to-brown-shooting-tells-her-story-318326851993

This witness sounds credible to me, and I don't like what I hear happened after the officer exited the car.

jenny StMaire said...

I am wondering ifBrown ran back to his apartment to hide something - weapon or drugs possibly. In an interview he stated he ran back to his home and then came back to the scene.

john said...

OT.

Apple Store insults customer with awful anti-gay slur printed on receipt

http://bgr.com/2014/08/14/apple-store-insults-anti-gay-slur-receipt/

New England Water Blog said...

More denial Kardashian style...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2724708/Is-Kendall-Jenner-threatening-sue-waitress.html

C5H11ONO said...

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/four_women_who_opposed_terri_h.html

Terry Horman talks about Kyron

From the article it states:
Horman also reiterated statements her criminal defense attorney Stephen Houze made in court last year in Multnomah County. "He stated in court I was in fact not the last person to have seen Kyron,'' she said, adding that her lawyer has witnesses to prove it.
--She was unable to say it herself so she reiterated what her attorney, perhaps erroneously stated as truth.

C5H11ONO said...

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/four_women_who_opposed_terri_h.html

Terry Horman talks about Kyron

From the article it states:
Horman also reiterated statements her criminal defense attorney Stephen Houze made in court last year in Multnomah County. "He stated in court I was in fact not the last person to have seen Kyron,'' she said, adding that her lawyer has witnesses to prove it.
--She was unable to say it herself so she reiterated what her attorney, perhaps erroneously stated as truth.

Peter Hyatt said...

Excellent point. "She was unable to say it"

dadgum said...

Is Johnson the one with Brown shown in the video of the strong arm robbery to which the officer was responding?

Vance Holmes said...

Ferguson Police Chief, Thomas Jackson initially said Officer Darren Wilson was responding to the call of a robbery when he encountered Mike Brown. He then promised to release a video of the robbery.

However, when responding to reporters a few hours later, the chief's story changed:


(Why were they initially stopped?) "Because they were walking down the street blocking traffic."

"It had nothing to do with the stop."

"I know his initial stop was not related to the robbery."

Anonymous said...

all the witnesses are leaving out the guilty stuff, here is video of him robbing the cigars
his hand were full of cigars, perhaps the cop thought it was a gun, after all he matched the description of the robber, without details, maybe the cop thought it was armed robbery with a gun.
better be safe than sorry.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=464_1408123040

Vance Holmes said...

This wasn't about cigars. Johnson quotes Wilson ordering -- "Get the f*** on the sidewalk." When back up officers arrived three minutes later, Mike Brown was dead.

Anonymous said...

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/darren-wilson-identified-killed-18-year-old-michael-brown-article-1.1904539

Past commenter, yes it wasn't about a robbery or cigars to the officer, but it may well have been about robbery and cigars (arrest and jail time) to Michael Brown...

JenC said...

Dadgum,

Yes, Dorian Johnson was the accomplice in the robbery. Apparently, his attorney says that Johnson admits to the crime.

And I had thought the cursing (Get the F on the sidewalk) was truthful. Now I'm thinking I viewed the witness (Johnson) incorrectly. If the cop approached them because they fit the description of the robbery suspects, perhaps he said something else first, encountered resistance, then told them to "get the f on the sidewalk." Per

Now the present tense information is making more sense. Johnson did not want to disclose the robbery or the reason that they had a problem with the officer.

I'm still wondering why the final shots were fired when Brown was further away than when the first shot was fired. That troubles me and likely colored my perception.

That's why I wanted to see the better SA-ers analyzing this! (-:

Sus said...

The video of the strong arm robbery explains two things two me:
1. I wondered why the witness, Dorian Johnson, felt a need to explain why he was with Michael Brown. There you go...he was justifying being with a robbery suspect.
2. Michael Brown gave proof on that video that he doesn't follow authority and uses his bulk to shove others around. It might be hard to say he didn't shove the officer's door closed, push his head and wrestle for his gun.

Though what happened after leaving the car still seems bad. Unless I hear differently, it seems the officer was enraged at Michael Brown and went after him once free.

Sus said...

Look at the size of Michael Brown on that video. The story from witnesses that the officer was trying to pull him into his vehicle is just not feasible. Common sense says MB was reaching in the car and the officer was fighting him.

ima.grandma said...

Sus, I'm so happy to see you back. I've missed your witty and insightful comments. :) lots of smiles to you...

Anonymous said...

The thing is, the cop is saying he wasn't aware that they were robbery syspects at that point. BUT those 2 obviously knew exactly what happened, and probably thought that was why the cop had approached them to begin with.

There's no way a cop or anybody sitting in their vehicle could have reached up and grapped MB by the throat.

Why the other ones lawyer even put that out there in an interview, is beyond me. That story will have to be changing soon, I'm sure, as a "misunderstanding".

Buckley said...

For that matter, common sense says you don't shoot the guy running from you, hands being raised in the air. Common sense says you don't tell someone to "get the fuck on the sidewalk" if that's really what you want from them.

I saw the words he attempted to grab his neck, then his shirt. In an SUV cruiser, the height would be right. Also, his size makes me think the door ricocheting back makes more sense.

Clearly, from the result, the cop reacted out of anger. The question is- when did he start reacting out of anger: when they weren't on the fucking sidewalk or when the struggle at the car ensued?

Sus said...

What I'm saying is even in anger why would the officer try to pull 300 lbs in on him? Wouldn't he more likely be shoving him away?

And don't forget, the witness described that in present tense and said the officer "clenched" with his ARMS. Impossible.

Sus said...

You are so kind. Thank you.
:-) smiles back.

Anonymous said...

sorry, I don't put any credibility in the "eye witness" account - he conveniently left out the fact they not only robbed a store, but this guy sauntered up to the counter - not even worried about being seen - grabbed stuff and when the store clerk tried to stop him not only did he grab him around the neck but then came back threatening him until the guy cowered - how many times have they done this before - they sure didn't act like it was the first time and had an air of entitlement that they could do whatever and no one could stop them - in light of this new information that has been conveniently left out while reporting the story, I have to ask what else is being left out - misconstrued to fit the narrative which has been blown out of the water by this tape of a bully acting like he could do what he wanted and had no problems pushing around an older/smaller man - wait for all the facts to come out before coming down on the cop

Anonymous said...

Interesting article with quotes regarding Terri Horman wanting to change her name, it says there is audio but I have not tried to listen yet.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/four_women_who_opposed_terri_h.html#incart_related_stories

Anonymous said...

I don't think it would be appropriate height, even if it was an SUV, for someone sitting in the SUV to be able to reach up and grab hold of someones neck. That is debatable though. It would depend on many different things.

I originally thought this was a case of jerk-cop and overreaction on the cops part. Now I'm not feeling that way. Sorry, a lot of it isn't adding up and doesn't make sense. When's the last time you've essentially blocked an officer from exiting his cruiser, causing his door to "ricochet" off of you? I'm thinking the door "ricocheted" off of MB's hands.

Vance Holmes said...

Let's analyze the statement from Officer Wilson . . .

Sus said...

Will you please put it here?

Sus said...

Whoops, thought you meant police chief's. I can't find his statement, just paraphrasing.

JenC said...

Sus-
You're right! "ARMS" in the plural!!! - I didn't catch that as being off. No, someone inside the car couldn't very well use both arms in the manner described.

Anonymous said...

well the ole' delete stuff that doesnt fit the agenda thing has started already.
check out photo of michael brown
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=325928940899060&set=a.325929040899050.1073741826.100004458695898&type=1&relevant_count=1

dadgum said...

So many interesting statements...the release of the autopsy findings will eventually help clear things up. Glad to see you, Sus. :)

JenC said...

Anon at 10:11
That's actually not Michael Brown. That's Jodah Cain, a 17 yr old who beat his great grandmother to death with a sledgehammer. It has been all over the internet erroneously labeled as Michael Brown. If you google "Jodah Cain" and "grandmother," you'll find the sad story from last fall.

Jen Ow said...

Bingo Jenny St.Marie!

He shows sensitivity about the topic of running to his apartment by explaining WHY he ran 'directly' there. This should need no explanation considering the circumstance.

Most would assume he was running home for safety, and to put a barrier between himself and the danger. However, that doesn't appear to be the case here, since he returned to the scene from the safety of his home.

He likely ran to his apartment to dump something...maybe a weapon, maybe stolen property, maybe drugs.

(Like possibly the weed that they had just stolen blunts (cigars) from the convenience store to smoke.)

Anonymous said...

how did you get so racist Peter? I don't understand.

do they not teach American history where you grew up?

deeply dissapointed.

Anonymous said...

there is no excuse to shoot somebody and leave them lying in the street for several hours without calling an ambulance. no excuse. it doesn't even matter if there were witnesses are right or not. then need to have a trial and find out. the policeman who did it should be held accountable. that is what matters. well a lot of things matter. demilitarizing the police matters. every town in this country could turn into Ferguson this week. we are all in this together.

Anonymous said...

A friend of the police officer:
https://soundcloud.com/fmnewstalk971/caller-josie-on-demand-audio-8-15-14

She tells what the officer's wife told her about the shooting.

It makes sense to me. I hope this investigation is through and the truth can come out for everyone's sake.

As far as not calling an ambulance, the guy was dead. They didn't need an ambulance.

Anonymous said...

http://gawker.com/5985096/beyonce-has-never-been-less-convincing-about-the-veracity-of-her-pregnancy-than-she-was-in-her-own-movie

this is pretty amusing. apparently there's a wide spread rumor that beyonce faked her pregnancy and used a surrogate. here she denies it - unconvincingly. what do you think?

Anonymous said...

Here's the transcript. I was hoping it would be reliable, unfortunately, it's pretty much all in present tense. Someone with better SA knowledge can answer, would it make a difference being in present tense if she's retelling a story, and it's not actually her story?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/exclusive-friend-of-officer-darren-wilson-speaks-out-on-shooting-of-mike-brown-audio/

Buckley said...

“He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.

And then Michael just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and them Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.

Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

Buckley said...

I would think it would make a difference. She didn't witness anything so it can't be coming from experiential memory. She's only recounting what she was told. Her account is hearsay and would never be allowed in court.

So, Wilson got the call about the suspects at the perfect time despite the Chief saying it wasn't about the robbery. Wilson is able to get out of the car and stand up, is pushed back into the car enough for the door to be shut?

Also, what transpired after Wilson began pursuit conflicts big time with what the female witness says.

Peter Hyatt said...

Buckley,

you're not being deleted deliberately. It may be that the troll who loves to use different posters' names, used yours and one of the editors spammed it and your authentic one went with it.

The spam filter takes time, and if commentators would not respond, that is, encourage...

well, I am sure you understand.

Peter

Buckley said...

No worries- I used the more passive "it got deleted" because I figured that was the case :)

Anonymous said...

Liar Liar, pants on fire. You are a hacker, fully set up to hack into the PC Identities of others, even those posting as anonymous.....