Monday, December 15, 2014

Statement Analysis of Darren Wilson: Conclusion






This is part two of Statement Analysis of Darren Wilson where we learn:

Is he truthful?
Did he shoot a man who's arms were up in surrender?
Did he fear for his life?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  


DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, I know his hand was around my trigger finger which was inside the trigger guard. Urn, and when he grabbed it he pushed it down and angled it to where it was like this in my hip.

When one says "I know" it is an affirmation that he "knows" something, or remembers something, which leads us to ask, "Is the subject cognizant of things he does not remember?"  If so, we need to explore areas.

Even in traumatic events, we must mine for information to get to the truth. 

DET. Okay, and-and just for the purpose of the recording, can you just explain what you're demonstrating right now?

We will now be given a verbal description of what took place visibly:  

D. WILSON: The, my firearm was in his control around my hand pointed directly into my hip.

He begins with "the", which may have been about the "firearm" but then takes ownership of it.  Or, "the" could refer to something else, or someone else, including "the suspect..."

"my firearm" is important to note the possessive pronoun, for without it, we may be looking at distancing language.  

DET. Okay, you're-you're holding the gun in your...

The Interviewer does not do a good job.  Here, he not only interrupts again, but (again) gives the subject language.  He changed "firearm" to "the gun"; it is better to only use the subject's own language whenever possible.  

Trained listening is key to Analytical Interviewing. 



D. WILSON: ... right hand.


DET. ...right hand. Okay, and your right hand is holding the gun and the gun is now being pointed into your left hip.

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. Okay. Go ahead and continue.

This is best as it allows the subject to choose his own starting point and his own language and allows us to determine if the subject is truthful or not. 

We listen for him to connect himself to the event with: strong pronoun use and past tense verbs.  

D. WILSON: At that point, I was guaranteed he was going to shoot me. That's what I
thought his-his goal was. He had already manipulated I was not in control of the gun. I was able to tilt myself a little bit and push it down and away towards the side of my hip and kinda lock my wrist into my leg to where he couldn't get it back up 'cause I did not have enough strength to come up and force him off of me. He was-he had me completely overpowered while I was sittin' in the car.


He editorializes with "I was guaranteed", which is weak.  If this is what he is thinking, he simply should state that. 

Next, he does: "That's what I thought his, his goal was" recognizes the sensitivity of the "guarantee" 

This is a weak assertion.  What has caused it?

a.  The context.  He is under accusation.  This is the most logical reason
b.  He was thinking the suspect was going to do something else.   This is doubtful. 

That an officer in this situation must report his thought process, as his actions are under question, is, itself, the context.  This reduces the element of sensitivity.  

Note strong use of the pronoun "I" puts the subject in the scenario, with an equally strong past tense verb usage. 

"I did not have enough strength" is likely an admission that the subject believed that the suspect was physically stronger than he was.  This would increase the threat. 

The threat is that an unarmed belligerent is able to recognize that the subject is:

a  a police officer
b.  armed
c.  in a police vehicle readily identified.

This scenario makes the threatening of the suspect more heightened and likely increased fear.  That the subject mention body strength shows the intensity of the threat he perceived for himself.  

Then I took my left arm and I pinned it against my back seat and pushed the gun forward like this.

Strong connection.  

DET Okay, and just for the purposes of the recording again, just explain what you're doin'.

D. WILSON: My left elbow locked into the back of my seat ...

DET. Okay.

always remain silent so that the subject can continue.  When affirmation is needed, nod one's head but do not speak whenever possible. 

D. WILSON: ... took my left hand, placed it against his and my hand on the side of my firearm and pushed forward both of my arms.

DET. Towards what would be the steering wheel then? Is that...
D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: It ended up being right about where the door handle is on the Tahoe.
DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: When it got there I saw that it was somewhat lined up with his silhouette and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. Pulled it again, nothing happened. Urn, I believe his fingers were over in between from the hammer and the slide preventing it from firing.

Nothing cannot happen.  This is interesting.  Did he hear a "click"?  This would be a good area for the Interviewer to enter with solid questions. 

"believe" is weak, which allows for him or another to believe otherwise. To speak of this altercation with absolute certainty would be difficult.  He interjects "belief" expressing appropriate uncertainty to a small detail. 



DET Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, I tried again. It fired. When it fired, my window had been down the entire time. Glass shot up. The first thing I remember seeing is glass flyin' and blood all over my right hand on the back side of my hand. Urn, he looked like he was shocked initially but, and he paused for a second and then he came back into my vehicle and attempted to hit me multiple times.

The "first thing" is a signal that logic is in play and the Interviewer should always ask, "What did you remember after that?" seeking to learn 'the second' or even 'the third' thing.  

The memory uses "I" and past tense and is, again, reliable not so much as to fact, but that even if wrong, he is not attempting to deceive. 

It is the need to deceive that we pick up in language.  One may be right or wrong in what they report, but intent is key.  He does not have, here, intent to deceive the Interviewer. 


DET. Okay, you said came back in your vehicle. What'd you mean?

D. WILSON: He had, after I had shot and the glass came up, he took like a half step back and then realized he was okay still I'm assuming. He came back towards my vehicle and ducked in again his whole bod...whole top half of his body came in and tried to hit me again. Urn...

compare "realized he was okay" with the above, "initially", as he consistently recalls the reaction of the suspect:

initially appeared to be shocked, but recovered and came back. 

This is an important tie to the previous statement in which the subject's experiential memory is in play:

he is speaking from what he experience.  He is not:

a.  making it up as he goes along
b.  speaking from memory of what he previously reported 


DET. How is he tryin' to hit you?

D. WILSON: Fist, grab, I mean just crazy. Just random, anything he could get a hold of swingin' wildly. And then at that point I put my hand up like this and tried to fire again and my left hand was up blocking my face.

He, again, uses the past tense "tried" which indicates failure. 

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, my right hand was still on my lap pointing towards the door handle. I tried to fire again, just a click. Nothing happened. After the click, I racked it and as I racked it, it just came up and shot again. Urn...

Here he explains "nothing happened" with the description "just a click" preceding it.  

DET. And, just for the purpose of racking, you're-you're meaning what?


D. WILSON: I took the slide and cleared the chamb ... the round out thinking it was januued.
DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, after the round was cleared out, I brought it up and I shot again. When I shot that time, a, I was still in this position blocking myself and just shooting to where he was 'cause he was still there. Urn, when I turned and looked, I realized I had missed I saw a, like dust in the background and he was running eastbound on Canfield.


This s very strong.  He takes ownership of the shooting and does not show sensitivity --which could have been seen in blaming the victim. 

This is critical. 

He is not justifying his action here, but reporting what happened.  Had he shot, for example, out of racism, we might pick up it in his language here, particularly when shots are being fired, as this would be the most sensitive part of his statement. 

The most sensitive part of this case is the actual shooting itself. 

In this portion, there are no sensitivity indicators. 

The subject is telling the truth.  

Note he recognizes that he missed and explained how he knew that with "like dust in the background", showing the need to explain, not the shooting, but the missing. 

DET. Okay, and you said you shot that second time, right? Where did that round ... did you shoot that round through...at the door or the window, or. .. ?

D. WILSON: I'm not sure.

This is also indicative of one telling the truth when he is "not sure" after giving specific detail (again, view this in context).  

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I'm not exactly sure. It was a, just one of these to get him off me.

Here we find an indicator of sensitivity.  Note the context
It is not the shooting but another reference to the overpowering he felt by the suspect he shot.  

Here, he reveals his motive for shooting:

He was unable to (his account) overcome the suspect because the suspect had more strength than he did. 

The suspect kept coming at him, with fists, or anything he could grab at. 

The subject perceives the suspect as bigger, stronger and on top of him, where only firing his gun will save him.  

This reveals the subject's motive, according to his own language, for the Ferguson shooting, to this point. 

We need to see if this continues in his language.  


DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, he ran east on Canfield. I exited my vehicle and I said, I got on the radio and said, "Shots fired. Send me more cars." It wasn't found till later my radio had been switched in the struggle, my person radio to channel three.

Note the change to present tense language as he recalls the transmission via quoting.  

DET. What side of your body is your radio on?

D. WILSON: My left side.

DET. Okay, and you carry that on your belt?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, it's on one of the swivel holsters so it always faces up when I'm sittin' down.

DET. Okay, and what's channel three for you guys?
D. WILSON: I believe it's county radio.
DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, our chann...our main channel is channel one. So, I get out, I say that. He runs from this intersection where I originally told you towards this entrance to this parking lot. Urn...

Here he refers not to experiential memory, but memory of what was previously "told" (one way)

DET. Okay, and you're sayin' that you were originally at Canfield and Copper Creek, right?

D. WILSON: Can I draw on this for you?

DET. Absolutely.

D, WILSON: My vehicle was like (mumbles pen not working) was like right there, if you can see that.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: He had ran around my vehicle in this direction.

DET. Okay.

We come to another critical point of the account.  The more words the subject is allowed to use, the greater the reliability of Statement Analysis as he is freely choosing his own words, and moving away from the words of the Interviewer. 

We look for the verbal commitment formula:  The pronoun "I" and the past tense verbs.  We look for simple, short sentences that are best.  

D. WILSON: I exited. I followed him in that direction. After I said on the radio, "Shots fired.
Send me more cars", 

I was yelling at him to stop and get on the ground. He kept running and then eventually he stopped in this area somewhere. 

When he 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. 

Note short sentences. 
Note pronoun use with past tense verbs.

Now, notice that the suspect did not run "towards me" but "at me."

To run "at" the subject is to reveal the subject's own fear and realization that he almost lost his life and it is about to happen again.  

What is he dealing with at this point?

He has transmissioned "shots fired", and has been physically attacked and overpowered.  

He pursued the suspect who now is classified as "dangerous" enough to use deadly force. 

Rather than come "towards him", the subject uses the small word "at" which reveals what his thought process is:

he is under attack, personally.  

"at me."

Now towards, nor in the direction or vicinity of, but "at" and personally, "at me."

This continues the theme of threat for life.  




During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his
shirt and into his waistband. 

The account continues with the connection to the suspect "he", and the past tense "took" and "put"


And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again

He didn't; I fired, a, multiple shots.

Reliable 


 After I fired the multiple shots I paused for a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state.

Reliable 

 Still charging,  hands still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down. 

The pace of the charge has a dropped pronoun, reducing reliability on the speed or pace of the charge. Sometimes one will drop a pronoun in broken sentences, but after "still charging, hands..." there should have been a pronoun "he hadn't slowed down" there.  

I fired another set of shots. Same thing, still running at me hadn't slowed down, hands still in his waistband. 


The hands in "his" waistband" here, is more reliable now that he used the pronoun "his", but regarding the pace, there is only "still running" and not "he was still running" or even "he is" (PTSD possible, as during the critical point, the subject may be re-living the most pressing part of the event)

He gets about eight to ten feet away, a he's still coming at me in the same way. I fired more shots. One of those, however many of them hit on him in the head and he went down right there. When he went down his hand was still under his, his right hand was still under his body looked like it was still in his waistband. I never touched him. I said urn, got on the
radio and said, "Send me every car we got and a supervisor." Fifteen to twenty seconds later, two marked cars show up, code three sirens and lights on. They started blocking everything off. A moment later my supervisor shows up and he sent me to the police station.


There is reduced commitment about the distance and pace.  This may be sensitivity or it may be that he struggles to recall but when he uses "fired", he goes to the reliable past tense.  I do not find his statement about pace and distance strongly reliable.  He may not know, or it may be sensitive to him, but we can only commit to what he commits. 

The ballistics should give an accurate account of the distance.  

Please note that this is sandwiched between two reliable accounts. 

"I never touched him" is very important to the subject, as it is in the negative and we do not know if he was asked, "Did you touch him?"

This would be an important topic to explore in the interview.  

The waistband and the hand "like" is not strong.  This may be an attempt to justify the belief that the suspect was armed but he does not say that he believed the suspect was armed at this point; at least, not yet.  We do know that he believed the suspect was not only aggressive, but stronger and was coming "at" him, in a personal way.  

DET. Okay. When a, let's just continue with this. When you get to the police station, what'd you do?

D. WILSON: I went into the bathroom to wash the blood off and I had also realized I had blood on the inside of my left hand from my fingertips to about my wrist.

DET. Okay, so you had blood on your left hand?
D. WILSON: And the back of my right hand.
DET. Okay.
D. WILSON: Urn, at that point, I believe the blood was from after I originally fired, the very first shot that fired and he came back in to hit me, was from him like me blocking is how I got this. 'cause I was not cut or bleeding anywhere.

The lack of commitment to the blood is appropriate as it would take time to learn its origin.  This is consistent with high level hormonal response where pain, for example, is reduced during a fight or flight situation. 

DET. Okay, so you think that was his blood then?

D. WILSON: Yes, I think and same on the back of my right hand. I think it was his blood.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I went right to the bathroom and had to wash it off. I washed the blood off. I went into our roll call room, I took my belt off, I took my gun out, I made it safe, and I sealed it in an evidence envelope.


DET. Okay. Okay. And then did you remain at the station then until...
D. WILSON: Yes, I did.
DET. ... a, you would've talked, spoken with Detective ?
D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay. Okay, urn, I just wanna ask you a couple, clarify things here, okay? How many times do you think he struck you when you were sitting inside your vehicle?

D. WILSON: Solid blows to my face struck? Or, just made contact with me?

DET. A, both.

D. WILSON: Made contact with me, numerous. I mean I'd say excess of ten. His hands were all over me.

Note the sensory description along with the estimate.  This is often in the language of those who recall what they experienced (experiential memory). This is why a certain scent, for example, can transport us back to childhood, as sensory description is often a memory trigger.  The reverse is true:  it can indicate veracity in a statement. 

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, solid blows, I'd say at least two.

DET. Okay. And, that was to where on your face?

D. WILSON: My face, my jaw line. Both sides.

DET. Okay. And then a, what commands were you giving him in the car?

D. WILSON: "Stop and get back."

DET. Okay. Was he saying anything to you at that point?

D. WILSON: He was but I don't know what it was. I was not focused on him talking. My mind had switched to of the training mode of how do I survive to get passed this?


This confirms the use of such phrases above including the later, "at me"

DET. Okay. How many times do you think you said, "Stop get back"?

D. WILSON: The entire time I was talking, saying "Stop get back."

He uses "talk" twice, which is weaker than "told", and may indicate that this was not strong in his mind, and may have even been muttered by him in fear, hoping to deescalate the suspect.  This was not issued as a "command" in the middle of an attack. 

This suggests that he did not put much faith into words at this point, as he feared for his life and further buttresses the use of his gun, which he connects to with the possessive pronoun "my" and with the firing of it, with "I" and "fired" (past tense).  

DET. Alright. When he puts, urn, when he grabs your gun, how long do you think he's-he's holding your gun or has his hand or hands on your gun?

D. WILSON: Hmmm, ten seconds.

pause necessary.  This would be a very difficult question as time moves quickly in survival mode due to hormonal increase. 

DET. Okay. And, during that time, what are you saying?

This question appears to be more in attempting to justify the shooting by the Interviewer than a genuine question.  The subject (Wilson) has not shown any need to have the shooting justified for him.  This sounds as if the Interviewer wants to establish that protocol was followed and ample warning was given, 

but it does not appear necessary based upon the statements reliably given.  

D. WILSON: "Get back."

DET. Okay. Um, he comes back in to the car a second time ...
D. WILSON: Yes.
DET. . . . after you have fired that first shot, right?


D. WILSON: That was actually his third time re-entering the car.

"actually" attempts to correct the interviewer.  We note the use of "third" and will look to see if he will affirm this assertion. 

DET. The third time entering the car?

D. WILSON: Yes.

The subject is staying with his assertion. 


DET. Okay. He comes back in at that point, right?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Roughly how long is that portion of it?

D. WILSON: That one was fairly quick. Urn, he came in and there was a few wild swings at me, attempts to grab, and then fled.

DET. Does he touch your gun on that second ...
D. WILSON: I don't know.
DET. ... that second time. Okay. Alright.

D. WILSON: There was blood on my gun whenever I sealed it in the bag.

DET. Okay. Alright, urn, you exityourvehicle ...
D. WILSON: Yes.
DET. . . . right? And, obviously, this map we're looking at here is to scale. I don't have any expectation that we're talking on scale here, okay. Roughly, how far do you think he-he runs?

D. WILSON: Originally, 20 to 30 feet. Playing it back last night, there were two cars parked behind me. He ran passed that second car.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I didn't run as far as him. I stopped and I gave our self at least a 20-foot gap between me and him. 'cause when he stopped running, I stopped running. He had already had a head start on me and I maintained that distance whenever he stopped. So, I don't know the exact. I can't give you anum... a number.

DET. Okay, alright. And, what are the commands you're sayin' as you're running? D. WILSON: "Get on the ground."
DET. Okay. And, does he comply?
D. WILSON: Never.
DET. At any point?
D. WILSON: Never.
DET. He turns around?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Right? And, what's his posture at that point?

D. WILSON: Very aggressive. Urn, he is I don't really know how to describe it. Urn, he turns, I looked at his face. It was just like intense. It was, I've never seen anybody look that, for lack of a better words, crazy. I've never seen that. I mean, it was very aggravated, urn aggressive, hostile. Just, you couldn't, you could, you could tell he was lookin' through ya. There was nothin' he was seeing. Urn, he had kind of, he did like that hop and started running and when he did he was kinda leaning forward a little bit and then right as he started his hand went in his pants.

DET. Okay. And, you said his hand went in his pants and what hand are we talkin' about?

D. WILSON: His right hand.

DET. Okay. And, you said you stopped, mark me ifl'm wrong, but 20-roughly 20 feet away from him, right?

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. What was, what was that distance ... and I know we're-we're not talkin' exact but did you maintain that distance or did it get closer?

D. WILSON: A, I did not maintain it. It did get closer but not at the rate of which it could've
if I had stood still. I was backing up. When he started running, I started backing up after the first round of shots and he still hadn't gone down and was still coming just as fast as he was, I backed up at a faster rate. The entire time I was going backwards.

DET. How far do you think you were backing up?

D. WILSON: I probably backed up at least ten feet in the process.

DET. Okay. And, how far do you think he went from the time that he stopped, a, and turned around until the time that he went, that he went down to the ground?

D. WILSON: At least 15.

DET. Fifteen?

D. WILSON: Feet, at least.

DET. Okay. Alright.

D. WILSON: 'cause if I would've stayed where I had stopped and he had, like where we originally started at that point. If I would've stayed he would've been on me.

DET. Okay. What were you, a, what were you thinking as this event is progressing?
D. WILSON: He's gonnakill me.
DET. Okay. Anything else?

D. WILSON: How do I survive. I mean it was, the whole time it was a very non... it started was a very non-confrontational "can you just walk on the sidewalk?" Urn, I downplayed the whole issue because I didn't want a confrontation. Ya know, then after he made his comments I realized cigarillos ya know, then I was like well I gotta stop and talk to the guy.
DET. I-I-I'm sorry. Say that part again.
D. WILSON: I have to stop and talk to the guy.
DET. Because ... ?

D. WILSON: The comments he said and the cigarillos in his hands judging by the call we just had as well.

DET Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, and after that is when it instantly turned into how do I live through this basically.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I didn't never at any point did I have control of him. I mean, he-he manipulated me while I was in the vehicle, completely.
Anonymous said...
Part 7
DET. Alright. This second individual that was with him...
D. WILSON: Uhhuh.
DET. What does he do?

D. WILSON: After he hands off the stuff, I never see him again.

DET. You don't know where he went. You don't know?

D. WILSON: I believe he ran around the back of my car towards that direction he pointed to.
I don't know. I said I...I couldn't observe anything else but the guy that was in my face. He was big enough to take up my whole window and I didn't have an option to look at anything else.

DET. Okay. What type of weapon do you carry?
D. WILSON: A, the Sig 229.
DET. 229.

D. WILSON: Yeah, it's the same (UI).

DET. What caliber is it? D. WILSON: It's a .40 caliber.
DET. Okay. And a, how many rounds a, does that weapon hold?
D. WILSON: It holds 12 in the magazine and I had one in the chamber.

DET. Okay. And, is that how you carry it?
D. WILSON: Yes.
DET. That's how you were carrying it yesterday?
D. WILSON: Yes.
DET. Okay. So, 12 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber for a total of 13, correct?

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. And a, it's a .40 caliber weapon?
D. WILSON: Correct.
DET. And, roughly, do you know how many times you fired?
D. WILSON: No.
DET. Okay. And ... is that the only weapon that you fired?
D. WILSON: Yes.
DET. Alright. From the time that you first made contact with him, okay, or first talked to both these individuals until the time that-that a, he goes down to the ground, roughly how long is that?

D. WILSON: Less than a minute.

DET. Okay. Urn, how long do you think you're in the car for?
D. WILSON: I was in my vehicle when...
DET. Between the time that you made contact with him and when you're in the car until the time that you actually get out of your car. How long do you think that is, roughly?

D. WILSON: Thirty seconds or so.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I mean that was the majority of it. Once we got out, I mean, I didn't run very far or very long, urn, and that's when the shooting started.

DET. Okay, alright. And, urn, describe your injuries.

D. WILSON: I had, urn, some redness to my left jaw line then I had swollen right cheek and jaw. I had scratches on my back and neck, on my shoulders. I guess my shoulders up to my hairline was scratches and red marks.

DET. Okay. Did you see anybody else outside when this was taking place?
D. WILSON: When it was actually in progress, no.

DET. Okay. And, other officers arrived after urn, he had already went down to the ground, is that correct?

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. Okay. Once the a, urn, I guess, a, encounter stopped ...did a-did you or anybody else I guess, a, call for an ambulance?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. For the suspect?

D. WILSON: Urn, . He did.

DET. Okay. And a he was one of the-the police officers. Was he the, a, first assist officer that arrived?

D. WILSON: They, the two that arrived were both on that stealing call together. They both were on the scene simultaneously.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: He was the first one that made it to me.

DET. Okay. Um, and then a, the other question I would have is, a, can you describe the urn, you said there was two subjects. The first subjects I guess the one that­ that fled, urn from the stop ... can you describe him to me?

D. WILSON: Shorter black male, 5-5ish, 120-130 weight, really dark complected, a, black shirt, brown shorts, unsure of footwear or socks, had, not full-length dreads but you know the like long twisty dreads all over his head.


Order can reveal priority  

We note that before saying "black male" with height and weight, the subject begins the description by comparing him to the one on his mind:  the shot suspect. 

"Shorter"

There is no need to ask, "Shorter than whom?" as this reveals that the subject is thinking of the shot victim predominantly.  

That this man was shorter than the suspect, indicates his priority.  Note that race did not come first, but size.  Compare this to the strength issue noted above. 


DET. Urn, have you ever seen either one of these individuals before? 

D. WILSON: I did not recognize either one.

DET. No, okay. Do you think you could recognize a the man with you said dread locks, right?

D. WILSON: Yeah.

DET. Do you think you could recognize them again if you saw him? 

D. WILSON: I think so.

DET. Okay. Can I show you a-a photo spread here? Can you tell me if you can identify him?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. So, this is a Lineup number 146113, which was, a, created today. Are any of those individuals, there's six people in that photograph...

D. WILSON: Number two.
DET. ... what number?
D. WILSON: Two.
DET. Okay. How sure are you of that?

D. WILSON: That's what he looks like. I didn't see him long, but if I, I'd say number two ifl had to pick one of those.

DET. Okay. Alright. Just going through all my notes here. Just give me a minute, okay?

D. WILSON: Uhhuh.

DET. One other question I had a, urn, when you a, downloaded your gun or made it safe, urn, how many rounds did you discover inside the weapon that were left?

D. WILSON: One.

DET. One live round.


D. WILSON: Yes.
DET. Okay. A, was that in the magazine or in the chamber?

D. WILSON: Chamber. I took out the magazine first and it was empty. When I made it safe a round came out of the chamber.

DET. Okay, a, and then a on your uniform, do you carry any additional ammo?
D. WILSON: Yes.
DET. Okay, what do you carry?

D. WILSON: Two extra rounds, or two extra magazines.

DET. Okay, did you ever reload?

D. WILSON: No, I didn't.

DET. Okay, and those a, the magazines on your duty belt were a full?
D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Do you carry any backup weapon?

D. WILSON: No, I do not. There's a shotgun in the vehicle, but ...

DET. Did you ever get that out?

The Interviewer continually interrupted and asked leading questions.  Do not imitate.  

D. WILSON: ....no I didn't.

DET. Okay. Is there anything that-that you feel is important that we should know.
Anything that you want to add. Anything that a we didn't ask you that we
should've asked you?

D. WILSON: I think we're good.

He sees a unity in the interview, which is expected.  This is not an antagonistic cross examination, but an interview.  

I think we're good.

DET. Alright. If there's nothing else, a, the time is 10:47 a.m. and this concludes the interview.

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Peter, Thank you so much for this analysis. I am relieved that he acted in self defense and that there is a way to know the truth.

C5H11ONO said...

Thank you Peter!

Trigger said...

Great post!

Thank you for your accurate analysis.

It is good to know that this shooting was not racially motivated.



Nanna Frances said...

I do not understand how anyone can think it is OK to fight with a policeman and not be shot. His family kept saying he was a gentle giant which was not true.

The man who could not breathe in New York could have followed police orders and he would not have died.

Jen Ow said...

Great analysis Peter! Thank you for taking the time!

GeekRad said...

Thanks Peter. And thanks to the anon who provided the transcript. It was good to see the full interview.In context, some of his weaker statements hold up as not being deceptive. That was an important part of the lesson for me.

Mina said...

Oh Peter! Thank you for this analysis. It made my toes curl. I was worried when you found sensitivity in how fast brown was going and where he put his hand. But then- boom- PTSD diagnosis can explain the sensitivity. Then like a white knight, your conclusion: surprisingly notable lack of sensitivity in where his hands were or how fast he was approaching Wilson. Thank you!!!

~mj said...

Anon@ 2:23 - please point out where the analysis said Brown deserved to die. I believe you are confusing justified and deserving. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to explain cause and effect to the general, reasonable population. If you attack an armed police person the consequence for said action is likely going to be you will get shot. That is leaving everything else on the table. If we add all of the other actions by Mr. Brown, it only strengthens Mr. Wilson's justification for using deadly force. No, sir, Mr. Brown did not deserve to die, but he most certainly was playing with fire and by natural consequence he died.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
~mj said...

Anon, please understand, while you do bring up a valid question for debate (was the officer's life in immediate danger at the point that Mr. Brown was running towards him?) your inference to what Mr. Hyatt is implying is flawed. (your statement: "the very last line. Peter insinuates Mike needed to be killed.") Mr. Hyatt makes the point that based on Statement Analysis (and we now know forensic evidence supports this) that this shooting can be ruled as justifiable. That is not the same thing as "needing to be killed" or "deserves" to be killed. I do believe that is where we see at odds. I do not see any "implied" words by the blogger, I see the words he wrote. And the words he wrote state that the shooting was of a violent criminal that attacked an officer and posed a danger to those around him. Those words need to be read for face value, inserting our own agenda or beliefs into them only makes for further misunderstandings.

To be clear, I share your disdain for the senselessness of Mr. Brown's death. I wish that there are other options. I wish it was different. But the nagging question is, at what point along this train wreck should the people change something so that these types of things do not happen? That's a thought worth pondering. Because I tell you what, just as much as deadly force should only be used as an absolute last resort, people being asked to stop and get down should comply. Sort out whether it is justified later, but for goodness sakes, comply. Then, yes, I am aware the next logical argument is corrupt cops abusing their powers. Of course that needs to stop too! We are looking at a problem square in it's face that doesn't have any clear answers in the moment of it all. Because expecting an officer to hide in his vehicle (which didn't work out all that well for him the first go around) or to hide behind his vehicle aren't really solutions either. Honestly, what are we saying then? Officers have the duty to retreat when a criminal becomes violent with them an it is as of yet unknown whether there is a weapon? I think not.

Jen Ow said...

THANK YOU!

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:28 - Mike Brown was walking down the middle of the street, after having just done a strong arm robbery on a poor store vendor. Talk about being above the law. He was a violent criminal. His parents are violent. In fact, his mother and grandmother had a violent altercation because one of them was selling t-shirts without the other's permission. Now one is facing assault charges. His step daddy has a long criminal record. As is said before, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Society is better off without a violent, thief and criminal in our midst. Good riddance.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jen Ow said...

Ok, let me get this worked out....

1. You seem to have zero knowledge about police training and protocol. They are not trained to shoot subjects who pose a physical threat to themselves, or the community, in the foot, or to 'knock them down'.

(Not that Wilson could have done that anyway, as the raging Brown was not even brought down by MULTIPLE body shots.)

2. You also have apparently never fired a gun. It's hard to accurately hit a stationary target, in the calm and controlled environment of a shooting range...much less pick and chose where to hit a raging, charging subject that is moving closer to you by the second.

3. As far as the taser, Wilson was being actively attacked. You really feel he should have bypassed, or dropped his loaded and chambered weapon, leaving it accessible to the same attacker who was just wrestling with him for it? Then attempted to remove his taser from it's holster, installed a cartridge, and fired it in between the punches raining down on him, in hopes of making contact?

Since Brown was inside Wilson's vehicle and was physically in control of him, he likely would have just taken the taser as Wilson tried to free it and used it against him...at which point Wilson would be completely without the ability to protect himself, and maintain control of his weapon.

4. He DID call for backup. Remember, this all happened in a matter of seconds, with additional officers arriving within seconds of the final shots. After a call of shots fired, the additional officers are coming with the objective of neutralizing the threat.

5. Wilson IS THE POLICE!!! He IS the person that's job it is to deal with people behaving like Brown was that day. He doesn't have/need to sit around and wait for other officers to show up to do his job. As an officer, he is sworn with the duty to pursue a dangerous subject. Your suggestion that he should have hidden in, or behind his car, is frankly ridiculous. He was already assaulted in his car, and what you are proposing is basically the the end of civilized society! Police officers hiding from criminals!

6. A 'justified' shooting, and someone 'deserving to die' are not the same thing, nor is that what was implied. 'Justified' means that protocol was followed, and the use of force was necessary based on the circumstances.

7. What WE know now, and what Wilson knew during the seconds during which this was taking place, are two different things.

Wilson had no way of knowing Brown was unarmed, and due to Brown's behavior, his violent attack, his charging and repeatedly reinitiating the assault while already wounded, along with his gesture of going into his waistband, left Wilson with no other choice than to neutralize the threat that he was facing.

ONLY Officer Wilson had the first hand knowledge of what took place, and ONLY he could make the call as to whether Brown was an imminent threat.

Anonymous said...

thank you 4:53 well said

Jen Ow said...

As I stated before, there is nobody other than Officer Wilson who knows what he thought, or knew, in the SECONDS it took for this to unfold.

What every American citizen does know is that police officers are authorized to use force against subjects who are resisting, and even deadly force against subjects that present a danger to the officer, or the general public.

The idea that Brown attempting to take Wilson's weapon somehow negates the possibility that he had a weapon of his own, makes no sense.

Brown grabbed Wilson's gun as it was being drawn, and then a struggle ensued for control of the weapon. Brown was trying to take the gun, to prevent himself being shot by it.

If someone were trying to point a gun at you, and you were holding onto it to prevent that, would you let go of the gun to retrieve your own weapon from your waistband, or pocket? My guess is NO, since you would likely be shot if you did.

Based on the short length of their interaction before the attack began, and the fact that Brown handed off the cigarillos WHILE he was attacking Wilson, (he didn't try to put them into his pockets in front of Wilson) there was no chance for Wilson to assess whether Brown did, or did not have a concealed weapon in his pockets, or waistband. Nor was there enough time as he was being attacked for Wilson to have an internal debate about what Brown's attempt to take his weapon meant in regards to the likelyhood of him carrying his own weapon.

*Wilson may have even felt that the brazen nature of Brown's actions suggested that he did have a weapon. Therefore emboldening Brown to not defer to his commands, nor back off from the attack.

Another scenario that is being overlooked is the fact that Brown's accomplice Dorian Johnson could have been armed for all Wilson knew. Wilson stated that he lost sight of Johnson from the moment the attack began, and after the second shot within the car, he saw Brown running in the direction Johnson had pointed. Wilson had no way of knowing Johnson hadn't handed off a weapon or shoved one in Brown's pocket as their altercation was going on.

---------------

As far as Eric Garner goes, all he had to do was comply. If he didn't have any untaxed cigarettes, then he had nothing to worry about. He didn't comply, and now he is dead. Completely senseless. Just comply with the officers direct commands. You will never win if you don't, because refusing to comply is a crime in itself.

Buckley said...

That this man was shorter than the suspect, indicates his priority. Note that race did not come first, but size. Compare this to the strength issue noted above.

He told us they were black back in part one. It was the first thing he told us about them- "two black males." He tells us they are black before he tells us they were blocking the street, if order is so important.

I think Wilson was justified in shooting Brown, but the statement is somewhat deceptive. Wilson wants us to believe he was responding to the stealing call, but he wasn't or he never would have driven off the first time and have to hit reverse. He talks about the call "we" got even though he was alone. He persuasively exaggerates Brown's aggressive demeanor, using figurative language rather than literal. The rate at which he approaches Wilson and the whole hand in his waistline isn't reliable as pronouns are dropped.

We don't always have to wait for an accusation to be made before we can guess what that accusation might be. Wilson, and the detective interviewing him, know Wilson's statement needs to include that he fears for his life. I believe his fears as they relate to the fight at/in the SUV. I believe Wilson's testimony about what happened at the car, and for that reason don't think he should be charged. But enough of what happens after Wilson gets out of the car has sensitivities that I'm not convinced he's being accurate. I don't think he's pulling details out if thin air, but some if it IS intended to persuade, so I disagree with the degree of certainty of Peter's conclusion.

trustmeigetit said...

And the thought I keep having after seeing the list of felonies he already racked up in the short flew months as an adult (we may never know what kind of record he had prior to Turing 18) and what he did to the store clerk is that this was a man who was fearless and stronger by far than most.

I think this man had potential to harm many people.

And i find it so interesting how some think there were so many other options.

And as a note he didn't have his taser gun. He talked about that and why.

And he did shoot a few times and clearly it didn't stop Mile Brown.

And read Dorians testimony. He says many times that Mike was very angry. That his face showed that.

Mike Brown was a thug. He tried to get the cops gun and despite being told to stop and get down..kept coming.

I really think it's likeky he would have killed the cop had he not shot him.

~mj said...

Buckley, I feel compelled to validate your observations, even though I do not share the same opinion for some points. These are charged issues and being a proponent of community living, you are a pleasure to discuss varying viewpoints. You are clear and you use examples. You are not offesive or degrading to another's point of view. After reading some of the nonsensical comments from anons, I really appreciate your approach to another perspective. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

we can not kill people merely because they are a "bad apple" or a "thug" - these are all not legitimate reasons to legally kill. if you want to have these standards you want to live in a tyranny. we have a legal system to charge people with crimes and punishmust fit the crime. death is not the legally punishmnet for being a "thug"/

only the legitimate threat of taking life in that singly momet is reason for justifiable homicide. all else is irrelevant.

hands can kill, but we all have hands - you can not kill somebody for having hands,

Buckley said...

If this were in a Travon Martin thread, I'd agree.

Brown violently attacked a gun-carrying officer of the law; it's tragic he was killed, but he largely put himself in the position to be killed by his actions, not by some stereotype of a thug.

Buckley said...

Thanks, mj- back at ya!

Anonymous said...

That he heard the call and headed in that direction is not unusual for officers who may be close, that way, you are closer if they call for backup, and you can look for the suspects. It doesn't mean he was responding to the call, just patrolling his sector.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Buckley,

I agree with m.j., your reasoned comments are appreciated, even when we don't agree! You take the time to explain your concerns, and base them on Statement Analysis.

One thing I wanted to clarify, I don't think Wilson drove off from them, and then came back? He says:

"I pulled up to 'em, stopped with them about at my hood as they kept walking towards me. I told 'em, "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk." The first one said, urn, "we're almost to our destination" and pointed this direction".

"I said, "Okay, but what's wrong with the sidewalk." And then that was as they were passing my window the second subject said, "Fuck what you have to say."

"And, then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up about ten feet to 'em, a, attempted to open my door. Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said "Frank 21, out with two, send me another car."

-Wilson was stopped in his vehicle, Brown and Johnson were in motion. They kept walking, past his window and eventually past the car. Brown became confrontational, and Wilson put the car in reverse and traveled backward, placing his car in their path, at which point the assault began by Brown slamming the door shut on Wilson as he tried to exit the car.

-I also don't agree that Wilson was trying to imply, or lead us to believe that he was responding to the stealing call. In fact, when he references 'they', the two officers who were on 'that stealing call together'...he both distances and excludes himself:

"They, the two that arrived were both on that stealing call together. They both were on the scene simultaneously."

-When Wilson reports that he heard the call come over his radio while he was leaving the prior sick call, he seems to be reporting his location at the time the call came out, not to imply he was responding to it, but because the location of the prior call put him in vicinity of where he encountered Brown and Johnson.

Essentially, Brown walked right up to Wilson who was sitting in his marked police vehicle, in the middle of the road, while carrying the items he had just stolen in a highly visible way.

(*Also, if Wilson were 'responding' to the market call, he would have used lights and siren, and likely bypassed Brown and Johnson all together considering the small amount of information he had. His priority would have been to get to the market, which he never mentions as his destination.)

He states that the reason he noticed and stopped Brown and Johnson was that they were walking the center line of the street, and not moving out of the way for traffic. Then AFTER he engaged them, Brown mouthed off, and the further description of the suspects and the items stolen came over the radio, he realized he may be speaking with the suspects.

He doesn't try to give the impression that he stopped them because he suspected they were the suspects of the earlier call, which is what I would expect if he were trying to convince us he was responding to it.

-Also, I don't understand why it would matter whether Wilson was responding to the call, especially not enough to lie about it? It doesn't matter if he was responding to the call or not, if he encounters the suspects he has the responsibility to stop and detain them. And, whether he stopped them for blatantly jaywalking, refusing to get out of the road, and then smarting off to him...or because he believed they we're the suspects...the outcome is the same. Brown escalated the encounter, and assaulted him.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how the use of "3s" isn't noted, his radio set on channel 3, the third time he tried to get in the car...

In DW's Grand Jury testimony, he goes back and forth between past and present tense much more frequently than here. It would be interesting to know why.

Jen Ow said...

I'll try to explain why it likely wasn't noted. If I mess it up Peter, please delete, or clarify!

The '3' concept is not an indicator of deception, neither is it part of SCAN.

It is something that we note based on the research of Mark McClish, showing that often when a person is fabricating reality and they must pick a number, the number they most often chose is 3.

We simply note it, and continue with analyzing the statement...as things do happen in threes, and a radio can be set to channel 3, things can happen at 3 o'clock, or on the 3rd floor, etc.

Anonymous said...

People should never, ever, under any circumstances, stick their head hands or part of their body inside a cop car.....or put their hands on a cop......otherwise you are asking to be shot.

Peter Hyatt said...

When we first hear race: "two black males" is the report he received, via transmission.

We seek to learn the subject's own use of language, where the subject, speaking for himself, goes to race.

He went to size before race.

This means that his perception of size was more important than race.

He perceived the aggressor as bigger and stronger than himself.

Peter

Buckley said...

In the grand jury testimony, Wilson does tell us he backed his vehicle up after the first request to get on the sidewalk. He admits that it wasn't until after he backed up he noticed the cigarillos and is reminded of the call; he wasn't thinking of the "two black men" from the call when he first spots them. Though in the grand jury testimony, it is worth noting he never refers to them as black.

. He said we are almost to our destination and he pointed this direction over my vehicle. So like in a North Easternly direction.
And as he did that, you kept walking and Brown was starting to come around the mere and as he came around the mirror I said, "well what's wrong with the sidewalk." Brown then replied, um, it has vulgar language.
Q: you can say it, say it.

A: Brown then replied, "fuck what you have to say." And when he said that, it drew my attention totally to Brown. It was a very unusual and not expected response from a simple request.

When I start looking at Brown, first thing I noticed is in his right hand, and is full of cigarillos. And that's when I clicked for me because I now saw the cigarillos, I looked in my mirror, I did a double check the Johnson was wearing a black shirt, these are the two from the stealing.

And they kept walking, as I said, they never once stopped, never got on the sidewalk they stayed in the middle of the road.

So I got on my radio and Frank 21 is my call sign that day, I said Frank 21 I'm on Canfield with two, send me another car.

I then placed my car in reverse and backed up and I backed up just past them and then angled my vehicle, The back of my vehicle to kind of cut them off kind of keep them somewhat contained.

Buckley said...

Also, I don't understand why it would matter whether Wilson was responding to the call

Because in the detective interview he brings it up in a question "What happened on Canfield?" when in fact he was not on Canfield. If it doesn't matter- why bring it up. I agree in determining if he was justified in the shooting, it doesn't matter. But in determining if he's truthful, it does. The two questions aren't mutually exclusive; he can be justified in the shooting but still be deceptive.

Sus said...

Good point, Buckley. I do not believe Darren Wilson is being dishonest or trying to persuade when he tells about the radio call. He does it for the same reason he uses the word LEFT showing his mind is on that location and that call. He is trying to make sense of being blindsided, of being suddenly attacked. It is a natural human reaction to try to make sense of the senseless. We all rationalize traumatic incidents when truly sometimes, they are plain not rational.

If the interaction with Michael Brown had not happened, I doubt Darren Wilson could remember he received that call at that location. But after the interaction it helped him sort out what happened, thus making the location sensitive to him.

Sus said...

Thank you for this analysis, Peter. You pointed out things I didn't think about.

I would like to point out to the anons that all...yes all...DNA and physical evidence backs up Darren Wilson's account.
...No DNA from Darren Wilson on Michael Brown, on his shirt or body.
...Michael Brown's DNA was on Darren Wilson's left bottom shirt, his left thigh, the gun, and the inside of the driver's door.
...No shots to Michael Brown's back
...Blood droplets from Michael Brown go 20 feet forward from where he stopped and turned around.
...Darren Wilson's shell casings are in a line moving backward.
This is all indicative of being attacked in his car, then charged at on the street.

Anonymous said...

I agree Officer Wilson was justified in his shooting to protect himself. You cannot lay your hands on a police officer and expect to be safe. Period. I don't think you can even argue with a police officer and not be perceived as a threat, especially if you are male, and more especially if you are a large male. I just saw the distance from the police vehicle to where Michael Brown lay and it was not far at all if he were coming towards Darren Wilson. Or even if he was trying to escape after having assaulted him, which is a crime. I had imagined it being farther. Also, I believe Darren Wilson said the whole incident lasted about 30 seconds. It seemed like 5-10 minutes when reading the account.

I do think he was trying to give the impression he knew about the robbery before or during the struggle, but I don't believe he did know. As was pointed out here, he told them to get out of the middle of the street. He did not address the robbery with them. He did not approach them as suspects of a crime. He said that "Well, as I left the sick case call I had heard on the radio that there was a stealing in progress from the Ferguson Market on West Florissant. I heard a brief description of black male with a black t-shirt. Urn, as I was driving out down Canfield westbound I observed two black males walking in the center of the roadway on the center yellow line."

For the sake of clarification, I was looking online for Michael Brown's arrest record because it seemed what I saw all had the same date. What I found instead is that he did not have an arrest record at all. A link is below to a newspaper report stating such. Also, Snopes says that the record being shown belongs to a different Michael Brown in another Missouri town with one year difference in birth date.

See article, not video
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-no-record/14041457/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/brown.asp

Anonymous said...

Peter,
Would you like any other testimonies from this case converted from PDF .

Buckley,
Were you able to transcribe the grand jury testimony you were working on? If not, I can try to convert it to Word and then text if you tell me which one it is.

I made a blogger page where I can put them up.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Buckley

I see where he says in both statements that he backed up...the issue I was addressing is from your 8:16 comment where you said he drove off, and then came back..thus proving he wasn't responding to the call. *Which I saw as a non-issue anyway, as he never said he was responding to the call.

(I'm not trying to be difficult, lol. I'm just trying hard to remain in this statement, and analyze it on it's own..not interpret it based on what I've read in the GJ docs, or otherwise know. It's hard to do, because I want to fill in the blanks, and give this or that more credit because I know it was proven by the forensics. I think this interview is the best statement to get to the truth, since it was given so close to the incident, and without Wilson having the benefit of knowing what the forensics would show, or other witnesses would say.)

Anyway, Wilson never says he drove past/away from them. (That I can find?) He says he stopped when they were about at his hood. Brown and Johnson were in motion walking past his vehicle. Brown smarted off, drawing his attention, and as he checked them out in his side mirror he realized they were the suspects from the earlier call at which point he backed up to block their way. He had to back up because they walked past him, ignoring his request to get on the sidewalk.

As far as the 'what happened on Canfield' response, I think he is reporting when/where he first learned of the market call, and the suspects.

Why do you take it to mean he is implying that he was responding to the call?

BTW- Wilson saying 'we' got a call is actually correct. Calls come out from dispatch to all available units in an area, then the officers/squads that are closest/available to the location needing an officer will respond to dispatch and 'take' the call.

Picked a Name said...

The cases of the Mike Brown shooting and the Eric Garner choking are very different. Whoever said here that "all Eric Garner had to do was comply with the cops and he wouldn't be dead" is dead wrong. It is NOT allowable for a police officer to kill anyone who is not an immediate threat to the life of another. Murder is NOT an allowable punishment for resisting arrest. Period.

Buckley said...

Jen- if you stipulate he "backed up" I'll let go of the "drive off."

I didn't start the discussion of his answering the call; Peter did in part one.

In analyzing, he hit on "leaving"; that being a blue level flag, it was noted as sensitive. Peter explained it by saying it was one of those "70% due to rushing" because he was rushing to the call to apprehend the suspects. But Wilson admits it was not his call, he was not "rushing" to answer it. I pointed that discrepancy out.

If you don't think he was answering the call, then you disagree with Peter's analysis in part one. Why Peter introduced the topic of answering the call, or mistakenly assumed he was answering the call only Peter can explain.

Focusing on one statement is great, but if we know from other evidence something in the statement to be inaccurate but we ingore it, are we really getting at the truth or are we picking and choosing what truths we like? Are we getting at "a" truth or "the" truth?

I think Wilson wanted us to believe the call was relevant to his initial stop, that's why it unexpectedly came up as a "why" in a "what happened" question. But in the GJ testimony he clearly tells us he "heard" the call but it was not his to respond to. Further, he tells us after the initial interaction with the two, after Brown starts cussing at him, then it "clicks" for him that these are the two from the "stealing."

So in the statement when he first comes upon "two black males" blocking the street, it has not "clicked" these are the ones, yet Peter tells us he is reflecting the language from the call. Wilson admits he hadn't made the connection yet. Why Peter is making the connection to the call when Wilson hadn't yet, I can't explain.

On "we": we often hear analysis where someone uses "we" to share blame. In many analyses, it is flagged because we would expect "I". Wilson in one statement tells us he had trouble hearing the call and it wasn't even his call to answer. He doesn't take ownership of the call. I see that reflected in this statement in his use of "we" got the call. If he had been expected to answer it and had given it personal priority, and being alone, I would have expected "I got the call." The "we" is explained more in the GJ statement that it wasn't for him personally. I agree with you it is correct to say "we" since it wasn't his call.

Buckley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jen Ow said...

Buckley

Yeah, I agree he backed up, he says it in both statements...I just don't agree that it establishes anything about his intent, or state of mind, as he only backed up because it was necessary due to Brown and Johnson walking away from him, and ignoring his request.

As far as the 'left' issue, I lean toward what Sus suggested. I think the sensitivity may not necessarily be due to him rushing, (although it could be) but more the fact that him hearing the market call, and description of the suspects on his radio as he 'left' the prior call, is significant to him as the beginning of the highly traumatic incident that followed seconds later.

Peter Hyatt said...

well said about Eric Garner.

I hope to put up a short article on it...

something in it might surprise readers.

Peter Hyatt said...

the analysis did not show deception.

He was under extreme attack and fired. The only issue I found was about the distance.

This interview did not have the sensitivity that would arise later when he was accused of shooting an "unarmed teenager with his hands up", by media.

Lies are more popular than truth.

This did not sit well with racists or self-haters who think it must be race.

There is much need for improvement in law enforcement in our country but to make a decision based upon the color of one's skin is both foolish, and it is against my personal, religious belief as "respecter of faces."

This above statement puts me at odds with hiring quotas.
Hire the best and brightest and succeed. Hire on arbitrary things such as skin color and the results will not be as good as color-blind hiring based upon the best and brightest test scores, abilities, etc.

******************************************************

Eric Garner's wife said that her husband's case had nothing to do with race, either, but the race baiters did not listen.

Jen Ow said...

Eric Garner was not 'murdered'.

I do not for one minute believe that the police officer(s) involved intended to kill Garner. (*Especially not on video, which they knew was capturing everything!)

They intended to arrest him, which could have been done safely and without incident if Garner had complied.

I think it is tragic that Garner is dead over something so insignificant as cigarettes, but I can't solely blame the officers for what happened. Garner's resistance necessitated the use of force to make the arrest. That it went so horribly wrong is not the fault of ONLY the officer, as Garner is the one who paved the way for force to be used.

You also have to understand that while Garner was saying 'I can't breathe'...he WAS breathing, and speaking, and resisting. This likely led the officers to believe, (wrongly as it turned out) that he was fine, and just putting on a show for the camera.

Officers hear this kind of stuff almost every time they arrest someone. The person being arrested starts hollering about their bad back, or they need their heart pills, or their inhaler, etc.

Anonymous said...

Racists come in ALL colors. Yet, the spin from media and types like Sharpton (not a Real Reverend) is to program the public to think only whites as racist. Watch how the word gets tossed around, and it is always concerning a white skinned person.

Poor choices, laziness, stupidity, con-man or con-woman has NOTHING to do with the color of one's skin.... rather behaviour, anyone could behave in such a manner.

To phrase Forest Gump: "stupid is as stupid does."
AND "I'm not a smart man, but I KNOW what love is."

Those who preach hate act not from love. Martin Luther would be ashamed of the Sharptons, and race baiters of the world.

Jen Ow said...

To be clear, I DO believe the officer who used the choke hold should have been punished for using the barred hold.

If we expect those being arrested to follow the rules, then we MUST require the same of LE.

All I'm saying is that I can't place ALL of the blame on the officers, as if their intention was to kill Garner.

Anonymous said...

http://gawker.com/darren-wilsons-key-witness-was-bipolar-racist-liar-1671681384

Ferguson witness fabricated evidence

Peter Hyatt said...

I read the article too.

"key" witness?

The media spins what it will. We have the language to guide us.

john said...

"He begins with "the", which may have been about the "firearm" but then takes ownership of it. Or, "the" could refer to something else, or someone else, including "the suspect..."

"my firearm" is important to note the possessive pronoun, for without it, we may be looking at distancing language.

DET. Okay, you're-you're holding the gun in your...

The Interviewer does not do a good job. Here, he not only interrupts again, but (again) gives the subject language. He changed "firearm" to "the gun"; it is better to only use the subject's own language whenever possible.


He had already manipulated I was not in control of the gun."


Peter is this change in language, from "firearm to "gun" justified given the DET introduced it, and he has entered into his language. Other than that i can't see any other justification ?

rob said...

Most people seem to forget that all this evidense was brought before a grand jury, who chose not to recommend charges be brought. 3 black citizens were on the Ferguson jury. I have never heard how many voted what way. But I would put money on, if all the whites voted one way and the three blacks voted the other way, it would be seen to that it leaked out.
The sheer fact that it has not been addressed, makes me think it was unanimous.

impulsive said...

OT: interesting... Amanda Knox is a freelance reporter now apparently

http://www.people.com/article/amanda-knox-reporter-seattle

Buckley said...

John, it's also worth noting when Wilson uses "firearm" he's in control of it; when he uses "gun" he is not in control of it and fears it may be used against him.

john said...

Buckley said...

John, it's also worth noting when Wilson uses "firearm" he's in control of it; when he uses "gun" he is not in control of it and fears it may be used against him.


Hi Buckley.

D. WILSON: The, my firearm was in his controlaround my hand pointed directly into my hip.

He states here that his "Firearm" was not in his "control" but in the control of his attacker. he then goes on to state.

"He had already manipulated I was not in control of the gun."

Here again he states his was NOT in "control", this is where the change in language for me is confusing. Both times he wasn't in "control" yet "firearm" becomes "gun";

My question is. Is it that he entered into the Detectives language which caused the chang of language ?

Buckley said...

Peter said: "The Interviewer does not do a good job. Here, he not only interrupts again, but (again) gives the subject language. He changed "firearm" to "the gun"; it is better to only use the subject's own language whenever possible."

So, it seems so.

WorseThanRodneyKing said...

I believe the value of statement analysis is lessened when the person whose statement is analyzed has/may have training in Statement Analysis. Just as a polygrapher is knowledgable enough to fool the machine. Just as I could lie and pass a polygraph if my husband was a polygrapher and told me how to do it.
So, I put a lot of faith in the analysis of the lay people's statements. But I cannot have as much faith in the analysis of a police officer.
Readers of this blog, don't you think you could give a much more credible statement (when deceiving) than say your sister who does not read this blog?

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sara said...

Buckley-I think you have read more source documents concerning the Brown case than most people.
What do you make of Wilson saying he put his gun into the evidence envelope and he SEALED the envelope but the St. Louis officer who processed the gun and swabbed for dna said that the envelope was UNSEALED?

Buckley said...

I went right to the bathroom and had to wash it off. I washed the blood off. I went into our roll call room, I took my belt off, I took my gun out, I made it safe, and I sealed it in an evidence envelope.

There's understandable sensitivity about the blood, but the rest seems strong, straightforward, and reliable.

Buckley said...

Sara- Do you know the witness # of the person who said it wasn't sealed?

Sara said...

Buckley-
I don't know the witness number. I read some of the documents at the New York Times website. It was the page they have them all posted. It was under the heading "Grand Jury Transcripts"; titled "Vol 3: September 9, St. Louis County Detective page 7, Assistant Medical Examiner page 51"
It was testimony from the detective and testimony about the gun starts at page 29 out of 212.

judge dread said...

"Once we got out, I mean, I didn't run very far or very long, urn, and that's when the shooting started."
^^^
the "shooting" started?
when he purposefully fired the gun from in the vehicle, he had to. when he fired the gun outside the vehicle and murdered brown, it was a "shooting". the cop knows he did not have to kill him, it was a shooting.

Buckley said...

I don't know Sara- both statements seem reliable.

Sara said...

Buckley- that's what I thought. Thus, if the chain of evidence was broken, a judge would disallow the gun evidence from being introduced.
The more documents I read, the less confidant I feel my ability to determine the Truth.
I found the state medical examiners testimony very reliable. Plus you can just tell he's a straight up guy.

All these grand jury document make me wish Boulder CO would release the documents from the Jon Benet case.