Law Enforcement Officials Admit Wilson Fired at Brown as He Ran Away

[Suburban Warrior]

A New York Times report on the huge differences between the accounts of eyewitnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown and accounts from Ferguson police doesn’t have much new information (if you’ve been following LGF, anyway), but it does show once again how consistent all the eyewitness accounts have been.

However, one new detail is very striking — because it’s the first time I’ve seen police admit that officer Darren Wilson actually fired his weapon at Michael Brown as he was running away.

Here’s the key section:

As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.


Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43753_Law_Enforcement_Officials_Admit_Officer_Wilson_Fired_at_Michael_Brown_as_He_Ran_Away#lt4hRuxySc4K3wum.99

[BaggersRDumb]

1. So if someone is shooting at you to kill you, you stop and do one of 3 things by

pure instinct.

1. duck, hit the ground

2. run like hell away from the shooter

3. turn run toward the shooter hoping you can disarm them before they kill you



Regardless of which of these he did, the cop is guilty of Manslaughter minimum and Murder maximum.

[freshwest]

18. I say option 3 there didn't happen. Unless he was trying to save his friend's life.

[Cosmocat]

40. Its called fight OR flight, not fight, flight and fight

THIS is the story that the police are advancing ...

For no good reason Brown tried to reach into a police officers vehicle to try to take his gun.

He then takes off running a good distance from the vehicle.

He then stops and turns back around and charges the police officer.

Just mind boggling that people are ginning themselves up to think THAT scenario is the least bit plausible.

Its called flight OR fight ...

Not fight, flight and fight.

[VanGoghRocks]

51. It's the MaryJane, you see. It makes otherwise rational actors turn

into raging bulls.

Hope my isn't necessary.

[NutmegYankee]

58. I suspect Brown didn't think the Officer would really murder him.

Most people would assume that turning around with hands up to a law enforcement officer would not result in summary execution. Unfortunately for Mike, Darren didn't care.

[msanthrope]

2. As I wrote to another poster.....Tennessee v. Garner. nt

[jaysunb]

5. excellent citation. n/t

[msanthrope]

7. The poster I wrote it to read the Wikipedia summary and disagreed....

some days, this board....

[jaysunb]

10. LOL ! some days and some people....n/t

[Glimmer of Hope]

11. Seems pretty clear to me!

"..when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

[TBF]

37. Can anyone explain how unarmed Michael Brown

posed a significant threat?

Wouldn't an officer need to see an actual weapon first before just blindly shooting about at folks?

[Anansi1171]

52. Hes black and scary.-nt

[CanonRay]

48. From the moment he firess his weapon at the fleeing Michael Brown, Wilson is totally in the wrong

everything else is pretty much irrelevant.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Well didn't you know ...

the disagreement of an anonymous (and no doubt, non-attorney) message board poster => SCOTUS majority opinion?

[951-Riverside]

34. The Albuquerque Police Chief actually tried to use that as justification for killing a homeless man

Who was shot at he turned away from officers.

He quickly backed away from it when there were large protests and a push from the victims of police violence and community members to place him under arrest.

[msanthrope]

35. He needs to read for comprehension. nt

[Cha]

3. ".. did not hit anyone.." He sure as hell did "hit" Michael Brown. I remember one

statement from one of the witnesses who said there was a stray bullet that hit a building and the police came and took the bullet away. So maybe that's the fucking shot he's referring to.. and the other 6 times Michael Brown was "hit"?

Michael Brown

[Schema Thing]

16. they're saying he didn't hit Michael Brown from behind.

[billhicks76]

21. He Tried

But missed. When Michael Brown heard the shot he stopped, put his hands up and returned around. Then he was pummeled with bullets.

[Schema Thing]

56. Yes, they are acknowledging that he tried, in the above text.

[lunasun]

27. Bullet went to an area where people were inside . He could have killed others too

[Cha]

33. Exactly, lunasun.. that's what the young woman said.. anyone could have been there! I think it was

Paiget Crenshaw. Michael Brown

[ZombieHorde]

4. That is a big deal, in my opinion. nt

[nomorenomore08]

20. Pretty soundly refutes the "self-defense" argument, flimsy as it was to begin with. n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

6. So when Josie related the following

"Darren's first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, 'Freeze!' Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael starts taunting him, 'Oh, what are you going to do about it? You're not going to shoot me.' And then he said all the sudden he just started to bum-rush him. ..."

If Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away, would Brown have suddenly turned to taunt him, suggesting he wasn't going to shoot? Or would Brown have more likely stopped running because he heard a shot from the gun of Wilson and didn't want to die? Is the unidentified Josie that was given equal credibility with the other witnesses on CNN maybe talking through her ass?

[justiceischeap]

13. I think the taunting is what was supposed to have made Wilson back-up after letting the two go

It doesn't make sense any other way because, they found a casing in the SUV and the FPD Chief admitted one shot was fired from within the vehicle... so when did he stand up and yell "Freeze!" and after already being shot at and running away, why would Brown turn around and say "You're not going to shoot me" after Wilson already shot at him.

No. Sense. Whatsoever!

[billhicks76]

24. Josie

Os a paid Homeland Security informant provocateur.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. More likely, Josie ...

is "just" a cop ...

Darren's first protocol is to pursue.

Who talks like that?

[gollygee]

50. I read that his girlfriend is a cop

I can't remember where I read that. But it could be most of his circle of friends is made up of cops.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Throughout my career ...

I have spoken with, literally, 1,000s of cops (both as a part of an investigative team and in adversarial situations). Cops tend to have distinction speech/word usage patterns (i.e., speaking in a manner to make them seem smarter than they actually are).

This is definitely cop-speak.

[BuelahWitch]

42. Josie is full of shit and so is CNN for taking on the talking points. n/t

[Rex]

8. SO does that mean a second officer shot 6 bullets into Brown?

SOMEONE killed Brown.

[Enrique]

9. I think they mean

that the shots that hit were the ones fired after Brown turned around. And maybe during the struggle before Davis got out of the car.

[Schema Thing]

17. huh? read again.

[Katashi_itto]

36. Obviously the guy on the grassy knoll did.

[cleduc]

12. I posted in the autopsy thread with some lengthy reasoning/conjecture

that I suspected the lower forearm wound was quite possibly obtained when Mike was running away and that's what caused him to stop.

In other words, not only did Wilson shoot while Mike ran away ... it's quite plausible he hit him. He just didn't hit him where Dorian Johnson thought he'd been hit - in the back.

Again, that's somewhat speculative on my part but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out it is quite possible Mike got hit by a bullet while he was running away.

On the subject of conjecture, I'll do a Star Trek and go "where no man's gone before":

Cop backs his cruiser up, jumps you and you're shot in the cruiser.
You try to run and get shot
You stop but the cop keeps coming at you still popping
Are you going to stand there and let him finish you off?
Maybe not.
Maybe you'll take a crazy run at that cop to try to save your life.

In other words, even if the cops supposed claim that Mike ran at him were to be believed, he may well have arguably provoked it and left Mike, an unarmed man with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, little choice.

Food for thought

[Solomon]

15. Jeezuz. What is it with people believing black people do such stupid things? its very annoying.

What, black guys are trying to get into police cars now? We're unarmed and getting shot at so we bum rush the cops? What the fuck causes this kind of ridiculous shit? And the coup de grace is several people actually saw what happened. They told you what they saw. What, is it automatic that you don't believe them because they are black? Just what the fuck causes this kind of tortured thinking? Jeezuz H. Fucking Christ. I'll bet you think there's no such thing as white privilege, don't you.

[Marrah_G]

19. "What, black guys are trying to get into police cars now? "

I'm sorry this made me giggle because it is just so absurd. The whole police narrative is just so absurd.

[cleduc]

22. You've really misunderstood my post. Big time.

I never said a bunch of what you allege nor do I believe the things you allege.

Since you've misunderstood, then maybe I didn't make myself clear so I'll try to clarify.

Wilson shot an unarmed man. He has a big problem. He has to justify his actions or he's going to jail. It's pretty hard to justify shooting an unarmed man.

To justify his actions, Wilson is alleged to take the position that Mike bum rushed him and when Mike allegedly did, according to Wilson, Wilson felt threatened that Wilson's life or well being was in danger. It's about the only thing I can imagine Wilson can say to try to save his butt. But to be clear: I'm not saying that. I'm just repeating roughly what has been alleged as Wilson's position.

I'm saying in my prior post that even if one believed Wilson (again, I'm not saying I believe Wilson), Wilson's still not out of the woods because following Wilson's alleged story and the ballistics/autopsy, Wilson's actions very arguably could be construed as he provoked Mike to act desperately. So Wilson's still not off the hook.

Wilson isn't saying "Yeah, I chased the unarmed the black SOB down and exterminated him - throw away the keys". He's going to fight it. In response, I'm kicking around the expected debate to counter with "here's one way to fight back".

No race has a monopoly on stupidity or brilliance.

Although the autopsy report is formally "inconclusive", so far, I have real trouble reconciling Wilson's account with the autopsy. I fully appreciate what the witnesses who have come forward and said in front of a camera that refute Wilson's account. Although I reserved final judgement until I've head all the evidence, I find those witnesses more credible.

Ferguson is a another disgraceful example in a string of way too many unacceptable examples of over-the-top outrageous and heinous white privilege.

Hopefully, that clears up your misunderstanding of what I was trying to say in my prior post.

[cleduc]

38. Looks like I stand corrected

Convicting Darren Wilson Will Be Basically Impossible
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119157/darren-wilsons-conviction-will-be-basically-impossible

But generally, we expect situations of justified violence and legal killing to be the rare exception, and most people would probably imagine that policemen and citizens raising claims of justifiable homicide must meet a substantive burden of proof. But in Missouri, these justifications barely require any evidence at all.

In other states, claims of self-defense need to be proven as more likely than not, or in legal speak, to a “preponderance of the evidence.” It’s still the state’s obligation to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant actually killed the victim. But once that’s established, the prosecution doesn’t also have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the killing wasn’t justified. That’s because justifications—like self-defense—require the accused to make an active case, called an “affirmative defense,” that the circumstances were exceptional. The logic here is simple: As a rule, homicide is a crime and justification is reserved for extraordinary cases. Once the state has proven that a defendant did in fact kill someone, it should be the accused’s obligation to prove his or her actions were justified.

Not in Missouri. Instead, as long as there is a modicum of evidence and reasonable plausibility in support of a self-defense claim, a court must accept the claim and acquit the accused. The prosecution must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, but also disprove a defendant’s claim of self-defense to the same high standard. Under Missouri law, all a citizen claiming self-defense or a police officer claiming to have fired while pursuing a dangerous criminal need do is “inject the issue of justification.” In other words, he only needs to produce some evidence (his own testimony counts) supporting the claim. Once he does so, “any reasonable doubt on the issue requires a finding for the defendant.” In Missouri, the burden doesn’t budge an inch, even after we know that the defendant has killed the victim. It doesn’t matter that there is certainty that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown. As long as there is still the slightest possibility that Wilson acted in his own defense, Missouri law favors Wilson.

Not only is the Ferguson police force a disgrace. So are the Missouri laws that protect it.

If they go through with this as laid out above, I fear people will die. Rodney King II

[Cosmocat]

43. Its not going to happen

There is no way possible, in this day and age, to get 12 people into a jury where you aren't going to get at least one wing nut ...

IF this goes to a jury, I suspect it very well might be the most contentious group of jurors we have seen ...

[cleduc]

45. Ever since Obama entered his candidacy,

the racists sure came out of the closet.

The chances of finding 12 people in the US where one isn't a racist seems slim to me based upon what I've been seeing. And it's probably much worse in Missouri.

This garbage is still going on after 100s of years. It's awful.

[Cosmocat]

44. Black or white

the story is completely implausible.

Someone for no good reason tries to reach into a police vehicle to wrestle a police officers gun from him.

That person then turns and runs a good distance from the vehicle.

That person then stops and turns to charge the police officer.

It's called fight OR flight.

Not fight, flight and fight.

[tyne]

53. Darion

Johnson claims that when Wilson was holding onto Brown at the cruiser, he fired his gun and hit Brown in the arm...he said he saw the blood on Browns arm.

[kentuck]

14. Well, that's the most transparency we have so far...

I guess that's progress?

[Blue Idaho]

23. I don't believe

You will find "shoot unarmed citizens that run away from you." In any Police Officer Training Program.

#GuiltyAsHell.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. The cops are STILL wondering how their word is losing to the word of a buncha ni**ers.

[Moostache]

30. Their word is taking a beating the second St. Louis shooting too...

The one from yesterday...the cell phone footage directly contradicted the Police Chief's statement at the scene yesterday...I watched that and in 3 seconds, 2 cops shot 1 man with a knife (that I admittedly cannot see in the video) - TEN TIMES...in THREE SECONDS.

I couldn't believe it, so I listened to the audio a second time....10 shots...sounded like 5 from each gun judging by the lack of overlap between shots.

The man was disturbed and acting erratically to be sure, but when did the United States of America or the State of Missouri pass a law that said mentally disturbed people are to be shot with deadly force and executed on sight????

This case is widely getting ignored because of the Mike Brown shooting and it being an unarmed teenager, but this second shooting has actual video of the cops shooting a mentally unbalanced man 10 times in 3 seconds.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Scores of cases happen every year of unarmed black guys getting gunned down by cops....

This stuff was never openly discussed.

Meanwhile, gun sales are spiking as dumbass white people quiver in terror.

I don't know what they expect.

I guess they think Liberals will take away all of the cops guns and when everyones guard is down Obama will give the "go" order and from over the wall of white folks gated communities it will look like Zulu Dawn.

[tblue37]

49. From what DUers have said about the man's words (I am too deaf to hear his words myself),

Powell wasn't necessarily mentally disturbed, but rather committing suicide by cop as a form of protest. I immediately thought of Buddhist monks self-immolating to protest authorities' abuse of people's rights.

The Arab Spring started off in Tunisia when a victim of police brutality set himself on fire as a form of protest.

Mr. Powell, the St. Louis victim, might actually have been martyring himself for a cause rather than being mentally unstable.

[herding cats]

26. Shot missed and continued to shoot when the scared Michael Brown turned around with his hands up.

Either that or Brown had his hands turned out at his sides with the palms out when he turned around. Either position would account for the location of the bullet holes in his body. Both body positions are considered to be a show of non aggression, not that that mattered in this case.

No matter how they try and twist the witness accounts of the shooting, the forensic evidence is still there. They're doing their damnedest to get this cop off, but the facts are he shot an unarmed citizen and killed him. That's a non refutable fact. Going so far as to shoot at him as he was running away and missing which endangered the general public for absolutely no valid reason. The person he was shooting at was unarmed and not a threat to the public.

[Moostache]

28. Unless that shot is the same one they collected from an apartment near the scene...

That would make NINE confirmed shots within a 15-20 second period.

Shot 1 - reportedly fired in the car
Shot 2 - this shot reportedly fired at Mike Brown's back (miss)
Shot 3 - another miss collected from the apartment by police at the scene
Shot 4 - struck Brown in right arm
Shot 5 - struck Brown in right arm
Shot 6 - struck Brown in right arm
Shot 7 - struck Brown in right arm
Shot 8 - struck Brown in right eye, exited face, re-entered collarbone area
Shot 9 - struck Brown in crown of the head, near top of skull

Even IF shots 2 and 3 ultimately prove to be the same...that is an incredible use of force on an unarmed man, especially one that was struck repeatedly while in a defenseless position (hands up according to witnesses).

Look at that list again...notice anything else odd? NINE SHOTS FIRED. TWO HEAD SHOTS TO VICTIM. ZERO SHOTS TO LEGS, KNEES, FEET.

This was not an accident. This is not manslaughter. The pattern and volume of shots fired, including the areas those shots struck...Hand, Arm, Arm, Arm, FACE, SKULL....indicate a pattern of fire that was drawing in on Mike Brown's head from the moment of the first shot. Murderer Wilson was actively aiming during this shooting and he drew closer to his target on every shot. He ultimately only stopped firing when Mike Brown's dead body fucking BOUNCED OFF THE PAVEMENT. This was not a "clean shoot", this was an execution by a psychotic cop who lost it and intentionally acted from malice.

There is no excuse for this, just as there is no excuse for the callous disrespect of the body and the neighborhood following the shooting and known death of the victim.

I am sick of seeing people twist themselves into pretzels to try to leave wiggle room for Murderer Wilson. He did EXACTLY what he was trying to do on that Saturday afternoon....he shot him a "n---er", and just like a lynch mob from the old South, he displayed that body as a warning to the rest of the neighborhood.

[Travis_0004]

31. what is significant about 0 shots to legs knees and feet

A cop should NEVER be aiming at anything but center of mass if they are shooting.

[Travis_0004]

59. If he was aiming for the legs he would have missed.

Assuming the cop is right handed missing to the right could be due to too little finger on the trigger. I doubt Wilson was aiming for the arms.

[F4lconF16]

60. I think I misread the intent of your post.

My apologies.

[plantwomyn]

61. This is the difference in how our police are vs. many in Europe.

Those in Europe DO shoot to wound an unarmed [or armed with a knife/machete] assailant. So should ours.

[niyad]

29. and the murdering bastard STILL has not been charged--probably in witness protection by now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Posted to for later.

[OneGrassRoot]

46. Any source re: "law enforcement officials"?

I'd love to have that original source available to use in the inevitable discussions that take place when trolls pop up.

It's my understanding, at least according to the one autopsy released thus far, that there were no entry wounds. I have never felt that contradicts the eyewitness accounts. Not at all. It was simply that no bullets hit Michael from behind, even though Wilson was shooting.

What everyone is focused on (right-wingers) is their belief that Michael "charged" Wilson and thus Wilson felt threatened.

I sure hope there is evidence, beyond eyewitness accounts, that speaks to that, definitively. Hopefully there are ways to determine the distance a shot was fired from, though even that won't change right-wingers' minds. They'll probably always envision Michael charging Wilson, just as they see Trayvon being the aggressor against Zimmerman.


EDIT TO ADD: I followed the LGF link to the NYT article but there's not more information there. Just wondering if I've missed something. I realize there are witnesses who are remaining anonymous since it's an active investigation.

[MADem]

55. I wonder if that shot fired while he was running away grazed his thumb?

I don't understand how that can be an "exit" wound unless it's both an entrance/exit wound.

Look, I am no forensic pathologist, so I'm not speaking from an informed perspective, but given the testimony that the victim either looked like he'd been hit or pulled up short, before he turned and put his hands in the air, maybe that shot DID find a mark...?

I don't understand why the police had to come out guns blazing, either. Isn't there any sensible SOP? What ever happened to calling for back-up? Why start a one-sided gunfight?

If these police guys had cameras on their persons and in their cars, they'd have little trouble ID'ing any troublemakers they happened to come across, after all. They wouldn't need to chase/catch anyone.

It is troubling that they don't have any cameras -- that we know of.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. WOWOW